Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Will Disaster Relief Come Through for North Carolina’s Small Farms?

News Feed
Wednesday, November 27, 2024

When Hurricane Helene ripped through North Carolina this September, Nicole DelCogliano sheltered with her two daughters in Asheville, while her husband rode out the storm alone on their 16-acre organic vegetable farm, Green Toe Ground, in nearby Yancey County. After the storm subsided, DelCogliano fretted for hours until finally a text came through from an unknown number: “Farm flooded,” her husband, Gaelan Corozine, wrote. “I’m safe. Love you.” The next day, Corozine—who drove over 50 miles of washed-out roads to reunite with his family—told them that everything was gone. Green Toe Ground farm in Yancey County, North Carolina, after Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Green Toe Ground) “We were all hugging and sobbing together,” DelCogliano later recalled, her voice quavering. Road closures blocked their return to the farm, so the family hiked over hills and hitched rides. Arriving there felt like seeing the aftermath of an earthquake, DelCogliano said. “The whole landscape was different, trees everywhere . . . barn rubble everywhere, our van on the side of the road and the tunnels a mess of plastic and metal.” Green Toe Ground Farm is nestled into a bend of the South Toe River, which crested at 30 feet above its normal height during Helene, inundating the farm. When the river ebbed from their fields, it took all their crops, scoured the topsoil from one field, and left sand deposits in two others. The storm destroyed their four high tunnels, two utility buildings, and barn. It swept away the potatoes, winter squash, and dried flowers for wreath-making, stored in the barn, and their 20-year-old horse, Star Darling, which they found wrapped in barbed wire and badly injured. Their home, which is set back from the river, was spared, though many neighbors weren’t so lucky, DelCogliano said. DelCogliano estimates they lost 30 percent of their annual revenue because the farm was fully planted. The infrastructure will cost $150,000 to replace, and tree removal and land grading will add further costs. All told, the storm will cost the family roughly $300,000. Green Toe Ground is one of many small, diversified farms serving local markets in western North Carolina that was devastated by Hurricane Helene. The full extent of regional agricultural damages is unknown, but “many [farms] have had 50 to 100 percent of their crops wiped out, infrastructure destroyed, and lots of topsoil loss and soil contamination from the flooding,” said Aaron Johnson, co-director of policy at the Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA (RAFI). Farmers who didn’t lose everything are struggling to find markets for crops that were spared.   “Every farm in our network will be impacted by the storm, either by direct damage or through loss of market outlets,” said Sarah Hart, communications coordinator at Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project (ASAP), a membership organization with 900 farms and 400 food businesses. A Limited Federal Safety Net In the storm’s immediate aftermath, neighbors offered DelCogliano a lifeline. “People came together to clear the roads, bring out chainsaws . . . help each other navigate basic food and water,” she said. “The only thing we had was each other.” Vermont farmers lost $44 million due to extreme weather in 2023, but received only $1.5 million in USDA relief funds. Over the short term, western North Carolina’s tight-knit food and farming community is helping farmers recover. RAFI, ASAP, and other groups are offering small grants and helping connect farmers to markets for products not destroyed by the flood, including relief organizations. Other organizations are raising money to pay farmers who have been donating products to relief groups. Wendy Burgh, co-owner of Dry Ridge Farm, a small poultry and livestock operation in Mars Hill, North Carolina, donated $4,000 worth of eggs the first week after the storm and was later repaid by Farm Connection. “Getting paid was a game changer, both emotionally and for the financial stability of the farm,” she said. Over the longer term, however, North Carolina farmers face a limited safety net to help them recoup losses and rebuild their operations. Charitable aid can only go so far. Some state aid is available for farmers, but the bulk of disaster assistance comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) covers personal losses only. Yet there are many obstacles to obtaining USDA relief, including onerous paperwork, low payouts, coverage exclusions, and a shortage of staff. Also, some of the agency’s emergency relief funds depend on ad hoc congressional approval, which means payments can arrive years after a disaster. What’s more, USDA’s federal crop insurance, commodity support, and disaster relief programs were designed for, and largely benefit, big commodity-crop growers. “Most farmers in the United States are small or mid-sized family farmers, but these are the producers that are left behind from the USDA programs that are supposed to help in the aftermath of disaster,” said Billy Hackett, a policy specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) and author of the report “Unsustainable: State of the Farm Safety Net.” Navigating USDA’s Relief Programs It’s still early days for USDA’s response to North Carolina’s disaster. The experience of Vermont farmers after epic flooding in 2023 and 2024, however, offers a window into the shortcomings of a federal disaster relief system that may be further weakened under a second Trump administration. Vermont farmers lost $44 million due to extreme weather in 2023, but received only $1.5 million in USDA relief funds, according to the Vermont Agricultural Recovery Task Force. What’s more, only 30 percent of the state’s 6,800 farms carry crop insurance. Ansel Ploog, co-owner of Flywheel Farm in Woodbury, Vermont, standing at the edge of the creek that swelled in 2023, taking all of the farm’s crops. (Photo credit: Meg Wilcox) For small farmers in the wake of disaster, getting USDA relief can be daunting—especially when they’re coping with traumatic loss. Trauma can lead to cognitive impairment, lack of concentration, and difficulty with problem solving or even just reading complex forms, noted Ansel Ploog, co-owner of Flywheel Farm in Woodbury, Vermont, which flooded in 2023. Ploog said she was too exhausted by the paperwork requirements, which were hard to translate to her two-acre farm, and hardship in her community, to apply for relief. “The harder part [of recovery] is navigating all the resources,” DelCogliano said. “I felt paralyzed every time I opened my computer, like, let me go drag some shit around. It’s way easier.” “There’s no one in this area who isn’t traumatized in some way,” said Wendy Brugh, co-owner of Dry Ridge Farm, a small poultry and livestock operation in Mars Hill, North Carolina, whose farm lost a hoop house and much of its fencing. Her biggest problem has been finding ongoing markets for the thousands of eggs her farm produces daily. “Being in the presence of that kind of destruction [in the community] on a regular basis is heavy.” Farmer support organizations are helping farmers with USDA paperwork and deadlines—but they can only do so much, notes Roland McReynolds, executive director of Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, which compiled a comprehensive listing of relief resources for farmers. The USDA held webinars last month to explain its relief programs, noting on October 7 that it had embedded staff with FEMA and had more than 200 people involved in the response. “We’re looking for ways that we can streamline, that we can enhance our flexibility to get folks in, that we can reduce barriers . . . to make it easier for folks to take advantage of our programs,” said Robert Bonnie, USDA’s Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation. While that’s encouraging, Maddie Kempner, policy and organizing director at the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) Vermont cautions, “the availability of a lot of these [USDA] programs ends up being like a mirage,”  because farmers learn that exclusions make them ineligible, or the payouts are too small to make the applications worth the trouble. Federal programs that can help smaller, diversified farms recover from extreme weather include the noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP) and the Whole Farm Revenue Protection program (WFRP). For both, farmers must be enrolled before disaster strikes. USDA also offers cost-share programs for needs such as land cleanup and tree removal, and for losses in livestock, feed, and grazing land. Emergency loans are sometimes available, too. Farmers access all these programs, except WFRP, through USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) network. The Noninsured Crop Disaster Program (NAP) NAP is a hybrid crop insurance and disaster assistance program designed for farmers unable to access traditional crop insurance, which is geared for big farms. It offers free basic coverage for new and socially disadvantaged farmers, including women. But NAP has been relatively under-enrolled in western North Carolina, said McReynolds. “Anticipating a one in 100-, 500- or 30,000-year flooding event just wasn’t on folks’ radar.” Moreover, crops must be planted before certain dates under NAP, and those dates don’t match up with southern Appalachian crop seasons. Green Toe Ground did not have NAP protection. The program requires farmers to enroll each crop individually, which is a burden for farmers like DelCogliano, who grows 30 different organic vegetables and raises a few animals to create compost for soil health. “The most cumbersome aspect with diversified vegetable farming is, it’s hard to fit into the USDA boxes,” she said. Other farmers have had mixed experience with NAP. Digger’s Mirth Collective Farm in Winooski, Vermont, for example, lost $250,000 in revenue after 2023’s massive floods, but thus far has been reimbursed only $1,300, according to Hilary Martin, one of its members. “I spent so many hours, I had literal back pains from the paperwork involved in submitting all our crop information and losses,” she said. After the farm flooded again in July 2024, Martin said the collective decided not to bother filing a claim until their FSA agent urged them to file. But when Martin filed for 2024 losses, she learned they weren’t eligible because they had replanted before their agent visited the farm. “We were just way more aggressive about replanting,” this year, she said. While they had taken pictures and documented everything they had done, they had violated the terms of coverage. That means they will not receive any reimbursements from USDA for their 2024 losses. Instead, they have relied on state and local charitable funds. Having to wait for an FSA agent to visit your farm makes it that much harder when the staffing at those offices is minimal, said Kempner. USDA has waived that requirement for farmers impacted by Helene. David Marchant, co-owner of River Berry Farm in Fairfax, Vermont, a diversified vegetable and fruit grower, makes NAP work for him, which he receives for free. “The federal programs are good,” he said. “[But] they’re very, very slow. The amount of paperwork is extraordinary. You got to know how to figure it out.” Whole Farm Revenue Protection The Whole Farm Revenue Protection program (WFRP) was created in part to address NAP shortcomings. It allows farmers to enroll in crop insurance based on their overall revenue rather than on a crop-by-crop basis. Nevertheless, participation remains low, with only 1,967 U.S. farmers (.01 percent of farms) purchasing a policy in 2023. Complicated rules and paperwork, farmer skepticism, and disinterested insurance agents who make more money from policies covering one or two crops on large farms discourage farmers from enrolling, according to the NSAC report. Crop losses also have to be substantial for a payout to make a difference, noted Marchant. Tiny Bridge farm in Hendersonville, North Carolina, before Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Ed Graves) DelCogliano was not covered by WFRP, which is not uncommon in western North Carolina. In fact, less than five percent of the farmers in ASAP’s network are covered by any crop insurance, said Hart. Ed Graves, however, was motivated to purchase the coverage after experiencing bad flooding on his Hendersonville farm in  2021. His five-acre organic vegetable farm, Tiny Bridge, lost all its fall plantings to Hurricane Helene—broccoli, cauliflower, potatoes, leafy greens, carrots, radishes, and turnips. He pays $1,500 annually to carry WFRP and hopes to be reimbursed $10,000 from it, based on his earnings the past three years. Tiny Bridge immediately after Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Ed Graves) “I know how to fill out paperwork,” he said. “Maybe it’s because I worked in civil service for 20 years, so I understand how to ask for what I need from a bureaucracy.” Cost-Sharing and Emergency Loans Several USDA disaster relief grant programs are a good fit for smaller farms, such as the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), both of which help farmers clean up and regrade disaster-impacted land. Neither of these programs covers the costs of soil testing or rebuilding, although farmers can seek assistance for longer-term soil health improvement, such as cover crop planting, through USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). RAFI has been most successful helping farmers apply for ECP, Johnson said, noting that some farmers have already received preliminary approval for land clearing and grading work. They’ll be reimbursed for 75 percent of the costs up to a $125,000 cap, depending on their farm size, though it’s unclear how quickly they’ll receive that money. “While we cannot predict the exact timing of payments being issued, we can assure that every effort is made to provide the resources needed to get the assistance to those who need it as soon as possible,” a USDA spokesperson said in an email to Civil Eats. DelCogliano filed an application for ECP funds but has not yet received approval and does not know how much money the farm may receive. Brugh estimates it will cost $100,000 to get all the dangerous trees removed from her farm, and she is exploring multiple sources of funding, including ECP. For farmers who don’t have prior NAP or WFRP coverage, and whose major losses are crops, equipment or buildings, a USDA emergency loan is about all that is available to them. “It’s shocking for a farmer who has hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses, who has maybe had to lay off their entire crew, especially at the peak of harvest season, to be told all they can offer you is a loan,” Kempner said. USDA’s emergency loans become available when the agricultural secretary or president declares a disaster in their county, but these are historically underutilized, in part because they often have higher interest rates than USDA direct loans, a USDA spokesperson said in an email to Civil Eats. In other words, if a farmer qualifies for private credit, they are not eligible for a USDA emergency loan. For Joie Lehouillier, co-owner of Foote Brook Farm in Vermont, it “was a real kick in the teeth” to be told that her good relationship with a private lender disqualified her from a lower-interest USDA loan. Lehouillier’s farm lost 95 percent of its crops and more than half a million dollars in equipment and supplies in the 2023 floods, she said. “Even though we got a tremendous amount of help through [state funding], it’s going to be a struggle for the next few years to just get back on our feet,” especially with the high-interest debt, she added. The Farm Bill, the Future, and Prospects for Reform  In addition to the programs above, USDA provides supplemental emergency disaster funds to farmers when approved by Congress. Prior to the Biden Administration, that aid went only to farmers enrolled in a crop insurance or disaster program, leaving out most small farms. Congress has not yet appropriated such aid for 2023 or 2024 disasters. President Biden recently asked Congress to authorize $24 billion in emergency relief funds for USDA, appealing for that aid to reach all impacted farmers, including those not enrolled in a USDA program. Hackett told Civil Eats that there is considerable momentum to pass a relief bill, and that it’s “very possible” that the current Congress will authorize disaster assistance inclusive of all farmers. That possibility becomes “less likely” with the next Congress, Hackett said.  Advocates have proposed changes to the farm bill to make USDA’s safety net more inclusive of small farmers hit by extreme weather. But Congress will likely not pick up the bill until later in 2025. With Republicans regaining control of the U.S. Senate, Congress has bigger fish to fry, such as a tax overhaul package, Johnson said. In the meantime, a USDA spokesperson said, “the farm bill expiration does not impact the ability of FSA and NRCS to support producers impacted by hurricanes,” and that “hurricane recovery efforts will continue through the administration transition.” “There’s no one in this area who isn’t traumatized in some way.” Kempner, of NOFA Vermont, is pessimistic that a Republican farm bill will embrace the reforms that are needed to help small-scale, diversified farmers remain resilient in the face of climate change. She is also concerned about Trump’s history of withholding aid for communities that don’t support him politically. Nevertheless, she said, “It’s important that we’re talking to each other across state lines about the kinds of structural changes that we need to be pushing for long term,” such as the creation of a permanently available disaster relief program within USDA based on farm revenue and with a short turnaround of, say, 30 days. DelCogliano, meanwhile, awaits the results of soil tests to learn what remediation may be necessary as she plans how to rebuild Green Toe Ground. “It’s a lot of things to figure out—the barn, the greenhouses, all the systems.” On top of that, she has to figure out how to rebuild for resiliency to increasingly extreme weather. The whole riparian zone has changed, she said. “Any big rain event is going to be much higher impact than before, because there’s nothing on the sides of the rivers holding it [within] its banks anymore. What would a rebuild look like in a way that could mitigate risk? Where’s our safety valve?” Like many other farmers, DelCogliano and Corozine are waiting for USDA approval of their application for land cleanup reimbursements. Meanwhile, they’re relying on a personal GoFundMe account and local charitable aid to pay their bills. “I still don’t have an idea of what [federal support] is going to look like,” DelCogliano said. “And that’s challenging.” The post Will Disaster Relief Come Through for North Carolina’s Small Farms? appeared first on Civil Eats.

After the storm subsided, DelCogliano fretted for hours until finally a text came through from an unknown number: “Farm flooded,” her husband, Gaelan Corozine, wrote. “I’m safe. Love you.” The next day, Corozine—who drove over 50 miles of washed-out roads to reunite with his family—told them that everything was gone. “We were all hugging and […] The post Will Disaster Relief Come Through for North Carolina’s Small Farms? appeared first on Civil Eats.

When Hurricane Helene ripped through North Carolina this September, Nicole DelCogliano sheltered with her two daughters in Asheville, while her husband rode out the storm alone on their 16-acre organic vegetable farm, Green Toe Ground, in nearby Yancey County.

After the storm subsided, DelCogliano fretted for hours until finally a text came through from an unknown number: “Farm flooded,” her husband, Gaelan Corozine, wrote. “I’m safe. Love you.” The next day, Corozine—who drove over 50 miles of washed-out roads to reunite with his family—told them that everything was gone.

The aftermath of a flooded farm, with crops destroyed and wires hanging haphazardly

Green Toe Ground farm in Yancey County, North Carolina, after Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Green Toe Ground)

“We were all hugging and sobbing together,” DelCogliano later recalled, her voice quavering.

Road closures blocked their return to the farm, so the family hiked over hills and hitched rides. Arriving there felt like seeing the aftermath of an earthquake, DelCogliano said. “The whole landscape was different, trees everywhere . . . barn rubble everywhere, our van on the side of the road and the tunnels a mess of plastic and metal.”

Green Toe Ground Farm is nestled into a bend of the South Toe River, which crested at 30 feet above its normal height during Helene, inundating the farm. When the river ebbed from their fields, it took all their crops, scoured the topsoil from one field, and left sand deposits in two others. The storm destroyed their four high tunnels, two utility buildings, and barn.

It swept away the potatoes, winter squash, and dried flowers for wreath-making, stored in the barn, and their 20-year-old horse, Star Darling, which they found wrapped in barbed wire and badly injured. Their home, which is set back from the river, was spared, though many neighbors weren’t so lucky, DelCogliano said.

DelCogliano estimates they lost 30 percent of their annual revenue because the farm was fully planted. The infrastructure will cost $150,000 to replace, and tree removal and land grading will add further costs. All told, the storm will cost the family roughly $300,000.

Green Toe Ground is one of many small, diversified farms serving local markets in western North Carolina that was devastated by Hurricane Helene. The full extent of regional agricultural damages is unknown, but “many [farms] have had 50 to 100 percent of their crops wiped out, infrastructure destroyed, and lots of topsoil loss and soil contamination from the flooding,” said Aaron Johnson, co-director of policy at the Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA (RAFI). Farmers who didn’t lose everything are struggling to find markets for crops that were spared.

These eastern North Carolina counties were heavily impacted by Hurricane Helene in 2024. The map shows more than a dozen counties in eastern North Carolina, plus two farms included in the article, that were affected by the rains and flooding from the hurricane. (Source: Civil Eats research)

 

“Every farm in our network will be impacted by the storm, either by direct damage or through loss of market outlets,” said Sarah Hart, communications coordinator at Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project (ASAP), a membership organization with 900 farms and 400 food businesses.

A Limited Federal Safety Net

In the storm’s immediate aftermath, neighbors offered DelCogliano a lifeline. “People came together to clear the roads, bring out chainsaws . . . help each other navigate basic food and water,” she said. “The only thing we had was each other.”

Vermont farmers lost $44 million due to extreme weather in 2023, but received only $1.5 million in USDA relief funds.

Over the short term, western North Carolina’s tight-knit food and farming community is helping farmers recover. RAFI, ASAP, and other groups are offering small grants and helping connect farmers to markets for products not destroyed by the flood, including relief organizations.

Other organizations are raising money to pay farmers who have been donating products to relief groups. Wendy Burgh, co-owner of Dry Ridge Farm, a small poultry and livestock operation in Mars Hill, North Carolina, donated $4,000 worth of eggs the first week after the storm and was later repaid by Farm Connection. “Getting paid was a game changer, both emotionally and for the financial stability of the farm,” she said.

Over the longer term, however, North Carolina farmers face a limited safety net to help them recoup losses and rebuild their operations. Charitable aid can only go so far. Some state aid is available for farmers, but the bulk of disaster assistance comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) covers personal losses only.

Yet there are many obstacles to obtaining USDA relief, including onerous paperwork, low payouts, coverage exclusions, and a shortage of staff. Also, some of the agency’s emergency relief funds depend on ad hoc congressional approval, which means payments can arrive years after a disaster.

What’s more, USDA’s federal crop insurance, commodity support, and disaster relief programs were designed for, and largely benefit, big commodity-crop growers. “Most farmers in the United States are small or mid-sized family farmers, but these are the producers that are left behind from the USDA programs that are supposed to help in the aftermath of disaster,” said Billy Hackett, a policy specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) and author of the report “Unsustainable: State of the Farm Safety Net.”

Navigating USDA’s Relief Programs

It’s still early days for USDA’s response to North Carolina’s disaster. The experience of Vermont farmers after epic flooding in 2023 and 2024, however, offers a window into the shortcomings of a federal disaster relief system that may be further weakened under a second Trump administration. Vermont farmers lost $44 million due to extreme weather in 2023, but received only $1.5 million in USDA relief funds, according to the Vermont Agricultural Recovery Task Force. What’s more, only 30 percent of the state’s 6,800 farms carry crop insurance.

A woman wearing flannel and a cap is a farmer, standing in front of the woods

Ansel Ploog, co-owner of Flywheel Farm in Woodbury, Vermont, standing at the edge of the creek that swelled in 2023, taking all of the farm’s crops. (Photo credit: Meg Wilcox)

For small farmers in the wake of disaster, getting USDA relief can be daunting—especially when they’re coping with traumatic loss. Trauma can lead to cognitive impairment, lack of concentration, and difficulty with problem solving or even just reading complex forms, noted Ansel Ploog, co-owner of Flywheel Farm in Woodbury, Vermont, which flooded in 2023. Ploog said she was too exhausted by the paperwork requirements, which were hard to translate to her two-acre farm, and hardship in her community, to apply for relief.

“The harder part [of recovery] is navigating all the resources,” DelCogliano said. “I felt paralyzed every time I opened my computer, like, let me go drag some shit around. It’s way easier.”

“There’s no one in this area who isn’t traumatized in some way,” said Wendy Brugh, co-owner of Dry Ridge Farm, a small poultry and livestock operation in Mars Hill, North Carolina, whose farm lost a hoop house and much of its fencing. Her biggest problem has been finding ongoing markets for the thousands of eggs her farm produces daily. “Being in the presence of that kind of destruction [in the community] on a regular basis is heavy.”

Farmer support organizations are helping farmers with USDA paperwork and deadlines—but they can only do so much, notes Roland McReynolds, executive director of Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, which compiled a comprehensive listing of relief resources for farmers.

The USDA held webinars last month to explain its relief programs, noting on October 7 that it had embedded staff with FEMA and had more than 200 people involved in the response.

“We’re looking for ways that we can streamline, that we can enhance our flexibility to get folks in, that we can reduce barriers . . . to make it easier for folks to take advantage of our programs,” said Robert Bonnie, USDA’s Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation.

While that’s encouraging, Maddie Kempner, policy and organizing director at the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) Vermont cautions, “the availability of a lot of these [USDA] programs ends up being like a mirage,”  because farmers learn that exclusions make them ineligible, or the payouts are too small to make the applications worth the trouble.

Federal programs that can help smaller, diversified farms recover from extreme weather include the noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP) and the Whole Farm Revenue Protection program (WFRP). For both, farmers must be enrolled before disaster strikes. USDA also offers cost-share programs for needs such as land cleanup and tree removal, and for losses in livestock, feed, and grazing land. Emergency loans are sometimes available, too. Farmers access all these programs, except WFRP, through USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) network.

The Noninsured Crop Disaster Program (NAP)

NAP is a hybrid crop insurance and disaster assistance program designed for farmers unable to access traditional crop insurance, which is geared for big farms. It offers free basic coverage for new and socially disadvantaged farmers, including women.

But NAP has been relatively under-enrolled in western North Carolina, said McReynolds. “Anticipating a one in 100-, 500- or 30,000-year flooding event just wasn’t on folks’ radar.”

Moreover, crops must be planted before certain dates under NAP, and those dates don’t match up with southern Appalachian crop seasons.

Green Toe Ground did not have NAP protection. The program requires farmers to enroll each crop individually, which is a burden for farmers like DelCogliano, who grows 30 different organic vegetables and raises a few animals to create compost for soil health. “The most cumbersome aspect with diversified vegetable farming is, it’s hard to fit into the USDA boxes,” she said.

Other farmers have had mixed experience with NAP. Digger’s Mirth Collective Farm in Winooski, Vermont, for example, lost $250,000 in revenue after 2023’s massive floods, but thus far has been reimbursed only $1,300, according to Hilary Martin, one of its members. “I spent so many hours, I had literal back pains from the paperwork involved in submitting all our crop information and losses,” she said.

After the farm flooded again in July 2024, Martin said the collective decided not to bother filing a claim until their FSA agent urged them to file. But when Martin filed for 2024 losses, she learned they weren’t eligible because they had replanted before their agent visited the farm.

“We were just way more aggressive about replanting,” this year, she said. While they had taken pictures and documented everything they had done, they had violated the terms of coverage. That means they will not receive any reimbursements from USDA for their 2024 losses. Instead, they have relied on state and local charitable funds.

Having to wait for an FSA agent to visit your farm makes it that much harder when the staffing at those offices is minimal, said Kempner. USDA has waived that requirement for farmers impacted by Helene.

David Marchant, co-owner of River Berry Farm in Fairfax, Vermont, a diversified vegetable and fruit grower, makes NAP work for him, which he receives for free. “The federal programs are good,” he said. “[But] they’re very, very slow. The amount of paperwork is extraordinary. You got to know how to figure it out.”

Whole Farm Revenue Protection

The Whole Farm Revenue Protection program (WFRP) was created in part to address NAP shortcomings. It allows farmers to enroll in crop insurance based on their overall revenue rather than on a crop-by-crop basis. Nevertheless, participation remains low, with only 1,967 U.S. farmers (.01 percent of farms) purchasing a policy in 2023. Complicated rules and paperwork, farmer skepticism, and disinterested insurance agents who make more money from policies covering one or two crops on large farms discourage farmers from enrolling, according to the NSAC report. Crop losses also have to be substantial for a payout to make a difference, noted Marchant.

a farm with rows and white canopy over a lot of green with a pink sky

Tiny Bridge farm in Hendersonville, North Carolina, before Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Ed Graves)

DelCogliano was not covered by WFRP, which is not uncommon in western North Carolina. In fact, less than five percent of the farmers in ASAP’s network are covered by any crop insurance, said Hart.

Ed Graves, however, was motivated to purchase the coverage after experiencing bad flooding on his Hendersonville farm in  2021. His five-acre organic vegetable farm, Tiny Bridge, lost all its fall plantings to Hurricane Helene—broccoli, cauliflower, potatoes, leafy greens, carrots, radishes, and turnips. He pays $1,500 annually to carry WFRP and hopes to be reimbursed $10,000 from it, based on his earnings the past three years.

An image of brown water flooding a farm in North Carolina

Tiny Bridge immediately after Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Ed Graves)

“I know how to fill out paperwork,” he said. “Maybe it’s because I worked in civil service for 20 years, so I understand how to ask for what I need from a bureaucracy.”

Cost-Sharing and Emergency Loans

Several USDA disaster relief grant programs are a good fit for smaller farms, such as the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), both of which help farmers clean up and regrade disaster-impacted land. Neither of these programs covers the costs of soil testing or rebuilding, although farmers can seek assistance for longer-term soil health improvement, such as cover crop planting, through USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS).

RAFI has been most successful helping farmers apply for ECP, Johnson said, noting that some farmers have already received preliminary approval for land clearing and grading work. They’ll be reimbursed for 75 percent of the costs up to a $125,000 cap, depending on their farm size, though it’s unclear how quickly they’ll receive that money.

“While we cannot predict the exact timing of payments being issued, we can assure that every effort is made to provide the resources needed to get the assistance to those who need it as soon as possible,” a USDA spokesperson said in an email to Civil Eats.

DelCogliano filed an application for ECP funds but has not yet received approval and does not know how much money the farm may receive. Brugh estimates it will cost $100,000 to get all the dangerous trees removed from her farm, and she is exploring multiple sources of funding, including ECP.

For farmers who don’t have prior NAP or WFRP coverage, and whose major losses are crops, equipment or buildings, a USDA emergency loan is about all that is available to them.

“It’s shocking for a farmer who has hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses, who has maybe had to lay off their entire crew, especially at the peak of harvest season, to be told all they can offer you is a loan,” Kempner said.

USDA’s emergency loans become available when the agricultural secretary or president declares a disaster in their county, but these are historically underutilized, in part because they often have higher interest rates than USDA direct loans, a USDA spokesperson said in an email to Civil Eats.

In other words, if a farmer qualifies for private credit, they are not eligible for a USDA emergency loan. For Joie Lehouillier, co-owner of Foote Brook Farm in Vermont, it “was a real kick in the teeth” to be told that her good relationship with a private lender disqualified her from a lower-interest USDA loan.

Lehouillier’s farm lost 95 percent of its crops and more than half a million dollars in equipment and supplies in the 2023 floods, she said. “Even though we got a tremendous amount of help through [state funding], it’s going to be a struggle for the next few years to just get back on our feet,” especially with the high-interest debt, she added.

The Farm Bill, the Future, and Prospects for Reform 

In addition to the programs above, USDA provides supplemental emergency disaster funds to farmers when approved by Congress. Prior to the Biden Administration, that aid went only to farmers enrolled in a crop insurance or disaster program, leaving out most small farms. Congress has not yet appropriated such aid for 2023 or 2024 disasters. President Biden recently asked Congress to authorize $24 billion in emergency relief funds for USDA, appealing for that aid to reach all impacted farmers, including those not enrolled in a USDA program.

Hackett told Civil Eats that there is considerable momentum to pass a relief bill, and that it’s “very possible” that the current Congress will authorize disaster assistance inclusive of all farmers. That possibility becomes “less likely” with the next Congress, Hackett said. 

Advocates have proposed changes to the farm bill to make USDA’s safety net more inclusive of small farmers hit by extreme weather. But Congress will likely not pick up the bill until later in 2025. With Republicans regaining control of the U.S. Senate, Congress has bigger fish to fry, such as a tax overhaul package, Johnson said.

In the meantime, a USDA spokesperson said, “the farm bill expiration does not impact the ability of FSA and NRCS to support producers impacted by hurricanes,” and that “hurricane recovery efforts will continue through the administration transition.”

“There’s no one in this area who isn’t traumatized in some way.”

Kempner, of NOFA Vermont, is pessimistic that a Republican farm bill will embrace the reforms that are needed to help small-scale, diversified farmers remain resilient in the face of climate change. She is also concerned about Trump’s history of withholding aid for communities that don’t support him politically. Nevertheless, she said, “It’s important that we’re talking to each other across state lines about the kinds of structural changes that we need to be pushing for long term,” such as the creation of a permanently available disaster relief program within USDA based on farm revenue and with a short turnaround of, say, 30 days.

DelCogliano, meanwhile, awaits the results of soil tests to learn what remediation may be necessary as she plans how to rebuild Green Toe Ground. “It’s a lot of things to figure out—the barn, the greenhouses, all the systems.”

On top of that, she has to figure out how to rebuild for resiliency to increasingly extreme weather. The whole riparian zone has changed, she said. “Any big rain event is going to be much higher impact than before, because there’s nothing on the sides of the rivers holding it [within] its banks anymore. What would a rebuild look like in a way that could mitigate risk? Where’s our safety valve?”

Like many other farmers, DelCogliano and Corozine are waiting for USDA approval of their application for land cleanup reimbursements. Meanwhile, they’re relying on a personal GoFundMe account and local charitable aid to pay their bills. “I still don’t have an idea of what [federal support] is going to look like,” DelCogliano said. “And that’s challenging.”

The post Will Disaster Relief Come Through for North Carolina’s Small Farms? appeared first on Civil Eats.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Costa Rica Ghost Net Cleanup Saves Marine Life in Puntarenas

For the Oceans Foundation successfully completed the first stage of its ghost net rescue campaign in Costa de Pájaros, Puntarenas, removing approximately 15 tons of abandoned fishing nets from the seabed, enough to nearly fill a 20-ton truck, according to social media reports and foundation statements. The initiative aims to eliminate these silent killers that […] The post Costa Rica Ghost Net Cleanup Saves Marine Life in Puntarenas appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

For the Oceans Foundation successfully completed the first stage of its ghost net rescue campaign in Costa de Pájaros, Puntarenas, removing approximately 15 tons of abandoned fishing nets from the seabed, enough to nearly fill a 20-ton truck, according to social media reports and foundation statements. The initiative aims to eliminate these silent killers that harm marine life and promote sustainable fishing practices in Costa Rica’s coastal communities, a critical step toward preserving ourcountry’s rich biodiversity. Ghost nets are abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing gear that continue to trap marine life, such as fish, sea turtles, dolphins, and sharks, while damaging coral reefs and seagrass beds. Globally, an estimated 640,000 tons of ghost gear pollute the oceans, contributing to 10% of oceanic litter, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. In Costa Rica, these nets threaten iconic species like the hawksbill turtle and disrupt artisanal fishing livelihoods, exacerbating ocean pollution and habitat loss. The cleanup effort united 20 artisanal fishing families, professional rescue divers, and more than 60 volunteers, showcasing community-driven conservation. The operation was led by Captain Gabriel Ramírez of UDIVE 506, with eight fishing boats navigating the Gulf of Nicoya’s challenging currents. Reportedly, organizations including the Parlamento Cívico Ambiental, ACEPESA, Coast Guard, Red Cross, IPSA, REX Cargo, and Cervecería y Bebidas San Roque provided logistical support, transportation, hydration, and assistance with sorting and processing the recovered nets. Marine Biology students from the National University (UNA) played a key role by preparing the nets for recycling, ensuring minimal environmental impact. “Each of us can contribute to the environment. This is not for me or for you—it’s for Costa Rica, for the planet, and for marine life,” said Jorge Serendero, Director of Fundación For the Oceans. This cleanup builds on Costa Rica’s leadership in marine conservation, with over 30% of its territorial waters protected as of 2021, a global benchmark. The foundation reported a tense moment when a diver became entangled in a drifting net due to strong currents. Thanks to the quick action of his colleagues, he was freed unharmed, underscoring the risks of such operations. This campaign highlights the power of collective action in protecting marine ecosystems, a priority for Costa Rica as it expands marine protected areas like Cocos Island. Fundación For the Oceans plans additional cleanups in 2025 to address ghost nets across Costa Rica’s Pacific coast. Interested individuals can contact For the Oceans Foundation at info@fortheoceansfoundation.org or +506 8875-9393 to volunteer, donate, or learn about upcoming initiatives to safeguard the oceans. The post Costa Rica Ghost Net Cleanup Saves Marine Life in Puntarenas appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Commercial salmon season is shut down — again. Will California’s iconic fish ever recover?

While it’s an unprecedented third year in a row for no commercially caught salmon, brief windows will be allowed for sportsfishing in California.

In summary While it’s an unprecedented third year in a row for no commercially caught salmon, brief windows will be allowed for sportsfishing in California. Facing the continued collapse of Chinook salmon, officials today shut down California’s commercial salmon fishing season for an unprecedented third year in a row.  Under the decision by an interstate fisheries agency, recreational salmon fishing will be allowed in California for only brief windows of time this spring. This will be the first year that any sportfishing of Chinook has been allowed since 2022. Today’s decision by the Pacific Fishery Management Council means that no salmon caught off California can be sold to retail consumers and restaurants for at least another year. In Oregon and Washington, commercial salmon fishing will remain open, although limited. “From a salmon standpoint, it’s an environmental disaster. For the fishing industry, it’s a human tragedy, and it’s also an economic disaster,” said Scott Artis, executive director of the Golden State Salmon Association, an industry organization that has lobbied for river restoration and improved hatchery programs.  The decline of California’s salmon follows decades of deteriorating conditions in the waterways where the fish spawn each year, including the Sacramento and Klamath rivers. California’s salmon are an ecological icon and a valued source of food for Native American tribes. The shutdown also has an economic toll: It has already put hundreds of commercial fishers and sportfishing boat operators out of work and affected thousands of people in communities and industries reliant on processing, selling and serving locally caught salmon.  California’s commercial fishery has never been closed for three years in a row before.  Some experts fear the conditions in California have been so poor for so long that Chinook may never rebound to fishable levels. Others remain hopeful for major recovery if the amounts of water diverted to farms and cities are reduced and wetlands kept dry by flood-control levees are restored.  This year’s recreational season includes several brief windows for fishing, including a weekend in June and another in July, or a quota of 7,000 fish.   Jared Davis, owner and operator of the Salty Lady in Sausalito, one of dozens of party boats that take paying customers fishing, thinks it’s likely that this quota will be met on the first open weekend for recreational fishing, scheduled for June 7-8.   “Obviously, the pressure is going to be intense, so everybody and their mother is going to be out on the water on those days,” he said. “When they hit that quota, it’s done.” One member of the fishery council, Corey Ridings, voted against the proposed regulations after saying she was concerned that the first weekend would overshoot the 7,000-fish quota. Davis said such a miniscule recreational season won’t help boat owners like him recover from past closures, though it will carry symbolic meaning. “It might give California anglers a glimmer of hope and keep them from selling all their rods and buying golf clubs,” he said.  “It continues to be devastating. Salmon has been the cornerstone of many of our ports for a long time.”Sarah Bates, commercial fisher based in San Francisco Sarah Bates, a commercial fisher based at San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf, said the ongoing closure has stripped many boat owners of most of their income.  “It continues to be devastating,” she said. “Salmon has been the cornerstone of many of our ports for a long time.” She said the shutdown also has trickle-down effects on a range of businesses that support the salmon fishery, such as fuel services, grocery stores and dockside ice machines. “We’re also seeing a sort of a third wave … the general seafood market for local products has tanked,” such as rockfish and halibut. She said that many buyers are turning to farmed and wild salmon delivered from other regions instead. Davis noted that federal emergency relief funds promised for the 2023 closure still have not arrived. “Nobody has seen a dime,” he said.  Fewer returning salmon Before the Gold Rush, several million Chinook spawned annually in the river systems of the Central Valley and the state’s northern coast. Through much of the 20th century, California’s salmon fishery formed the economic backbone of coastal fishing ports, with fishers using hook and line pulling in millions of pounds in good years.  But in 2024, just 99,274 fall-run Chinook — the most commercially viable of the Central Valley’s four subpopulations — returned to the Sacramento River and its tributaries, substantially lower than the numbers in 2023. In 2022, fewer than 70,000 returned, one of the lowest estimates ever. About 40,000 returned to the San Joaquin River. Fewer than 30,000 Chinook reached their spawning grounds in the Klamath River system, where the Hoopa, Yurok and Karuk tribes rely on the fish in years of abundance.  The decline of California’s salmon stems from nearly two centuries of damage inflicted on the rivers where salmon spend the first and final stages of their lives. Gold mining, logging and dam construction devastated watersheds. Levees constrained rivers, turning them into relatively sterile channels of fast-moving water while converting floodplains and wetlands into irrigated farmland.  Today, many of these impacts persist, along with water diversions, reduced flows and elevated river temperatures that frequently spell death for fertilized eggs and juvenile fish. The future of California salmon is murky Peter Moyle, a UC Davis fish biologist and professor emeritus, said recovery of self-sustaining populations may be possible in some tributaries of the Sacramento River.  “There are some opportunities for at least keeping runs going in parts of the Central Valley, but getting naturally spawning fish back in large numbers, I just can’t see it happening,” he said. Jacob Katz, a biologist with the group California Trout, holds out hope for a future of flourishing Sacramento River Chinook. “We could have vibrant fall-run populations in a decade,” he said.  That will require major habitat restoration involving dam removals, reconstruction of levee systems to revive wetlands and floodplains, and reduced water diversions for agriculture — all measures fraught with cost, regulatory constraints, and controversy.  “There are some opportunities for at least keeping (salmon) runs going in parts of the Central Valley, but getting naturally spawning fish back in large numbers, I just can’t see it happening.”Peter moyle, uc davis fish biologist State officials, recognizing the risk of extinction, have promoted salmon recovery as a policy goal for years. In early 2024, the Newsom administration released its California Salmon Strategy for a Hotter, Drier Future, a 37-page catalogue of proposed actions to mitigate environmental impacts and restore flows and habitat, all in the face of a warming environment.  Artis of Golden State Salmon Association said the state’s salmon strategy includes some important items but leaves out equally critical ones, like protecting minimum required flows for fish — what Artis said are threatened by proposed water projects endorsed by the Newsom administration. “It fails to include some of the upcoming salmon-killing projects that the governor is pushing like Sites Reservoir and the Delta tunnel, and it ignores the fact that the Voluntary Agreements are designed to allow massive diversions of water,” he said. Experts agree that an important key to rebuilding salmon runs is increasing the frequency and duration of shallow flooding in riverside riparian areas, or even fallow rice paddies — a program Katz has helped develop through his career.  On such seasonal floodplains, a shallow layer of water can help trigger an explosion of photosynthesis and food production, ultimately providing nutrition for juvenile salmon as they migrate out of the river system each spring.  Through meetings with farmers, urban water agencies and government officials, Rene Henery, California science director with Trout Unlimited, has helped draft an ambitious salmon recovery plan dubbed “Reorienting to Recovery.” Featuring habitat restoration, carefully managed harvests and generously enhanced river flows — especially in dry years — this framework, Henery said, could rebuild diminished Central Valley Chinook runs to more than 1.6 million adult fish per year over a 20-year period.  He said adversaries — often farmers and environmentalists — must shift from traditional feuds over water to more collaborative programs of restoring productive watersheds while maintaining productive agriculture. As the recovery needle for Chinook moves in the wrong direction, Katz said deliberate action is urgent.  “We’re balanced on the edge of losing these populations,” he said. “We have to go big now. We have no other option.” more about salmon ‘No way, not possible’: California has a plan for new water rules. Will it save salmon from extinction? by Alastair Bland December 16, 2024December 16, 2024 A third straight year with no California salmon fishing?  Early fish counts suggest it could happen by Alastair Bland October 30, 2024October 30, 2024

Weedkiller maker moves to settle suit over claims that its product causes Parkinson’s

Syngenta has been besieged by lawsuits from people claiming its product caused the neurological diseaseBesieged by thousands of lawsuits alleging that its paraquat weedkiller causes Parkinson’s disease, its manufacturer, Syngenta, has entered into an agreement aimed at settling large swaths of those claims.A court filing yesterday confirmed that a letter of agreement between the parties had been signed. In a court hearing on Tuesday, one of the lead plaintiff lawyers, Khaldoun Baghdadi, said the terms of the settlement should be completed within 30 days. Continue reading...

Besieged by thousands of lawsuits alleging that its paraquat weedkiller causes Parkinson’s disease, its manufacturer, Syngenta, has entered into an agreement aimed at settling large swaths of those claims.A court filing yesterday confirmed that a letter of agreement between the parties had been signed. In a court hearing on Tuesday, one of the lead plaintiff lawyers, Khaldoun Baghdadi, said the terms of the settlement should be completed within 30 days.Syngenta did not respond to a request for comment.The move to settle comes amid mounting calls from state and federal lawmakers to ban paraquat, and as growing numbers of Parkinson’s patients blame the company for not warning them of paraquat risks. Numerous scientific studies have linked Parkinson’s to exposure to paraquat, a weedkiller commonly used in agriculture, though Syngenta has said the weight of scientific evidence shows its pesticide does not cause the disease.In response to past reporting, the company said that no “peer-reviewed scientific publication has established a causal connection between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease”.The agreement would not resolve all of the cases filed in the United States against Syngenta, but could resolve the majority of them.As of mid-April, there were more than 5,800 active lawsuits pending in what is known as multidistrict litigation (MDL) being overseen by a federal court in Illinois. There were more than 450 other cases filed in California, and many more scattered in state courts around the country.The agreement notice applies to people whose lawsuits are part of the MDL, and could provide settlements for plaintiffs in the cases outside the MDL as well, said Baghdadi.Syngenta’s effort to settle the litigation before any high-profile trials comes after Monsanto’s owner, Bayer, was rocked by similar litigation alleging its Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. After the company lost the first Roundup trial, its stock price plummeted, and Bayer has spent years and billions of dollars fighting to end the ongoing litigation.Lawyers for paraquat plaintiffs in cases outside the MDL expressed frustration with the situation, saying they were not included in the settlement discussions, and were not being given details about the settlement.They fear their cases may be delayed or otherwise negatively affected by a settlement that benefits some plaintiffs but may not actually provide value to the majority of them.“These plaintiffs are dying every day,” Majed Nachawati, a lawyer whose clients are outside the MDL, told a judge in a California court hearing on Tuesday on the matter. He said the news of the settlement was a “shock” because he was not apprised of the settlement negotiations by the other plaintiffs’ lawyers, as he should have been.Paraquat has become one of the most widely used weed-killing chemicals in the world. In the United States, the chemical is used in orchards, wheat fields, pastures where livestock graze, cotton fields and elsewhere.Internal Syngenta documents revealed by the Guardian and the New Lede show the company was aware many years ago of scientific evidence that paraquat could affect the brain in ways that cause Parkinson’s, and that it secretly sought to influence scientific research to counter the evidence of harm.This story is co-published with the New Lede, a journalism project of the Environmental Working Group

A New Bee Crisis Could Make Your Food Scarce and Expensive

Scientists are racing to stop a tiny mite that could devastate the pollinators and agriculture

Sammy Ramsey was having a hard time getting information. It was 2019, and he was in Thailand, researching parasites that kill bees. But Ramsey was struggling to get one particular Thai beekeeper to talk to him. In nearby bee yards, Ramsey had seen hives overrun with pale, ticklike creatures, each one smaller than a sharpened pencil point, scuttling at ludicrous speed. For each parasite on the hive surface, there were exponentially more hidden from view inside, feasting on developing bees. But this quiet beekeeper’s colonies were healthy. Ramsey, an entomologist, wanted to know why.The tiny parasites were a honeybee pest from Asia called tropilaelaps mites—tropi mites for short. In 2024 their presence was confirmed in Europe for the first time, and scientists are certain the mites will soon appear in the Americas. They can cause an epic collapse of honeybee populations that could devastate farms across the continent. Honeybees are essential agricultural workers. Trucked by their keepers from field to field, they help farmers grow more than 130 crops—from nuts to fruits to vegetables to alfalfa hay for cattle—worth more than $15 billion annually. If tropi mites kill those bees, the damage to the farm economy would be staggering.Other countries have already felt the effects of the mite. The parasites blazed a murderous path through Southeast Asia and India in the 1960s and 1970s. Because crops are smaller and more diverse there than in giant American farms, the economic effects of the mite were felt mainly by beekeepers, who experienced massive colony losses soon after tropilaelaps arrived. The parasite spread through northern Asia, the Middle East, Oceania and Central Asia. And now Europe. That sighting sounded alarms on this side of the Atlantic because the ocean won’t serve as a barrier for long. Mites can stow away on ships, on smuggled or imported bees. “The acceleration of the tropi mite’s spread has become so clear that no one can deny it’s gunning for us,” said Ramsey, now an assistant professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, on the Beekeeping Today podcast in 2023.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Ramsey, who is small and energetic like the creatures he studies, had traveled to Thailand in 2019 to gather information on techniques that the country’s beekeepers, who had lived with the mite for decades, were using to keep their bees alive. But the silent keeper he was interviewing was reluctant to share. Maybe the man feared this nosy foreigner would give away his beekeeping secrets—Ramsey didn’t know.But then the keeper’s son tapped his father on the shoulder. “I think that’s Black Thai,” he said, pointing at Ramsey. On his phone, the young man pulled up a video that showed Ramsey’s YouTube alter ego, “Black Thai,” singing a Thai pop song with a gospel lilt. Ramsey, who is Black—and “a scientist, a Christian, queer, a singer,” he says—had taught himself the language by binging Thai movies and music videos. Now that unusual hobby was coming in handy.Without bees the almond yield drops drastically. Other foods, such as apples, cherries, blueberries, and some pit fruits and vine fruits, are similarly dependent on bee pollination.The reticent keeper started to speak. “His face lit up,” Ramsey recalls. “He got really talkative.” The keeper described, in detail, the technique he was using to keep mite populations down. It involved an industrial version of a caustic acid naturally produced by ants. Ramsey thinks the substance might be a worldwide key to fighting the mite, a menace that is both tiny and colossal at the same time.Ramsey first saw a tropilaelaps mite in 2017, also in Thailand. He had traveled there to study another damaging parasite of honeybees, the aptly named Varroa destructor mites. But when he opened his first hive, he instead saw the stunning effect of tropilaelaps. Stunted bees were crawling across the hive frames, and the next-generation brood of cocooned pupae were staring out of their hexagonal cells in the hive with purple-pigmented eyes, exposed to the elements after their infested cell caps had been chewed away by nurse bees in a frenzy to defend the colony. At the hive entrances, bees were trembling on the ground or wandering in drunken circles. Their wings and legs were deformed, abdomens misshapen, and their bodies had a greasy sheen where hairs had worn off. The colony was doomed. “I was told there was no saving that one,” Ramsey says. He had never seen anything like it.When he got home, he started reading up on the mites. There was not much to read. Somewhere in Southeast Asia in the middle of the last century, two of four known species of tropilaelaps (Tropilaelaps mercedesae and T. clareae) had jumped to European honeybees from Apis dorsata, the giant honeybee with which it evolved in Asia. Parasites will not, in their natural settings, kill their hosts, “for the same reason you don’t want to burn your house down,” Ramsey said at a beekeeping conference in 2023. “You live there.”A tiny tropi mite (on bee at left) crawls on a bee.The giant honeybees in Asia, a species not used in commercial beekeeping, long ago had reached a mutual accommodation with the mites. But the European bees that Asian beekeepers raised to make honey were entirely naïve to the parasites. When the mites encountered one of those colonies, they almost always killed it. Because beekeepers cluster their beehives in apiaries, moving them en masse from one bee yard to the next, the mite could survive the loss of its host colony by jumping to a new one. “It would normally destroy itself,” Ramsey said at the conference, “if not for us.”Kept alive by human beekeepers, the mite moved through Asia, across the Middle East and, most recently, to the Ukraine-Russia border and to the country of Georgia. “It is westward expanding, it is eastward expanding, it is northward expanding,” says University of Alberta honeybee biologist Olav Rueppell. This move into Europe is ominous, Ramsey and Rueppell say. Canada has, in the past, imported queen bees from Ukraine. If the mite arrived in Canada on a Ukrainian bee, it could be a matter of only weeks or months before it crossed the northern U.S. border.Today between a quarter and half of U.S. bees die every year, forcing keepers to continually buy replacement “packages” of bees and queens to rebuild.The almond industry would be especially hard-hit by the mite. Two thirds of the national herd of commercial bees—about two million colonies—are trucked to California’s Central Valley every February to pollinate nearly 1.5 million acres of almond trees. Without bees the almond yield drops drastically. Other foods, such as apples, cherries, blueberries, and some pit fruits and vine fruits, are similarly dependent on bee pollination. We wouldn’t starve without them: corn, wheat and rice, for instance, are pollinated by wind. But fruits and nuts, as well as vegetables such as broccoli, carrots, celery, cucumbers and herbs, would become more scarce and more expensive. Because the cattle industry depends on alfalfa and clover for feed, beef and dairy products would also cost a lot more.Damage from tropilaelaps, many experts say, could vastly exceed the harm seen from its predecessor pest, the V. destructor mite. The varroa scourge arrived in the U.S. in 1987, when a Wisconsin beekeeper noticed a reddish-brown, ticklike creature riding on the back of one of his bees. Like tropilaelaps, varroa mites originated in Asia and then swept across the world. At first beekeepers were able to keep managed colonies alive with the help of easy-to-apply synthetic pesticides. But by 2005 the mites developed resistance to those chemicals, and beekeepers suffered the first wave of what has become a tsunami of losses. Today between a quarter and half of U.S. bees die every year, forcing keepers to continually buy replacement “packages” of bees and queens to rebuild. This past winter keepers saw average losses ranging upward of 70 percent. Scientists believe varroa mites are culprits in most of those losses, making bees susceptible to a variety of environmental insults, from mite-vectored viruses to fungal infections to pesticides. “In the old days we were shouting and swearing if we had an 8 percent dud rate; now people would be happy with that,” says beekeeper John Miller. He serves on the board of Project Apis m. (PAm), a bee-research organization that is a joint venture of the beekeeping and almond industries and was one of Ramsey’s early funders.When Ramsey joined the University of Maryland’s bee laboratory as a grad student in 2014, he began working on varroa. He discovered that the mites fed not on the bloodlike hemolymph of adult bees, as generations of scientists before him had assumed, but on “fat bodies,” organs similar to the liver. “For the past 70 years research done around varroa mites was based on the wrong information,” Ramsey says. (Recently published research indicates that the mites also feed on hemolymph while reproducing in a developing brood.)Ramsey’s finding helped to explain how varroa mites make the effects of all the other insults to honeybee health—pesticides, pathogens, poor nutrition—so much worse. Honeybees’ detoxification and immune systems reside in the fat bodies, which also store the nutrients responsible for growth and for protein and fat synthesis. Bees’ livers protect them from pesticides, Ramsey says. But when varroa mites attack honeybee livers, the pollinators succumb to pesticide exposures that would not ordinarily kill them.Entomologist Sammy Ramsey says such mites can destroy the American bee population.Now Ramsey is going after tropilaelaps as well as varroa mites. He continues his research into countermeasures and teaches both entomology and science communication classes in Boulder. In the years since he first sang as Black Thai, he has also become “Dr. Sammy,” a popular science communicator who is using his growing social media platform to sound the alarm about the parasites.In April 2024 I was watching him lead a graduate seminar when his watch chimed. “There’s a freezer alert in my lab,” he said. The temperature appeared to be off. We climbed the stairs to his lab overlooking the university’s soccer fields and examined the freezer, which didn’t seem to be in any immediate danger. Inside, stacked in boxes, lay an extensive archive of honeybees and mites that prey on them. Ramsey pulled out a tube of tropi mites.It was easy to see the enormity—or rather the minusculity—of the problem. The mites are about half a millimeter wide, one-third the size of varroa—“on the margins of what we are capable of seeing with the unassisted eye,” Ramsey says. Seen on video, they crawl so quickly that it looks as if the film speed has been doubled or tripled. Unlike varroa mites, which are brownish-red and relatively easy to spot, to the naked eye tropi mites are “almost devoid of color,” says Natasha Garcia-Andersen, a biologist for the city of Washington, D.C., who traveled to Thailand in January 2024 with a group of North American apiary inspectors to learn about the mites. “You see it, and you can’t tell—Is that a mite or dirt or debris?”Auburn University entomologist Geoff Williams led that Thailand mission. “There’s a decent chance that inspectors might be the first ones to identify a tropi mite in North America,” Williams says. The Thailand journey allowed them to see firsthand what they might soon be contending with. “It was eye-opening, watching these bee inspectors saying, ‘Holy crap, look at these tiny mites. How are you supposed to see that?’”Daniel P. Huffman; Source: Mallory Jordan and Stephanie Rogers, Auburn University. November 5, 2024, map hosted by Apiary Inspectors of America (reference); Data curated by: Rogan Tokach, Dan Aurell, Geoff Williams/Auburn University; Samantha Brunner/North Dakota Department of Agriculture; Natasha Garcia-­Andersen/District of Columbia Department of Energy and the EnvironmentRather than looking for the mites, Thai beekeepers diagnose tropilaelaps infestations by examining the state of their bees, says Samantha Muirhead, provincial apiculturist for the government of Alberta, Canada, and another of the inspectors on the Thailand expedition. “You see the damage,” she says—uncapped brood cells, chewed-up pupae, ailing adults. An unaccustomed North American beekeeper, however, would probably attribute the destruction to varroa mites. “You have to change the way you’re looking,” she says.Williams and his team at Auburn are also investigating alternative ways of detection. They are working to develop environmental DNA tests to identify the presence of tropilaelaps DNA in hives. Inspectors would swab the frames or bottom boards of “sentinel hives”—surveillance colonies—to detect an invasion. But any systematic monitoring for tropi mites using this kind of DNA is still years away.For now scientists are struggling to formulate a plan of action against a menace they don’t fully understand. “We have this huge void of knowledge,” says California beekeeper and researcher Randy Oliver. Scientists don’t know how the mites spread between colonies. Where do they go when colonies swarm? No one has any idea. Can they infect other vulnerable bee species? Do they feed on fat bodies, hemolymph, some combination of the two, or something else entirely? Studies show that tropi mites carry at least two of the same viruses as varroa mites. How many more might they carry? “Part of the rush to action now is the paucity of information,” Rueppell says.Existing varroa research does provide some knowledge by analogy, but there are several differences between the two mites. Varroa mite populations double in a month, for instance, but tropilaelaps populations do so in a matter of days. Varroa mites tend to bite their bee victims only once; tropi mites feed from multiple entry wounds, creating disabling scar tissue. And for many years scientists thought tropi mites couldn’t survive in colder climates like that of the northern U.S., because the parasites appeared to have a significant evolutionary disadvantage compared with varroa: Tropi mites can feed only on developing bees because their small mouths can’t penetrate adult bee exoskeletons. Queens stop laying eggs in cold weather, so in theory tropi mites shouldn’t have enough food to last the winter. But about a decade ago the mites were found in colder regions of Korea—and then in northern China and Georgia. “We thought they wouldn’t survive in colonies that overwinter,” says Jeff Pettis, a former U.S. Department of Agriculture research scientist who now heads Apimondia, an international beekeeping federation. “We know they get through the winter now,” he says. Scientists just don’t know how.“It’s worse than varroa, and I don’t think we’ll ever be prepared fully.” —John Miller, beekeeperOne theory is that the mites disperse onto mice or rats that move into beehives during the cold months—the 1961 paper that first described tropilaelaps noted there were mites on rats in the Philippines. Scientists are exploring other overwintering theories as well. Perhaps the mites feed for brief, broodless periods on other pests in the hive, such as hive beetles and wax moths.Another possibility, highlighted by Williams’s recent research, is that more bee larvae may persist in colder climates than previously thought, perhaps enough to feed the mites. His team has found small amounts of brood snug in wax-covered cells in hives as far north as New York State and Oregon in the winter. “My gut feeling is that these colonies might have a little bit of brood through the winter,” Williams says.In 2022 Ramsey returned to Thailand and set up several research apiaries for what he calls his “Fight the Mite” initiative, testing different treatments to kill tropi mites. It isn’t easy. Whereas varroa mites live on adult bees for much of their life cycle, tropi mites live mostly inside brood cells, safe from most pesticides, which can’t penetrate the wax-capped hexagons.A close-up view of a tropi mite.But Ramsey learned from the Thai beekeepers he met on his 2019 visit that many of them had been using formic acid, the compound produced by ants that can get into capped cells. The beekeepers had been dipping paint stirrers in industrial-grade cans of the stuff and sticking the blades under hive entrances. Fumes then seeped through the wax caps and killed the mites. Ramsey experimented with various formulations and applications in 2022 and found that this method worked, although the chemical is highly volatile, caustic and difficult to apply. It’s hard on both bees and beekeepers. “Heat treatments”—heating hives to more than 100 degrees Fahrenheit for two-plus hours—also took a dent out of mite populations in Ramsey’s tests.Williams, meanwhile, has been studying “cultural techniques” for controlling the mites, such as strategic breaks in brood cycles. Beekeepers in Thailand typically keep fewer bees in relatively small colonies, much tinier than the thousands or tens of thousands that some North American commercial outfits maintain. And when mite loads get bad, some Thai beekeepers also will discard their brood completely and start over. “They’re not afraid to quite literally throw away brood frames when they have mites,” Williams says.These strategies are difficult to apply at the scale of North American industrial apiculture. But large commercial outfits, which can keep anywhere from dozens to tens of thousands of colonies, may be able to adopt other tactics such as “indoor shedding”—storing all their hives in refrigerated sheds for a number of weeks to force an extended brood break. It’s likely that an effective approach will employ not one silver bullet but rather some combination of strategies—chemicals, heat, brood breaks—to avoid developing resistance. “You want to be able to rotate treatments to pound away at the mite,” Oliver says.Honeybees crawl over a comb of hexagonal hive cells, some filled with honey and pollen.These different techniques highlight the need for both varied approaches and, Ramsey believes, a varied group of scientists attacking the problem. “To study insects is to study diversity,” Ramsey says. “It is not a glitch in biology that the most successful group of animals on this planet is the most diverse group of animals. One of the key features of diversity is the capacity to solve problems in different ways.” To stave off the tropi mite, scientists will need to attack the problem from every angle they can conceive.On an afternoon in late May 2024, Ramsey, clad in a protective suit, opened a test hive in a holding yard on the east side of Boulder. The last cold day of spring was behind us, and everything had come into bloom at once—a riot of flowering locust, linden, lilac; glowing hay fields; distant, rock-spiked mountains curving northward out of sight. Massive bumblebees flew from flower to flower on a black locust tree above us, hovering like dark blimps in the sky.These were supposed to be Ramsey’s “pampered” bees, a control group to compare with more infested hives. They had, of course, been spared the ravages of tropi mites, which were still an ocean away. But they had been given frequent treatments for varroa mites. On the first frame Ramsey pulled, however, he saw sick bees everywhere. “This young lady clearly has a virus,” he said, noting a female’s “greasy,” prematurely bald abdomen. He pointed to a sinister dot the color of dried blood between another bee’s wings: a varroa mite. The bees were cranky, swooping and dive-bombing, and there weren’t enough brood cells on the frame. Ramsey sang to the bees in his gospel-tinged tenor, puffing at the hive with his smoker. “It seems like some of our best treatments for varroa mite are failing,” he said, examining another frame.The American practice of beekeeping is built on abundance—stacks of bee boxes, fields of flowers, vats of honey, teeming hives and expanses of wax-capped brood. But in Thailand, where tropilaelaps has been established for decades, beekeeping often is an exercise in scarcity—small colonies, meager honey production, uncapped pupae. Beekeepers there think far less about varroa mites than they worry about tropilaelaps, which outcompeted varroa years ago.There are so many threats facing modern honeybees—a daunting diversity, and we are ready for none of them. In 2023 the Georgia Department of Agriculture confirmed the presence of the yellow-legged hornet—Vespa velutina—in the U.S. Like the northern giant “murder” hornet found in Washington State in 2019 and declared eradicated in the U.S. last year, the yellow-legged insect is a “terrible beast,” says PAm executive director Danielle Downey. It hovers in front of beehives—a behavior called hawking—and rips the heads, abdomens and wings from returning foragers like a hunter field-dressing game. Then the hornet takes the thorax back to its nest. When the hornet first arrived in Europe, beekeepers lost 50 to 80 percent of their colonies. “The thing eats everything. One nest can eat 25 pounds of insects,” Downey says. “We’ve identified a lot of problems. How many crises can we handle?”In the spring of 2024, when the research paper confirming tropi mites were in Europe was published, Canada suspended all imports of Ukrainian hives and queens. For now that means this route for the mite’s arrival in North America is off the table. But trade—legal or surreptitious—could start again, and with the mites’ ferocious reproduction rates, it takes only one female to infect an entire continent. So this reprieve is probably only temporary. “We know the pathway and the threat it poses,” Downey says.A beekeeper with an infestation could spread the mite across the continent within a year; beehive die-offs would probably begin several months later. “It’s worse than varroa, and I don’t think we’ll ever be prepared fully,” Miller says.But Ramsey and his colleagues are racing to make sure they know every option available to them—formic acid, heat treatments, rotation, brood breaks—so that when the tropilaelaps mite does, at last, inevitably arrive, they will be ready. Researchers and beekeepers, Ramsey says, are trying to murder these parasites.

Agriculture Department cancels $3B grant program for climate-friendly crops

The Trump administration canceled a $3.1 billion grant program for climate-friendly crops, the Agriculture Department announced Monday. In a press release, the department said that it was canceling Biden-era Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, which funded 141 projects that sought to advance climate-friendly farming practices. Projects funded under the program supported things like planting cover crops, which...

The Trump administration canceled a $3.1 billion grant program for climate-friendly crops, the Agriculture Department announced Monday.  In a press release, the department said that it was canceling Biden-era Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, which funded 141 projects that sought to advance climate-friendly farming practices. Projects funded under the program supported things like planting cover crops, which prevent soil erosion, and managing soil nutrients to minimize farming’s environmental impacts.  The Biden administration estimated that the program would reach more than 60,000 farms and cut more than 60 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — the equivalent of taking 12 million gas-powered cars off the road for a year. However, the Trump administration said that most of the projects “had sky-high administration fees which in many instances provided less than half of the federal funding directly to farmers.” It also said that “select projects” could continue if they can show that a “significant” amount of their funds will go to farmers. “The Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities initiative was largely built to advance the green new scam at the benefit of NGOs, not American farmers,” said Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins in a written statement.  “I have heard directly from our farmers that many of the USDA partnerships are overburdened by red tape, have ambiguous goals, and require complex reporting that push farmers onto the sidelines,” Rollins added.  The cancellation comes amid a broader effort from the Trump administration to axe funding for climate- and environment-related programs. 

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.