With National Farm Safety and Health Week in full swing, Purdue University’s Agricultural Safety and Health Program has released the 2023 Summary of U.S. Agricultural Confined Space-related Injuries and Fatalities. The purpose of the report is to maintain public focus on the issue of agricultural confined-space injuries and fatalities, aid in the development of evidence-based training, and offer resources and direction to policymakers and engineering organizations in developing improved workplace regulations and design standards.

New findings reported no fewer than 55 cases involving agricultural confined spaces, with 29 fatal and 26 nonfatal cases. This represents a 33.7 percent decrease over the 83 cases documented in 2022.

Data also revealed that at least 27 grain entrapments took place in 2023, showing a 35.7 percent decrease over 2022. Of the 55 total cases, 28 were tied to livestock waste-handling facilities, entanglements, and grain dust explosions or fires. Roughly half of the identified cases this year were caused by grain entrapments.

Illinois had the highest total of confined space-related cases, 12, while Iowa had the second-most cases with five; Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin had four cases each. Iowa had the most grain entrapment cases at five. Historically, Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, and Nebraska have had the most grain entrapment cases take place, respectively.

“As we move into the busy fall harvest season, farmers, farm workers and those involved in the grain industry should stay aware of the hazards of agricultural confined spaces,” said Ed Sheldon, report co-author and Purdue agricultural safety specialist. “Even though we have documented fewer cases last year, the fact remains that confined space incidents are a significant cause of fatalities and injuries in the agricultural workplace.”

Additional findings noted that three incidents involved more than one victim, two fatal cases dealt with livestock waste storage pits or lagoons, and nine grain dust explosions took place at commercial facilities resulting in 12 nonfatal injuries.

Program staff urge agricultural workers to remain diligent and follow safety protocols. Frequency and severity of the reported cases continues to be a major concern. However, the summary notes that there is better documentation of injuries and fatalities due to dedicated investment in surveillance and available data. The number of total cases this year is also less than the 5- and 10-year averages.

The 2025 Old Farmer’s Almanac is projecting this coming winter to be far different than the previous year’s expectations: Things are looking gentler across most of the United States.

“This winter, temperatures will be up and snowfall down throughout most of the United States,” reports Carol Connare, the almanac’s editor-in-chief. “While there will still be plenty of chilly temperatures and snow for most slopes, the high heating costs associated with the season shouldn’t hit so hard. We’re predicting a temperate, uneventful winter — potentially a welcome reprieve from the extremes of recent years.”

There will be exceptions, of course. Winter rainstorms are likely to leave Florida, the Deep South, and southern California soaked, the 2025 Old Farmer’s Almanac says. Meanwhile, heavy snowfall is expected in central and southern Appalachia, the western Ohio Valley, and the Rockies — calling all skiers and sledders!

The Old Farmer’s Almanac — considered to be North America’s most popular reference guide on agriculture and weather and one that is different from the similarly titled Farmer’s Almanac — dates to the late 18th century. The original formula that this publication uses to calculate the weather is kept tucked away in a black tin box in Dublin, New Hampshire, at the almanac’s offices.

Unfortunately, most people don’t have the credentials to get a sneak peak at the secret formulas the Old Farmer’s Almanac uses!

The Old Farmer’s Almanac claims that its forecasts are “traditionally 80 percent accurate,” and it includes a health dose of wit and wisdom in its pages, including puzzles, recipes, and a “trends” section.

Regional summaries for the U.S.

The Old Farmer’s Almanac breaks the nation down into 18 distinct regions, with the intent that you’ll be able to zero in on the unique climate in your neck of the woods.

For example, the almanac says of these key farming regions: 

• Region 4: Southeast: Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina: Winter will be cooler than normal in the east and warmer than normal in the west. The coldest periods are expected in late November, late January, and late February. Precipitation and snowfall will be above normal. The best chance for snow is in late January and early and late February. Superbowl 2025 is set in New Orleans in early February; this may affect travel, though the Superdome is completely covered.
• Region 8: Deep South: Wet and wild? Or, is that wet and mild? Across the Deep South, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, and nearby states, there will be plenty of moisture and an extra dose of warmth this winter. Winter temperatures will be consistently warmer than average (about 2°F monthly). The coldest periods will occur in early and late November, from late January into early February, and in late February.
• Region 9: Upper Midwest: If you’re a roofer in Minnesota, you know winter! This northern-tier region comprises Minneapolis and other cities, including International Falls to the north and Marquette and Green Bay to the east. It’s cold in the Upper Midwest, but winter 2024-2025 will not be as cold as usual. The coldest shots will occur in early November, early and late January, late February, and early March. Precipitation and snowfall will be below average for the Upper Midwest, with the snowiest periods in late November, late December, mid- and late January, early February, and mid-March.
• Region 10: Heartland: The heartland of America mainly covers Iowa, Missouri, and eastern Kansas, as well as Nebraska. Cities include Des Moines, St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, and Topeka. Winter will be warmer than normal throughout this agricultural area. The coldest periods in the heartland will occur in late January and early and late February. Precipitation and snowfall will be below normal as well. The most snow will fall when temperatures are coldest in late January as well as early and late February.
• Region 12: High Plains: This region, located just to the east of the Rocky Mountains, covers America’s broad expanses of flatland. It extends from Amarillo north through Denver to Billings and east to Bismarck. Winter temperatures will be warmer than normal in the northern parts of this region—and colder than normal in the southern areas. Expect the coldest periods in early and mid-January and early to late February. Precipitation will be near normal, so don’t expect extremes. Snowfall will be near to above normal, with the snowiest periods in mid-November, mid- and late January, and late February.

Where can you get a copy of the 2025 Old Farmers’ Alamanc? 

The 2025 Old Farmers’ Almanac, with its yellow and green cover, is now available in bookstores and retail stores and on Amazon and Almanac.com. Not just for farmers, the Old Farmers’ Almanac reaches a broader audience with husbandry tips, days to cut your hair or mow your lawn (that you won’t see for a while), and how to quit bad habits, brew beer, and grow basil. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture scientists have uncovered evidence that shows long-term no-till continuous cropping systems can reduce GHG emissions while sustaining crop yields, compared to conventional till crop-fallow systems common in America’s semi-arid regions.

As the demand for agricultural production increases, it is becoming more important to mitigate GHG emissions from croplands. Certain cropping systems, management practices, and use of nitrogen-based fertilizers add to the total emissions of N2O (nitrous oxide) and CH4 (methane) that contribute to the approximate 10 percent of the total GHG emissions coming from the agricultural sector.

Implementing innovative agricultural strategies that can maintain or increase crop yields while reducing GHG emissions has become critical. This is especially important in arid and semi-arid regions, which make up one-third of the global arable land and account for a significant portion of GHG emissions coming from crop production.

The USDA team from Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory in Sidney, Montana, evaluated the effect of three long-term (34-year project) dryland cropping systems on GHG emissions and crop yields in the U.S. northern Great Plains. The objective was to evaluate improved cropping systems like continuous cropping, which involves growing crops annually and eliminating the summer fallow (unplanted field) period, for GHG emissions and sustainable crop yields in dryland conditions.

The three systems included no-till continuous spring wheat, no-till spring wheat-pea, and conventional till spring wheat-fallow. The study tested N2O and CH4 gas emissions twice a week to once a month throughout the year and analyzed carbon sequestration rates from 2012 to 2019 and crop yields, GHG balance, and yield-scaled GHG balance from 2016 to 2018.

Overall, the no-till continuous cropping systems reduced net GHG balance by 66 percent to 149 percent compared to the conventional till crop-fallow system. The results were published in the Journal of Environmental Quality.

In looking at the two no-till continuous cropping systems studied, researcher Upendra Sainju noted, “Although the no-till continuous nonlegume cropping increased carbon sequestration rate and reduced GHG balance and yield-scaled GHG balance, it reduced crop yield due to increased weed and pest pressure and enhanced soil acidity compared to the no-till legume-nonlegume rotation. Therefore, no-till legume-nonlegume rotation is an ideal cropping system to enhance crop yield and reduce GHG emissions compared to no-till continuous nonlegume cropping system in dryland cropping systems of the U.S. northern Great Plains.”

The study is part of USDA-ARS ongoing long-term research on dryland cropping systems.

My morning routine includes sitting on the porch — hair hopelessly tangled, caffeine in-hand — scrolling through recent findings in science. Call it a desperate attempt to jumpstart my brain early in the day.

It usually takes a little while for my neurons to fire up. But, a couple of weeks ago, when I read that red meat consumption is associated with type 2 diabetes, based on an analysis of 1.97 million people? I sat up, bolt-straight. You see, it’s not just that I’m an avid meat-eater — I’m also a scientist … and that’s one hell of a clinical claim.

It’s certainly not the first time that red meat has been brought under fire for a possible linkage to diabetes. But, many of those historical studies are peppered with limitations — which makes interpreting their results difficult, if not impossible. But this new study published in The Lancet: Diabetes & Endocrinology must be better, right? I mean, it includes data from just under 2 million participants. So, does this mean it’s time to trigger mass closures of cattle ranches and replace our rib eyes with compacted wheat gluten patties?

… definitely not.

The new study by Li, et al. is chock full of complex analyses and big statistics to help us make sense of a possible dietary risk for this complicated disease. Type 2 diabetes has been, and is projected to remain, a major health crisis for the United States. So, studies like this one absolutely can and should be conducted. Human health depends on it. But, as with any scientific publication, results should be reviewed with care before an onset of public panic.

Some things the study team did right:

• The study is big — really big. With data from this many people, it reduces the likelihood that the study results are due to chance. Theoretically, the findings from something of this magnitude should be a bit more reliable for us to base generalized conclusions on, when compared to smaller studies.
• Global representation. In an unprecedented protocol, the research team was able to include data from 20 countries. This wide swath of cultural inclusion ensures that we’re not making claims about how the human body works, based only on certain humans in certain areas of the world.
• Mathletes. The study team went to great lengths to collect a lot of information about each participant they included. They were able to grab things like age, BMI, ethnicity, whether they smoked or drank alcohol, preexisting medical conditions, what they ate, how active they were, and a wide variety of other characteristics. They analyzed these pieces of information to help them understand if red meat was a viable culprit in the development of diabetes, or if something else was.

Some things the study team didn’t do right (and why eating red meat is still OK until further notice):

• “Scout’s honor.” The study participants self-reported a few key factors, importantly physical activity and dietary information. The problem with self-reporting is that it introduces something called “recall bias” into the study, where participants may not have reported these metrics accurately because they forgot. So, they could be over-estimating their activity levels or under-estimating how many vegetables they ate — both of which could skew the overall results.
• Pre-diabetes is important. The research team was interested in evaluating red meat intake and capturing who ultimately developed diabetes. So, for the purposes of this study, it was important that none of the participants started out with diabetes. However, while scientists made sure to exclude data from people with the disease initially, they did not say whether or not they excluded those who were pre-diabetic and would have had a higher risk to develop type 2 diabetes anyway. This could have contributed to higher reported rates of diabetes, unrelated to red meat consumption.
• Assuming we’re extreme creatures of habit. For most of the participants, dietary information was only collected one time. Considering the study followed the medical history of these participants for years, we can’t assume that they didn’t develop diabetes simply because their diets never changed.
• Family history unknown. For some of the data input, family history of diabetes was not well documented. Because there are known genetic factors that significantly increase a person’s risk for type 2 diabetes, this would be critical to capture for everyone included.

The lists above are far from exhaustive but aim to give you a better perspective on an otherwise complex scientific study.

In the end, it’s unclear whether the small increased risks highlighted in this research hold any true clinical relevance. Our personal health is shaped by balance, moderation, and what best fits our unique physiological needs. Studies like this should serve as tools to inform, not dictate, empowering you to make decisions that reflect your own health journey — remember: context matters.

I certainly commend the research team for the massive efforts necessary to conduct a study of this kind. A gigantic undertaking and exceptionally important.

For some strange reason, I’m now craving steak.

Leah Elson is an American scientist, author, and public science communicator. She has two pit bulls and sixty-eight houseplants.