Farms.com Home  › News

Farm recovery grant opens for CT farmers

Farm recovery grant opens for CT farmers
Jan 14, 2025
By Farms.com

CT farmers urged to report weather losses

Senators Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal, along with U.S. Representatives from Connecticut, are calling on farmers who faced losses from extreme weather events in 2023 and 2024 to report their damages to the Connecticut Department of Agriculture (CT DoAg). This initiative is part of the push to ensure farmers can access the $220 million Farm Recovery and Support Block Grant, which is aimed at helping small and medium-sized farmers recover from agricultural losses caused by extreme weather. 

"We strongly encourage farmers in Connecticut to participate in the CT DoAg survey on weather-related losses from 2023 and 2024,” the delegation said. “This is a critical opportunity to ensure your needs are accounted for as the state prepares to distribute disaster funding for farmers. The Farm Recovery and Support Block Grant provided $220 million in disaster relief funding for farmers impacted by extreme weather events in 2023 and 2024 and is intended to help affected farmers recoup their losses from these unexpected disasters. Farmers sharing the challenges they faced—whether it’s production losses, infrastructure damage, or increased costs due to invasive species—can help CT DoAg understand the scope of the need to address it as best as they can as soon as funding is ready. Please fill out the survey if you experienced these losses – help will soon be available.” 

The Farm Recovery and Support Block Grant provides crucial relief without requiring farmers to have crop insurance or a national disaster declaration. This makes it a vital resource for farmers affected by localized weather events that might not qualify for other forms of assistance. 

By completing a survey provided by the CT DoAg, farmers can report various losses, including crop damage, infrastructure destruction, and rising costs linked to invasive species exacerbated by weather conditions. The survey is essential for CT DoAg to accurately assess the extent of the damage and ensure that funding is distributed quickly once it becomes available. 

The survey will remain open until January 19, 2025, and farmers who have experienced losses in 2023 or 2024 are encouraged to participate. This is an important opportunity to receive support during these difficult times, ensuring that Connecticut's agricultural community can recover and continue to thrive. 

Photo Credit:


Trending Video

The 15-Year Bet Behind Every New Variety

Video: The 15-Year Bet Behind Every New Variety!



Canada is trying to decide how much agricultural research capacity it can afford to lose. Brian Rossnagel believes the better question is whether the country can afford to rebuild it.

The longtime barley and oat breeder makes the case with a simple fact about his profession: the consequences of today’s decisions may not become visible for 10 or 15 years.

“Pick the right parents. That’s the biggest thing,” Rossnagel says. “If you pick the wrong parents, you’re not going to get anywhere—and you don’t know that until 10 years, 15 years later.”

That warning carries particular weight as Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada moves to reduce spending and streamline parts of its science operations. The department’s 2026–27 plan anticipates the loss of approximately 665 positions by 2028–29 and says some research will be reduced where capacity exists in academia or industry. AAFC says the changes will make its science operations more cost-effective over the long term.

For Canada’s seed industry, Rossnagel’s career illustrates what is at stake.

This fall, the retired University of Saskatchewan breeder will be inducted into the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame. During his 35-year career at the Crop Development Centre, he helped develop more than 100 barley and oat varieties, including CDC Austenson—one of Western Canada’s most widely grown feed barleys. His induction recognizes not only those varieties, but the collaboration and research system that made them possible.

Rossnagel is quick to emphasize that none of it was the work of one person.

“The first thing I thought about was all the other people who contributed to whatever success I and my program had over the years,” he says. “We know that it’s not an individual who does this. It’s a group—a team.”

That team extends well beyond the breeder whose name appears beside a variety. It includes technicians, pathologists, quality specialists, statisticians, regional testing sites, seed growers and industry partners. It also includes the breeders who came before and those who will carry the germplasm forward.

CDC Fraser barley, for example, moved through three breeding careers. Its parents came from Brian Harvey’s program. Rossnagel advanced the material after Harvey retired, and Aaron Beattie later guided it through registration and release.

That kind of handoff is normal in plant breeding. The person who makes the original cross may never see the resulting variety reach farmers.

It also explains why lost research capacity cannot simply be switched back on when budgets improve.

“If you shut it off, it’s very, very difficult—and particularly costly—to start it up again,” Rossnagel says. “If you have to start from scratch, it’s going to be at least 10 years before anybody notices whether you’re getting anything done or not.”

The concern is not simply how many experimental lines Canada can process. Modern equipment, statistical tools and genetic technologies allow today’s breeding programs to evaluate tens of thousands of lines—far more than Rossnagel could handle when he entered the field in the early 1970s.

But efficiency and automation do not generate every idea.

“If you pare back down, and instead of having six or seven individual scientists concentrating on wheat breeding, you go down and say three people could handle all this, well, that’s half the ideas gone,” he says. “Particularly if you happen to lose the three people who had the really neat and innovative ideas, boy, that’s a problem.”

It is a timely distinction for Canadian agriculture. Consolidating programs may preserve the volume of material moving through a system, at least initially. It may not preserve the diversity of thinking, regional knowledge or willingness to pursue unconventional crosses.

That regional knowledge matters because Canadian agriculture is not one uniform production environment. A variety suited to southern Alberta may face different disease, moisture and maturity pressures than one grown in Manitoba, Ontario or Atlantic Canada.

“Agriculture is applied biology,” Rossnagel says. “Biology, all around the Earth, moves from the poles to the equator. It does not move from Newfoundland to B.C. like politics do.”