Farms.com Home  › News

OH Food Banks Overwhelmed One Year After Emergency SNAP Benefits End

One year after emergency SNAP benefits ended, Ohio food banks said they are struggling with increased grocery costs and record-high numbers of families turning to food pantries for help.

Since the start of the pandemic, households had been receiving on average $90 more per person, per month in SNAP benefits.

Joree Novotny, executive director of the Ohio Association of Foodbanks, explained Ohioans lost $126 million between this March and last, when the expanded benefits expired. She emphasized food banks now are overwhelmed trying to meet the needs of families facing pressure from inflation, resumed student loan payments and higher costs for utilities and rent.

"They have been turning to us, for month over month, for more than a year, at a level that we've never experienced before," Novotny reported. "That is very difficult for us to continue to sustain."

From April through September of last year, pantries served around 1.3 million people a month, up 60% from before the pandemic.

According to an Ohio Association of Foodbanks survey, more than three in four SNAP households said since the end of expanded SNAP, their household's food benefits are completely used up within the first two weeks of the month.

The Farm Bill, a package of legislation to reauthorize most of the nation's agriculture and nutrition programs, including SNAP, expired last fall. Congress has yet to pass a new version. Novotny stressed advocates are pushing for a SNAP program in the next Farm Bill, flexible and robust enough to help keep families afloat, along with the farmers who depend on the bill's Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, and a strong Emergency Food Assistance Program.

"We can't absorb any more losses in SNAP benefits," Novotny contended. "We need, first and foremost, a really strong SNAP program protected in this Farm Bill."

Click here to see more...

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.”