How Electronic Ear Tagging Affects Independent Farmers
In this week's episode, James speaks with Alexia from Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund about the proposed electronic ear tagging updates for livestock and how this rule may affect Independent Farmers.
For more information, visit: www.farmtoconsumer.org
To find more Farm resources, check out: https://www.barn2door.com/resources
Check out the new blog:
-
Hello and welcome to the Independent Farmer Podcast, the go to podcast for do it yourself farmers who are taking control of their own business, skipping the middleman and selling direct to local consumer and wholesale buyers. This podcast is hosted by Barn2Door, the number one business tool for independent farmers to manage their business, promote their brand and sell online and in person.
Let's dive in to today's Independent Farmer Podcast.
James Maiocco: Welcome to the Independent Farmer Podcast.
I am James, the COO at Barn2Door and your host for today's episode. As many of our listeners may be aware, Barn2Door offers an all in one solution for farmer selling direct, online and in person. We also release content to educate and [00:01:00] inform farmers across the country. In today's conversation we're going to dive into the new electronic ear tagging rule for cattle and bison that cross state lines.
Today I'm happy to welcome back Alexia from the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund provides support for independent farmers navigating legal challenges such as laws and regulations and we're proud to partner alongside them to help farmers like you. I'm eager to talk to Alexia today about the new e tagging rules that will inevitably affect many, many farmers that we work alongside.
So welcome back, Alexia. It's great to see you.
Alexia Kulwiec: It's great to see you. Thanks so much for having me back. Happy to be here.
James Maiocco: Well, we're really excited about today's conversation because it's obviously a hot topic in the news and the press. Usually most agricultural topics are not hitting the mainstream press, but this one is, so it's a big deal.
But before we start diving in on today's topic, I'd love for any new listeners [00:02:00] who joined us today to learn a little bit more about your mission at the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund. Can you tell our listeners a little bit more about what you do?
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, sure. Thanks so much for that. So at Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, we, um, Our mission is really to protect and broaden the rights of small independent farms and ranchers to be able to produce food and sell it directly to consumers.
And so, what that really means is helping folks through the regulatory process, working towards making a regulatory process that would be more fair and helpful to the smaller independent farms and ranches. as opposed to our U. S. policy that really favors larger industrial agricultural system. And so, we provide direct legal services, we provide legal consultations, and we're working on policy efforts, and we are developing, more educational work as well.
So, in a nutshell, we're representing smaller independent farms.
James Maiocco: Well, I can't say [00:03:00] enough good things about the work that you guys do, and as a lawyer myself, I can really appreciate just the value that you guys deliver. What's an annual membership cost again? Is it $125 a year or something like that?
Alexia Kulwiec: A farmer membership, farmer rancher is $125 a year.
James Maiocco: And that gives you access to a hotline, a phone number, a ton of additional resources, like you said. But most importantly, legal advice from somebody who actually knows what they're talking about. I mean, that's a great deal, instead of paying hourly to pay for some local lawyer who really may not even be an expert on a given topic.
Can you tell the listeners a little bit more about like the organization and like how you support farmers and ranchers all across the country?
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, absolutely. So one thing, and you did mention this, so I appreciate it. We are a non profit, but we're membership based, which means that we require people to join and become members.
And if they do so, they get after the first six months, unlimited legal consultations. If there is a matter that is firmly within our mission, such as agency [00:04:00] regulation of production and sales of foods, we will provide legal representation. If there is litigation and it's directly within our mission, we may do that as well.
And so, I suppose what I will mention is we do a lot in the raw dairy space, trying to help folks navigate those rules and regulations, certainly a lot in meat production and meat sales for smaller independent folks, but cottage foods, eggs, some vegetable, most of our members do vegetable production, they just don't tend to get into a lot of trouble there, and I think what I'll mention is, so we are regularly providing the legal services, but you're comparing what a deal it is, we really are trying to build and have a community of folks that are caring about food sovereignty, food freedom issues, the ability for an independent producer to stay in business, to be economically viable, despite the regulatory system that's in place that really makes it challenging for them.
James Maiocco: Yeah, I can't say, again, enough great things about the work that your team [00:05:00] does, and yeah, to the point of it being a deal, it is a great deal in terms of the value of the services, but to your point, the resources and the community around the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, it's such a great group of people, even non farmers who are just benefactors to wanting to support the mission of small agriculture, small independent farmers who can feed our local communities, just really important for food sovereignty, that's for sure. Well, let's dive in. Today's topic is a big one, like we said earlier, that a lot of people are talking about in the news today. So let's talk about ear tagging in general, right? So, before we dive into the proposed rules, etc., let's just take a few steps back.
Let's just start with ear tagging generally, right? Because we may have some listeners here who may not even be familiar with ear tagging. What is ear tagging to begin with? Why do farmers tag the ears of cattle generally.
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, I mean, I think generally it's obviously for tracking so they can track the animals, animals get out, that's a way of retrieving them.
[00:06:00] Tracking them while they're in transport is always something that's going to be helpful to folks as well, of course. What I'll mention is that back in 2013, the USDA, APHIS passed with a lot of support and communication and negotiation with the industry to pass an animal traceability rule. And when I say input from the community, I'm talking about larger ranching operations and meat processing plants, but also a coalition of folks representing smaller independent ranchers and farmers, to reach a system that they could live with, be satisfied with, and that can be effective. And what that rule did, is it did require mandatory ID tags on livestock, crossing state lines, but it allowed for choices in terms of what kind of ear tags would be implemented. So, in other words, you sometimes see on the cute little photos of things on farms, the animals will have an ear tag, meaning a metal tag in their ear that's used for traceability.
And so, the metal tags [00:07:00] were approved back in 2013 as being one of the approved ways that you can tag animals. I think the main purpose is to be able to track animals, but also then if there is an issue with traceability, if there's some sort of an illness, they can trace it back to the animal and potentially back to the farm or ranch in which it was raised.
So, I mean, you know, that's the purpose, right? These animals could get out. They may be transported, so it's important to have some way of tracking them, particularly for larger producers. But that's it in a nutshell. Yes.
James Maiocco: Okay. Well, I imagine, you know, in contrast to branding, which I think a lot of people have an understanding of what branding looks like many years ago, where you may have had things on a much smaller scale.
Branding may have worked fine when in a very small community, right? But given the size and the number of farms that are out there... You know, branding probably just doesn't scale, right? Doesn't give you just enough information, right? So, setting aside the question around the humaneness of ear tagging versus branding, the net, net of it is, is that in ear tag [00:08:00] can include an enormous more amount of detail that could be captured about that animal versus just a brand per se, right?
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, the number will be linked back to the animal, to the breed. To the farm, all of those things, absolutely. Yeah.
James Maiocco: Okay, well let's talk about this today. Now, for most farms and ranches, you mentioned that this is a requirement for animals that move across state lines. Well, what about farms and ranches where the animals don't move across state lines?
Is ear tagging still commonplace today or is it really limited to large scale producers who are only shipping animals across state lines?
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, I mean, it's not mandatory for intrastate producers, but I don't think it's uncommon, right? So, in some of the very smaller producers, I'm sure that they do not necessarily need to do this, although in some states, there are state requirements.
So, in some states, I think it is required to have some form of ID associated with the animal, but it could be the metal tags [00:09:00] that I think many of us, when we think about ear tags, probably because you see it in their ears, right? That's what we picture, so the metal ear tags, yeah. I know an awful lot of independent folks that are not using this process.
James Maiocco: Okay, yeah, because I just wanted to make sure there's a distinction between federal requirements versus state requirements. So, as you said, some states still require ear tagging at the state level, even for intrastate sales or for use. But, that's different than the federal level, right? I imagine there are, got to be a lot of small producers.
I can think of some folks that I know that have a few head of cattle, three to five head of cattle on their back, 10 to 20 acres, and they're just raising them for their own, quarter, half, and whole to feed their own family.
Alexia Kulwiec: Right.
James Maiocco: I can't imagine this type of thing being intended to apply to that type of producer, right?
So, let's talk a little bit about this new proposed rule from the USDA, and how it came to be, right? I understand it's been discussed for more than a decade, and more importantly, how is it different than what has already been [00:10:00] required, back in 2013 when this stuff went through? What's the difference?
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, so the big difference, and actually before I get into the 23 rule, if I could, just in terms of sort of showing the evolution of this, right, because I think it's important. In 2013, industry came together and created a rule that folks could live with in terms of tracking the animals. In 2019, the USDA actually issued guidance suggesting that the electronic ear tags would be mandatory.
Now, they did this even though the regulation that had already been published in 13 said that metal ear tags was acceptable. So, then they had to withdraw their guidance because they didn't go through a formal legal process. And then, the USDA APHIS, which is the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, issued a proposed rule in January of 2023.
This rule would make the use of electronic ID tags or RFID tags mandatory for any [00:11:00] animals, again, crossing state lines. In opposition to sort of the metal ear tags, which traditionally had been provided through the state vet system when folks would be using their state vets at the state level, they would receive the metal ear tags.
The mandatory electronic ID tags, would be something that the producers and ranchers themselves would have to purchase. So, they would now have to be paying into the system, and they would also now be required to purchase and establish the infrastructure for the system, right, because now you're talking about chipping an animal, and you need some sort of a reader to read the information, so they would need both on their property, on their farm, some sort of infrastructure to be able to read the information on the tags.
It would also allow information to be shared in a government database. And my understanding at the last time I looked at it, that it was a database that both corporations, as well as the government could access for information on [00:12:00] animals that were being raised for slaughter and processing.
James Maiocco: Wow. That's a lot of change in evolution, right? There's a lot to unpack here. So, let's first off talk about scope. So again, it's going to apply to animals that are, again, subject to interstate commerce moving across state lines, because that's where government authority would exist.
Was there any lines drawn saying, hey, a producer that's below this volume or this capacity of heads that they have on their ranch, to the extent, would it not apply to them, right? Similar to what we see, like, with chicken slaughter laws and those types of things.
James Maiocco: Is there any exceptions that you're aware of, or does it apply carte blanche whether you're moving one, two, five, or five hundred or five thousand head of cattle? Same rule applies?
Alexia Kulwiec: As I read this rule, this is not a scale sensitive regulation. It would require any animal moving in interstate commerce to have the electronic ID.
So, no, it doesn't have these exceptions for, [00:13:00] I mean, it might have something for super small operations, but it does not, by and large, exclude, based on revenue or a number of cattle, if it is going to be entering trade in any way, or entering commerce, so to speak, that it has to be tagged. I think it is clear that it would not apply to the example you gave in terms of your backyard animals.
It's just for personal consumption. But, if it's moving in interstate commerce, my understanding is it would need to be tagged. And, you know, while we have ranching members out west, we certainly have a lot of independent farms in the Northeast and Midwest that are crossing state lines. I mean, there are absolutely states in which an animal may be raised on a regenerative farm, and it has to cross a state line to be brought to a USDA slaughter facility.
That's going to count, and they're going to have to have their animals tagged.
James Maiocco: That's exactly what I was just going to ask next, which is, that's a pretty onerous burden for somebody who doesn't have access to a processor in their state, or worse yet, hey, let's say I'm on the [00:14:00] Minnesota- Wisconsin, property, and I'm very close to Minnesota- Wisconsin, I've got access to a processor that's only 30 minutes across state lines in Wisconsin that I can get a slaughter date, next month.
Or, I have to drive three hours north and wait three more months to get into another processor. Now, that's a huge heavy burden. If I'm a small producer, I'm having to weigh the the cost now of all these things in my operations, right? Is that, is that fair?
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, because to keep that animal for another three months is an expense for those folks, right?
James Maiocco: That's a big deal. So, what are the costs associated? You talk about, hey, now all of a sudden they have to have this infrastructure, they're going to have to have some of these things in place in order to be able to read and be able to sign details that have to go on this RFID chip. what type of cost barrier are we talking about?
We're talking about like a little $100 hand scanner or like 1, 000 or $2, 000, item that's pretty pricey to maintain?
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, I think the chips themselves are not that expensive. So if you're small enough, the outlay of cost is not huge. My understanding is, though, the readers [00:15:00] are definitely in the thousands, right?
So, we're not talking about like a handheld. My understanding is maybe anywhere from like 1, 200 to maybe, $ 2, 200 or something, for the infrastructure that they will need. As an aside, that might not sound super expensive, but it is for some of these small independent farms to have that infrastructure.
There's also a very strong privacy concern and concern with having, you know, it's one thing to be able to trace your own animal and make sure that if there was any kind of disease or any issue that arose, to be able to trace your animal. And it's quite something else for it to be out in a public database.
That potentially, you know, information on the farm could be shared, information on its animals could be shared, there's a lot of concern with that.
James Maiocco: Yeah, you absolutely bring up the next hot topic, right, which is privacy. Let's dive into this one a little bit more because you mentioned at the beginning of the podcast, it's one thing for some of this data to go into a government database.
But, you also said that there was access [00:16:00] for some of the corporations to access this. I don't know if it's subject to FOIA, freedom of information access requests, if there's a need that could be demonstrated. I imagine if there's some sort of foodborne illness, that would be a demonstrable need where they would need to go look at it from a traceability standpoint.
I'm just trying to get a sense. Do we have some idea of scope? Who is going to get access to this information? Is it the big four processors? Is that what we're hearing or thinking about?
Alexia Kulwiec: You know, I mean, I don't know that that's crystal clear yet, but all I know is that in discussions and in prior iterations, so this is not a final rule, there had been discussions about a database that both the government and in that industry could access.
And so, yeah, the four big players are certainly, I think, most of our members concerns, right? Like, you know, having them have access to their information is a real concern.
James Maiocco: Yeah, it reminds me a lot of the HIPAA questions around the electronic health records, EHR requirements, like that.
My personal health data is now going to be accessible. into this large government [00:17:00] database. Granted, not any healthcare provider can access it. It's only the healthcare providers who have a need to know who are servicing me and where maybe a doctor that I'm working with, the specialist, really needs information out to give me better healthcare.
I understand that, but it shouldn't be carte blanche available to the pharmaceutical companies to try and come market to me or try to learn more about me.
Alexia Kulwiec: Right.
James Maiocco: Is this the type of risk that we're concerned about now? It's going to happen with the food industry?
Alexia Kulwiec: The risks that we are concerned with are very much that, as I understand it, and I don't think this was written in the rule itself, but the concern is, that the farmer's information and some financial information and location of the farm and all of these details would be included in the database as well as the information on their animals.
So, that's a concern for them in terms of a potential breach of privacy where their personal information could be revealed. It's certainly a concern where despite the fact that I think most small independent producers are not giant threats, say, competitively, [00:18:00] to large industrial players, they are still, and by they I mean our main large food processors and even large animal producers, are still trying to put in the regulations that would benefit them over the small independent farms.
And so, you know, I think that there's a concern from competition as well, right? As far as these large operations and what they may be trying to do to stifle competition.
James Maiocco: That's what I was just going to ask next, right? Boy, you're just leading me on to each of the next questions, which is spot on.
So, Alexia, I want to talk a little bit about this 'cause this is really important.
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah.
James Maiocco: Which is the degree of privacy and the potential for, again, stifling competition.
I've talked to several ranchers in Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, who are concerned like where they're trying to assemble co ops, with a state processor, and they're trying to get access to USDA processor to come on site so they can qualify as a USDA certified plant. And now is there a potential [00:19:00] conflict of interest here where all this data is coming together in this large government database, could they be potentially boxing out those intentions or some of these smaller processing facilities that might be seeking that USDA certification.
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, sure. I mean, I think it opens up the playing field to have some of the larger competitors try to oppose having a new USDA facility that's operated by others. I certainly think that's a possibility. I think that the system, one thing I'll want to get into in a few minutes, favors the larger producers and I don't think that is good for small independent producers or a more fair food system. But, yeah, I think that there are concerns that this could be something that would be used against some of the smaller independent folks in terms of potential anti competitive measures, whether it's opposing sort of improvements to local USDA facilities, continue to control most of the food processing in the country, and that's something that some of our [00:20:00] independent folks are really starting to, trying to move away from, right?
So I think that's a definite possibility.
James Maiocco: I think that's an increasing concern I hear amongst many producers today, and particularly as you're seeing many more young folks go into homesteading, etc., or take over the family farms. They're really trying to improve food sovereignty, and they're trying to improve local access to good products, etc.
And so, trying to decentralize agriculture rather than centralize, right? And so, this seems to be in contrast to that movement to decentralize agriculture.
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, I think to me the big thing that's important about this proposed rule that could really hurt In terms of decentralization, and one of the things that at least our organization has pushed back more strongly on, is this idea that so for a small independent processor, you're bringing your animals at different times for slaughter and processing, right?
So, it's not like you have these four animals that you've raised [00:21:00] from birth and you're going to slaughter them on the same day and bring them to the same slaughterer. So, under the new proposed rule, each of those animals need to be separately tagged with the RFID or the electronic ID, right, radio frequency ID.
For a integrated operation, some of our larger producers, if they have cohorts of animals that stay together from birth to death, and they raise them from birth to death, bring them together at the same time to the same place for slaughter and processing, they only need one identification number or ID system in place for all of those animals.
And so, you know, there is encouragement of having a system in which people are raising large and large and larger groups of animals from birth to death, bringing them to the facility. They don't have the same investment. They don't have the same requirements as a smaller independent producer.
And it's again driving smaller [00:22:00] folks out and I'll share one anecdote about that because we're talking about not wanting to push smaller producers out of the system or out of the industry. And again, some states have different requirements. So, Michigan quite some time ago, did require mandatory ID tags.
And we saw this problem where groups of animals were able to share the same ID number. And what we saw is after the program was implemented, the number of larger animal production operations increased and the number of smaller independent producers of livestock in Michigan decreased. So I think, where we've seen it, we see that the system does encourage continued growth as opposed to decentralization, which I think a lot of people today recognize as being something we need in our food system based on its vulnerability and based on the idea of supporting local economies and local producers, all of those concerns.
James Maiocco: Yeah, I think those are [00:23:00] very real concerns, and it's unfortunate to hear those outcomes in the state of Michigan. So Alexia, just you know, from the perspective of a small farmer, I imagine they're very fed up about some of these changes and maybe would love to figure out like, hey, how can they contest this potentially?
And I know recently there was a ruling that came down from the U. S. Supreme Court that effectively seemed to curtail the Chevron rule, right? And in regards to some of the regulations that were being implemented by the EPA, that were perceived to be well beyond the intended scope of that agency's original authority.
Could a similar argument be made here with the USDA? Are they getting a little bit beyond the reach and going too far afield of what their original authority was intended to manage?
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, sure. I do think that's a realistic possibility. We've seen a number of court decisions, particularly the one that you mentioned in terms of the EPA, in which courts are suggesting [00:24:00] that agencies, while they have the ability to issue regulations through formal notice and comment processes, that they are limited in doing so pursuant to the initial authority that they were granted by Congress to regulate or enforce particular laws, right?
And so, the USDA, APHIS certainly has some ability to monitor under its authority and track for animal health and animal disease, getting into the weeds of something like mandating this kind of RFID is arguably outside of the authority that was necessarily granted initially by Congress.
So, somebody could potentially file an action saying that the rule, once passed, it's not final yet, exceeds that authority. And that they shouldn't be able to issue that rule or enforce it, at all. I think that's a real possibility.
James Maiocco: Yeah, I agree with your sentiment. And I hope there's some eager and wonderful pro bono trial attorneys who are going to want to take [00:25:00] up this action.
I think back again, back to the example of HIPAA. Right. There's obviously been a Department of Health for a long time that has all kinds of regulations and what they've done in terms of regulating health and welfare of Americans. But HIPAA had to be passed as a very separate law that was debated in Congress and heavily debated.
And same thing with electronic health records with all kinds of exceptions and provisions that apply differently to large scale hospitals versus, you know, small doctor's offices. Right. And what actually was appropriate. Now, there are some omnibus requirements that applies to everyone, for sure, but HIPAA was, again, separately debated and enacted by Congress.
The Department of Health just didn't go out and create it, per se.
Alexia Kulwiec: Right.
James Maiocco: So, I hope sanity, you know, comes back to the USDA and they can actually take a little bit more of a guarded approach, but it seems to be pretty aggressive, in my humble opinion, this is just me speaking personally, to be going down this pathway.
Alexia Kulwiec: [00:26:00] Well, what I think, and that's why I sort of gave a little bit more history early on, is it is aggressive, and I do think that if we're talking about regulation of agriculture, and the health of our food system, that we have seen a very aggressive USDA in terms of pushing its authority.
I mean, the fact that in 2019, they attempted to make this the law without even going through formal notice and rulemaking comments, right? And just as you mentioned, you're hopeful that someone will then, do this kind of legal challenge to suggest that USDA exceeded its authority. That's what they had to do in 2019.
Right? The Ranchers Out West, a coalition, they had to file a lawsuit against USDA for trying to implement something that has to go through this official, as you know, proposed rule and taking public comment, etc. Now they have done that this time in 2023. But I also find it disturbing that they have not finalized the rule, and yet we've seen an [00:27:00] authorization, in an appropriations bill for money for electronic ID tags and infrastructure.
So, I don't understand that, where that money would go. I don't know enough detail about it, but I find it very disturbing, and I think they have been moving in this direction really aggressively. And my bigger concern with that, isn't that USDA is being aggressive, but that the larger producers and the industries really have been the ones driving it.
And one of my understandings is that one of the benefits of this kind of identification is in moving in Interstate and even international travel, this is something that really benefits the U. S. trade, export of animals and export of meat in terms of traceability. Particularly this issue of only needing the one identification number for folks, right?
So, if you're dealing in international trade, this is something that really benefits some of these larger producers, which, of course, to some extent I feel like that's fine, just take out the [00:28:00] smaller independent folks that aren't engaging in that kind of international trade and just want to sell to their local communities and provide local food systems that are healthy, where people can source their food and trust their local farms, right?
So yeah, I'm concerned about the aggressiveness of this as well.
James Maiocco: Well, this has been a fantastic conversation, Alexia, and really appreciate your candor and your insights. I'm sure this can be very informative for many of our listeners. Given that the rule has still yet to be finalized, notwithstanding the fact Congress is getting ready to appropriate money for it, which is kind of presumptive, what can a farmer or rancher do today?
What would be your call to action for them to do? Are they supposed to pick up the phone and call the representative, send them an email, send them a letter, tell other ranchers and friends? What can they do? Because, sometimes this can seem overwhelming when you see something like this going through.
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, sure. And I want to point out to your listeners, if you go to our website at [00:29:00] farmtoconsumer.org and just type in the search button for RFID, you will find our action alerts on this that are helpful in terms of locating local representatives and sort of suggesting different actions that can be made.
The formal comment period has ended, but I still think it's not completely useless for folks to contact USDA APHIS and voice their opposition. That being said, I think probably more appropriately and more effective now would be to contact lawmakers at the federal level, folks, senators and representatives.
To suggest that this regulation goes beyond the USDA authority and that this is being considered by the USDA and that Congress should take a look at it and if something needs to be changed, this should be in fact a congressional action and not one just made by the USDA.
James Maiocco: Well, I hope we don't have to resort to the tactics that we've seen in Europe, with respect to what some of the farmers have had to do to be heard, right?[00:30:00]
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, yeah.
James Maiocco: Sometimes, you know, it seems like in trying times, sometimes those types of tactics are warranted or necessary in order to just to get visibility to these challenges. Because I think the general American public would very much support the independent farmer wanting to support and feed the local community.
Well, hey, one last question for you before we sign off. What's the expected date in which this is supposed to publish? Do we have any idea when farmers will know the outcome of the proposed ruling?
Alexia Kulwiec: Yeah, I really don't know. I know that the initial closing for comments was March of 23, and that was extended into April of 23.
I am not certain if there has been any kind of announcement about when they expect a final rule, you know, typically, I would say it takes about six months for it to work through that process, right? But I don't have a specific date. So if you're talking six months from April of 23, frankly, right?
We're well beyond that and it could be any [00:31:00] day.
James Maiocco: Okay. Well, as Alexia said and suggested to our listeners here, if you'd like to stay up to date on everything related to this topic, you can go to farmtoconsumer.org. That's farmtoconsumer.org. Type in RFID on their page and you can sign up for just like a newsletter or news feed I think that to hear about what's happening there.
I also encourage you to go check out their website for all kinds of additional resources, regardless of what type of farm, whether you're dairy, meat, they support all kinds of different producers. They have all kinds of information that can help you run and manage your business and feel confident about what you're doing.
Strongly encourage you to also sign up just $125 a year to get access to Alexia and an entire army of attorneys and great people who are looking out for your interests. At Barn2Door, we're humbled to support thousands of independent farmers across the country and we're delighted to offer services and to partner with folks like the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, [00:32:00] to help you grow your business.
And if you're an independent farmer who's just getting started transitioning to selling direct and want to learn more, we encourage you to go to barn2door.com/learn-more. Thank you again for tuning in today. We look forward to joining you next time on the Independent Farmer Podcast.
Thank you for joining us on the Independent Farmer Podcast. At Barn2Door, we are passionate about empowering independent farmers to build a thriving business. To all the farmers out there, thank you for all you do to grow amazing food, care for the soil, and serve your local communities. You are the backbone of our country.
For free farm resources, or to listen to prior podcasts, go to barn2door. com backslash resources. We hope you join us again and subscribe to the Independent Farmer Podcast wherever you stream your podcasts. Until next [00:33:00] time.