Vermont ag stakeholders flag labor, tariffs, neonic limits and drone permits as industry shifts

Chair Russ opened the Feb. 7 committee discussion by saying members would spend the meeting “talking about fertilizer and feed and pesticides” and invited industry guests to summarize what they are seeing in the field.

Brad Laws, owner of Laws and Agriculture Service, said immigration uncertainty and labor availability are chief concerns for dairy operations, and that rising consolidation has left fewer customers for retail suppliers. “If I had to guess … probably 80% of the farms around here have Mexicans working for them,” Laws said, describing a period in which many workers “have kind of gone dark … till things calm down.” He also told the committee Canada produces “about 80% of all the potash that we use in North America,” so any tariff targeting Canadian fertilizer would be watched closely by Vermont suppliers.

Steve Guinell, director of the public health agriculture resource management division in the AT and T branch, said the agency registers and monitors pesticide, feed and seed products distributed in the state. “We register about 12,000 pesticide products annually, a little over 17,000 feed products” and roughly 5,000 fruit‑related products, he said, and described the department’s label review and sampling program.

Guinell and industry representatives discussed several policy and technical trends. Regulators and dealers said precision agriculture tools — GPS‑guided application, variable‑rate spreaders and, increasingly, drones — are expanding in Vermont but at different paces by region and farm size. “Drones are becoming quite the thing,” Laws said, describing single operators running multiple aircraft as a longer‑term prospect; Guinell said the agency has created a permit process and expects some commercial drone applications this year.

Speakers urged the committee to plan demonstration work around drone permitting and training. Nate (last name not specified), a Nutrien representative and former family operator, said commercial aerial application hardware and support equipment can exceed six figures and noted his firm is considering investments but has not yet committed capital.

The panel spent considerable time on state restrictions on neonicotinoid seed treatments. Guinell summarized the implementation framework in statute, noting an exemption process that allows the secretary to issue one‑year, field‑specific waivers when a producer completes required Integrated Pest Management training and a “passive pest risk assessment.” He said the agency and researchers are working to define risk factors — such as manure application or incorporation of cover crops — that increase corn seed maggot risk and therefore could justify exemptions.

Guinell described the scientific uncertainty the agency sees about impacts on managed honeybees versus native pollinators: treated seed is systemic and can be detected at very low levels in plant fluids and pollen, but “managed honeybees, at least, do not appear to be negatively affected to the extent that we're having major problems from that source,” he said, adding that data on native pollinators are lacking. The agency is arranging a multi‑year study with the University of Vermont and the Vermont Center for EcoStudies to quantify native pollinator diversity and abundance under different practices.

Committee members and guests also discussed the interaction between cover‑crop promotion and seed‑treatment limits. Several speakers warned that cover crops increase soil organic matter — a driver of corn seed maggot pressure — and that farmers worry losing treated seed could deter cover‑crop use unless exemptions or new practices address the risk.

Other topics raised included changing nutrient needs (suppliers reported much lower phosphorus sales than decades ago and growing sulfur demand), fertilizer price volatility and consolidation of farm accounts (suppliers reported some recent farms changing ownership while acreage remained in production under larger operators). Laws and others urged the committee to follow discussions about the Endangered Species Act consultation process at the federal level, which regulators say could lead to new label restrictions tied to mapped endangered‑species areas.

PFAS also surfaced as an emerging concern: panelists said some states are using broad PFAS definitions that affect available pesticide formulations and that industry is watching federal and other states’ approaches as litigation and regulation evolve.

No formal committee vote or regulatory decision occurred during the session. Speakers recommended follow‑up: the agency plans to circulate draft best‑management‑practice rules (as required under Act 182), pursue coordinated research with UVM and other institutions on risk factors for seed maggot and native pollinators, and host drone demonstrations or workshops to familiarize producers and regulators with precision aerial application.

Ending: Committee chair and guests agreed to continue outreach, research and demonstrations: the agency will share draft rules and the committee said it intends to follow worker‑visa/guest‑worker discussions and the rollout of permits for drone applications.