Survey reveals U.S. farming data

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) recently announced that they are contacting farmers and ranchers across the U.S. to conduct their annual Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS).

According to the USDA, ARMS data provides a direct linkage between commodity-production practices (including conservation) and the financial status of the farm and its operator's household. The data collected also provides insights about several aspects of the agricultural sector, including its contribution to the national economy, the organization and performance of farms, the income and well-being of farm households and the economics of production practices used among commodity enterprises.

"ARMS asks a small, but representative, sample of farmers about their operations to understand the current financial state of U.S. agriculture," said King Whetstone, director of the NASS New York field office. "Participation in ARMS is important because government and agricultural leaders use the information to make sound decisions that impact the future of farmers, their families, their businesses and their communities."

The survey provides farmers and ranchers with an opportunity to provide accurate, real-world data that will help shape the policies, programs and issues that affect them. Their responses are used to examine the effects of economic or policy events on farms and farm households.

The 2009-2010 ARMS results, released Aug. 3, 2010, revealed that U.S. farm production expenditures decreased by nearly $20 billion in 2009 – the first major decline in nearly a quarter century. It indicated that falling petroleum prices were a major factor behind the decline, leading to decreases in the costs of fuels, fertilizer and agricultural chemicals. It also indicated that overall farm production expenditures decreased in all major categories, including:

• Feed costs (decreased 4 percent, to $20,533 per farm)
• Farm services (decreased 4.2 percent to $16,609 per farm)
  

To obtain the most accurate data, 35,000 farmers and ranchers throughout the country are being asked to provide data for this year’s survey about their operating expenditures, production costs and household characteristics. NASS began contacting farmers in January and will continue its outreach until the end of April.

"Farm organizations, the USDA, other government agencies, members of Congress and state and local officials use the collective information from ARMS to answer questions and make important decisions concerning the economic viability of American agriculture, the rural economy and other emerging issues," stated Whetstone.

The data collected in ARMS will be published in the annual Farm Production Expenditures report Aug. 2, 2011, and will be available at www.nass.usda.gov.

For more information about the Agricultural Resource Management Survey, visit www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/ARMS/.

What do you think of the Agricultural Resource Management Survey? Do you think it is gathering the right type of information? What type of information would you like to see it collect? What do you think it would report about your farming region?

Photo obtained from: quickpaidsurveys.com

Tree producers getting disaster relief

Crop farmers aren’t the only agricultural producers who are eligible for agricultural assistance.

Because of the Agricultural Disaster Relief Trust Fund, the 2008 Farm Bill opened the door to possible support not just to crop farmers but also to tree farmers across the country.

Thanks to financing provided by the fund, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) created the Tree Assistance Program (TAP). This program provides financial assistance to those orchard and nursery tree growers that must replant or rehabilitate eligible trees, bushes and vines damaged by natural disasters. To be eligible the damage had to occur on or after Jan. 1, 2008 and before Oct. 1, 2011.

"This program helps our orchardists and nursery tree growers replant and get back on their feet after natural disasters," said Tom Vilsack, agriculture secretary.

The tree industry is commonly overlooked. What most people don’t realize is that the fruit and tree-nut industry alone adds an average of $18 billion to the nation’s economy. According to the USDA, the average person consumes about 270.9 pounds of tree-bearing fruit each year.

Recently, the 2008 Farm Bill extended the program to include Christmas tree growers who were previously ineligible under prior legislation.

The Christmas tree industry is larger than most give it credit for. Here are a few facts about Christmas trees that many people do not realize:

• There are roughly 40 million trees sold during the Christmas season in the United States.
• There are about 1 million acres in production for growing Christmas trees.
• The industry is valued at approximately $506 million.
• Christmas tree growing contributes to the economies of all 50 states.
• For every tree harvested two to three seedlings are planted in its place.
• Each acre of trees grown provides daily oxygen for 18 people.

In an executive summary by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Agriculture Disaster Relief Trust Fund was created with the intent to compensate farmers who have experienced weather-related losses.

According to Vilsack, orchardists and nursery tree growers were eligible to start applying for benefits under the TAP in May of this year.

To be eligible for TAP, producers must have suffered more than a 15 percent death loss because of the natural disaster after adjustment for normal mortality. TAP is a cost-reimbursement program, with payments covering up to 70 percent of replant costs and 50 percent of pruning, removal and other salvaging costs for replacing or salvaging damaged trees.

Eligibility:

• Trees, bushes and vines from which an annual crop is produced for commercial purposes
• Nursery trees include ornamental, fruit, nut and Christmas trees produced for commercial sale
• Trees used for pulp or timber are ineligible

What are your thoughts about the program? Should the USDA offer more relief programs to other areas of agriculture? Should the program include trees used for timber and pulp?

*Photo obtained from: http://www.texaschristmastrees.com/

Regulation delays agricultural advancements

When asked about the state of the U.S. crop-protection industry, President and CEO of CropLife America, Jay Vroom, used words such as, “healthy, robust, forward-looking and extremely competitive.”

But in the next breath, Vroom expressed his concern about federal oversight hindering the industry’s continued progress in a recent podcasted Agri-Pulse interview.

According to CropLife America, “The overall goal of crop protection is to enable farmers to produce the best quality, highest-yield crops possible, in turn providing consumers with a safe, affordable and dependable food supply.”

Crop protection encompasses the research, development and application of pesticides and chemicals to accomplish four ultimate goals:

1. Increased food production
2. Decreased food-production costs
3. Safeguard human health
4. Cosmetic benefits

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) established pesticide regulation in the U.S. It has been updated and modernized since its institution in 1947.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted proposals to Congress that would eliminate spray-drift applications and regulate pesticide applications within FIFRA. The EPA’s intent is to mandate permits for the use of pesticide products that are applied directly to water such as aquatic weed control and mosquito control. The EPA suggests a “zero tolerance” for spray drift that Vroom states is unrealistic.

Vroom thinks the EPA tactics put a “chokehold on modern agriculture.”

According to its site, CropLife America supports innovative technologies that promote spray-drift reduction and advocates for scientific research about spray drift effects, but opposes “zero-drift” policies that have already been acknowledged by EPA to set an impossible standard.

“The new label statements will help reduce problems from pesticide drift,” said Steve Owens, the assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. “The new labels will carry more uniform and specific directions about restricting spray drift while giving pesticide applicators clear and workable instructions.”

The new instructions will prohibit drift that could cause adverse health or environmental effects, stated an EPA news release.

Vroom believes that increasing federal regulation is impacting crop-protection research and development costs, as well as the end-users of those products. He also believes many people “glamorize agriculture of the 50s and 60s” without regard to the benefits of modern advancements.

In a joint global study with the European Crop Protection Association, research revealed that the cost of “staying at the table,” in regards to crop-protection development, has increased as much as 40 percent within the past five years because of severe oversight and evaluation expenses.

According to data compiled in the CropLife 100 retailer survey, crop protection product sales fell $100 million to $6.4 billion in 2009.

“Every farmer out there has got to be engaged,” said Vroom, who said that it’s important for farmers to confront urban elites and environmental activists who are attempting to change the structure of the crop-protection industry, thereby threatening its progression at the expense of agriculture.

He described a state-management system as most effective for industry oversight, using adjectives such as “most steady,” “realistic” and “articulate” in comparison to federal control. He believes that everyone harnesses the power to influence the industry when making voting decisions, noting that society supports a logical regulatory system via state and federal elections.

He also believes that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has a responsibility to disseminate the significance of crop protection to society.

Vroom is hopeful for a management structure that is free of expensive, complex regulatory hurdles and allows the industry to be competitive and viable.

“We ignore the defense of modern agriculture at our own peril.”

Individuals interested in giving opinion can do so at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a66c8d

*Photo obtained from: cdmsadvisor.net






American kitchen staples celebrated in May

May is National Egg Month as well as National Beef Month and both industries are celebrating and promoting their products.

The American Egg Board (AEB) takes time during May to educate consumers about the numerous benefits of eggs. According to AEB, every 235 million laying-birds in the U.S. produces 250 to 300 eggs a year.

The most common egg consumed is the chicken egg, however duck and goose eggs and smaller eggs, such as, quail eggs are occasionally used as a gourmet ingredient as are the largest bird eggs - ostrich.

One of the best benefits to consumers is that the majority of eggs are inexpensive but there is more to eggs than good value. They are also nutritious, easy to prepare, versatile and very tasty.

According to an article by Our Ohio magazine, “Eggs are one way Americans can stay strong as they get older. Macular degeneration – a leading cause of irreversible blindness – is a concern for seniors. Lutein and zeaxanthin found in egg yolks may both reduce the risk for cataracts and help prevent macular degeneration.”

Though most appreciate the taste and health benefits of eggs, the average consumer is unaware of the scope of the egg industry in America.

Facts about the U.S. Egg Industry: (Source: United Egg Producers - UEP)

• Iowa is the top-producing state for eggs, followed by Ohio
• U.S.-egg production during March 2010 was 6.71 billion table eggs
• Flock size for April 1, 2010 was 283 million layers
• Rate-of-lay per day on April 1, 2010 averaged 74.8 eggs per 100 layers, up 1 percent from last year
• 2009 exports of processed-egg products set records in both volume and value

There has been a lot of controversy the last few years regarding cage-free versus caged chickens for egg production, which consumes much of the industry’s efforts.

To address consumers concerns regarding animal welfare, the UEP created a set of guidelines for producers to follow. These guidelines were based on recommendations from an independent scientific-advisory committee commissioned in 1999 to review the treatment of egg-producing hens. The guidelines place top priority on the comfort, health and safety of the chickens and include:

• Increased cage space per hen, which is being phased in to avoid market disruptions
• Standards for non-feed withdrawal molting procedures based from the most current, verified scientific studies
• Standards for trimming of chicks’ beaks, when necessary, to avoid pecking and cannibalism
• Maintaining constant supply of fresh feed, water and air ventilation throughout the chicken house and monitoring for ammonia
• Standards for daily inspection of each bird as well as proper handling and transportation
• Availability of a new training video to instruct producer staffs about the proper handling of chickens to avoid injury to the animals

According to Chad Gregory from UEP, Americans prefer “regular” eggs produced in modern, sanitary caged systems by a margin (based upon their buying-decisions) of 95 percent.

“Modern sanitary cages also help U.S. egg farmers provide low-cost, nutritious eggs to American consumers at an annual savings of $2.6 billion versus non-cage systems,” said Gregory.

A video featuring Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs explains a little more about this debate: http://www.unitedegg.org/video/player/mikerowe.aspx

Along with the egg industry there is also another American-food favorite - beef.

As the weather starts getting warm, more and more consumers are firing-up their grills for some outdoor cooking. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) celebrates beef all month long, however the beef industry has been under the gun lately with media reporting about increased meat prices.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), beef prices have increased 22 percent this year and the National Restaurant Association (NRA) is predicting a 4-to-12 percent increase in the cost of wholesale meat.

In a recent article by the Kansas City Star, there are numerous reasons for the price increases, starting with the main reason - price of oil and the booming ethanol business. This article claims that several Midwestern corn farmers converted their crops to supply the nascent industry.

According to data from the USDA, ethanol refiners are using more of the corn harvest than ever. About 33 percent of last year’s crop will be used for fuel, increased from 23 percent in 2008.

"Ethanol-induced prices in meat are just now getting to the marketplace," said Steve Meyer, the president of Paragon Economics, a meat industry consultant in Des Moines.

Corn and ethanol producers say their industry is unfairly blamed for the record meat costs of 2008. The surge reflected "wild speculation in the markets and the surge of index funds" rather than the jump in corn use for fuel, said Chris Thorne, a spokesman for Growth Energy, a Washington-based ethanol trade group.

Still others argue that increased meat costs are the result of several related issues such as oil prices, global demand and weather, as well as product marketing and labor expenses.

Various corn-related agriculture groups state that there has never been a shortage of corn. There actually is a surplus of corn for all market sectors. According to the USDA, corn farmers produced 13 billion bushels of corn last year - making it a record year.

Yet, despite this meat price issue, people are still buying beef.

Americans understand and know that beef is leaner and healthier today. According to the NCBA, “Lean beef is one of the most flavorful and efficient ways to meet the daily value for 10 essential nutrients like iron, zinc and B vitamins, and beef also provides 20 grams of protein per serving.”

NCBA provides a helpful slideshow that presents the process of beef from production to pasture to plate: http://www.explorebeef.org/raisingbeef.aspx

Like the egg industry, beef is one of our country’s most valuable industries.

Beef Industry Facts (Source: NCBA):

• Beef-cattle production represents the largest single segment of American agriculture
• In 2008, the production of meat animals was responsible for more than $66 billion in added value to the U.S. economy, as measured by contribution to the national output
• Total U.S. beef exports were valued at nearly $3.62 billion in 2008
• In 2008, 26.6 billion pounds of beef were produced
• In 2007, more than 97 percent of beef cattle farms and ranches in the U.S. were family farms

What are your thoughts about cage-free versus caged chickens for egg production? Why do you think meat prices have gone up this year?

*Photos obtained from: http://www.beef.org/ and http://www.incredibleegg.org

Going green, it’s easier than it looks

Consumers and businesses now have an easier way to “go green." Thanks to the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills, the BioPreferred program was created, which helps to increase the purchase and use of environmentally friendly, biobased products.

Biobased products are commercial or industrial products that are composed mainly of biological resources including agriculturally derived, renewable resources such as corn or soybeans.

Managed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the BioPreferred program includes a preferred-procurement program for federal agencies and their contractors, as well as a voluntary labeling program for the broad-scale consumer marketing of biobased products.

This program designates biobased products that are required for purchase by federal agencies and their contractors. This allows companies to purchase biopreferred versions of the items that they already use. Soon, biobased products that meet the BioPreferred program requirements will be given a label to make it easily identifiable for businesses and consumers to select these items.

There is a software tool available to help federal procurement officers choose what products are both good for the environment and affordable, BEES (Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability). The BEES tool used by the USDA also helps biobased manufacturers learn about the impact that their products have on the environment and on their costs.

In an article by CM Magazine, Ron Buckhalt, program manager for BioPreferred discussed the labeling program. He stated that the labeling program would have green-eligible products stamped with an approved USDA label, much like the Energy Star system for electronics. The eligibility hasn’t been determined at this point. Buckhalt said that whatever the product’s bio-component level is it should be the industry standard.

“Companies don’t have the capability to go too high (regarding the product’s bio-component), but we could be looking at 30 percent,” he said.

Each month, BioPreferred features an item to promote. For March, the BioLink™ General Purpose Cleaner is highlighted for being “tough on grime, not the environment.” Working as effective as traditional cleaners, BioLink exchanges alcohol and petroleum-based solvents for non-toxic biobased materials.

There are numerous biobased products, from cleaning supplies to office supplies that consumers and businesses can use to better their environment. For the complete catalog, please visit: http://www.catalog.biopreferred.gov.

Ohio recently became the first and only state to initiate this program.

Recently, Gov. Ted Strickland signed Senate Bill 131, which establishes a bioproducts-preferred purchasing program. Modeled after the federal program, it will allow the state to use considerable purchasing power to support the growth of businesses that create bioproducts, as well as expand the market for other innovative products made from Ohio crops.

S.B. 131 will rely on the federal bioproducts list to determine what products should get preference in Ohio. Several Ohio companies are already developing plastics, paints, polymer foam and other innovative products from corn, soybeans and other renewable materials.

In a recent Marion Star article, Karen Gillmor, R-Tiffin, who sponsored S.B. 131, talked about how this bill would help stimulate investment and jobs, as well as enhance research opportunities at Ohio colleges and universities. This would help Ohio farmers and agriculture production in Ohio.

“Thanks to recent advances in research and technology, acres of soybeans, corn and other agriculture resources growing across Ohio have the tremendous potential to transform our state into a center for bioproducts development in this country, breathe much-needed life into our economy and create a market for good-paying jobs in our local communities,” said Gillmor, who is also a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

What are your thoughts about the BioPreferred program? Should more states be following in Ohio’s footsteps? How can the agriculture industry use this legislation to its advantage?







Pork Paranoia

As I am writing this, more than 140 Americans have been diagnosed with swine influenza. As international and national cases continue to escalate, uninformed consumers are misguidedly shunning pork and pork products.

Hog farmers are on the defense, refuting allegations that the outbreak is caused from eating infected pork. According to The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), no evidence indicates that swine influenza can be transmitted through food consumption – a crucial message for the pork industry to deliver.

“Swine flu is a misnomer,” said C. Larry Pope, the CEO of Smithfield Foods, the leading processor and marketer of pork and processed meats in the U.S. “They need to be concerned about influenza, but not eating pork.”

Many health organizations also take issue with the term “swine flu” because of its scientific inaccuracy. Instead, the CDC refers to the illness by its scientific name, H1N1 flu. The virus that is circulating includes genetic components of human, avian and swine origin.

Swine flu – a common respiratory disease in pigs during winter months – mirrors the human flu strain. It is so common, in fact, that 30 to 50 percent of the U.S. swineherd have been affected with some form of the virus. Multiple varieties of the strain exist.

The current outbreak, however, is not the result of consuming or interacting with contaminated pork.

"This is not a food-borne illness virus,” said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, “It is not correct to refer to it as swine flu because really that's not what this is about."

Regardless of its origins, hog farmers are feeling the effects of the outbreak. Farmers producing corn and soybeans as animal feed are also threatened by economic loss from decreased demand. Hog prices are plummeting as countries are banning U.S. pork imports, and grocery chains and restaurants are decreasing their pork orders to counteract an implicit, misapprehension for the other white meat. The pork and animal-feed industries are experiencing what the beef industry endured with “Mad Cow Disease.”

Part of the problem is people lack the necessary perspective and panic trumps logic. Every year, thousands of Americans die from the common flu, but the 24-hour news cycle chooses to focus its attention on H1N1 instead, most likely because of the novelty of its recent advent. There is no arguing the news merit of people becoming sick, but the public’s response could potentially create a panic that could do more harm than good.

Despite overwhelming evidence of the safe consumption of pork, the $15 billion American pork industry is in jeopardy. As summer approaches, a usual high-time for pork because of the grilling season, the National Pork Producer’s Council, National Pork Board, American Meat Institute and others are working to clarify the fallacies associated with the outbreak and promote the continued consumption of pork.

Do you think the spread of H1N1 is being blown out of proportion? Is there a danger of a media-induced panic? What should hog farmers do to re-establish trust with pork consumers? How can separate farm industries work together to improve market demand for their products? Should sister industries (chicken and beef) rally for the best interests of the pork industry?

Supporting Agricultural Initiatives

Research is a fundamental component in the health of the American agriculture industry. Not only does it safeguard the interests of producers and processors but it also is responsible for improving farming practices that affect all consumers.

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), a segment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, studies national industry priorities to improve our country’s farming practices “from field to table,” according to its Web site. Research is financed through money secured by Congress in the annual budget. ARS partners with companies, organizations, universities and other countries to meet the following objectives:
• Ensure high-quality, safe food and other agricultural products
• Assess the nutritional needs of Americans
• Sustain a competitive agricultural economy
• Enhance the natural resource base and the environment
• Provide economic opportunities for rural citizens, communities and society

“So widespread are ARS’s crop improvements, you’re very likely to be buying a product of ARS research any time you shop for produce. While many of these improvements—like extending harvest seasons, increasing growing range and improving disease resistance and tolerance to pests—appear at first glance to benefit only the farmer and rancher, they ultimately always benefit the public by making food more affordable and more available,” states the ARS research team.

Farms across America benefit from research findings; ranging from soil resource and watershed management techniques to the evolution of disease-resistant livestock. Innovations affect the national economy and industry as well as individual states with particular business markets. President Obama signed The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 into law March 11. The act allocates federal money to cabinet departments and includes, for example, $4 million in funds to targeted programs and services that support Ohio farmers.

“By investing in agricultural research and innovation, we help foster Ohio’s strong legacy of farming and empower the next generation of leaders in Ohio’s rural communities,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-OH.

Another advocate for industry research is The Foundation for Agronomic Research (FAR). FAR helps facilitate development and implementation of science-based research and education programs in applied crop and soil management. Like ARS, FAR supports important research and education programs to help bring science to the field for farmers and their advisers. Unlike ARS, FAR programs are funded through sponsorships, grants and agribusiness companies.

A question can be raised – What is the best way to organize and manage agricultural research? An ongoing debate exists about cost-effective research with some favoring the distribution of competitive grants to specific projects in individual states, while others argue that each state should conduct research about issues that affect the entire country.

Either way, research brings “science to your shopping cart” and ensures the continued success of the American agriculture industry.

How beneficial is agricultural research to the U.S.? Should more or less money be invested in research efforts? Toward what segments of the industry should ARS/FAR devote their research efforts?

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and how it affects agriculture

On Feb. 17, President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, otherwise known as the economic stimulus package. The intent of the bill is to provide a stimulus to the U.S. economy in the wake of the economic downturn. The bill includes federal tax cuts, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social-welfare provisions and domestic spending in education, health care and infrastructure, including the energy sector.

This bill and Obama’s proposed budget for the upcoming year are causing agricultural associations to take notice. There are definitely mixed feelings among farmers and agricultural groups on the benefits and/or drawbacks of the two.

Obama is calling for the elimination of direct payments to large farming operations, reduced subsides for federal crop insurance programs, the elimination of storage payments on cotton and the phasing out of farm-program payments to growers with incomes of more than $500,000 over a three-year period.

“The president’s proposed limit penalizes the farms that are responsible for the majority of food, feed and fiber production in the U.S.,” said Jay Hardwick, National Cotton Council chairman, in a recent article in Southwest Farm Press. “According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, farms with sales of $500,000 or more accounted for almost three-fourths of all agricultural products sold.”

The National Cotton Council (NCC) stated that Obama’s proposed program changes “fail to recognize the work recently completed by Congress on the Food, Conservation and Energy Act (FCEA) of 2008 [otherwise known as the Farm Bill].”

According to the Southwest Farm Press article, leaders of the National Cotton Council, the National Corn Growers Association and the American Soybean Association state that they would oppose any attempts to change the provisions they fought to include in the 2008 Farm Bill.

“We’re very concerned about that statement. We’re not sure if he was talking about huge corporate farms or other parts of our industry,” said National Corn Growers Association President Bob Dickey when asked about the president’s proposal.

The Farm Bill is a five-year agricultural policy bill. It continues America's long history of agricultural subsidy, as well as pursuing areas such as energy, conservation, nutrition and rural development.

On the other end of the spectrum, in an article in North Platte Telegraph, the American Farm Bureau and National Farmers Union are pleased with the stimulus package’s commitment to renewable energy and broadband service for rural America.

“The tax incentives for renewable energy, particularly for new renewable fuels, will help build an industry that will provide farmers and ranchers with income and the rural economy with jobs, while contributing to a cleaner environment and reduced dependence on imported oil, ” said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

So what do you think of Obama’s stimulus package and proposed budget impact on agriculture?

American Agriculture and the Economy

For generations, agriculture has served as the cornerstone of the American economy and has played a vital role in shaping the history of this country.

Since it’s humble beginnings in the original colonies, farming has changed over the years, growing from the small family farms to a multi-million-dollar business. In 1940, there were six million farms averaging about 165 acres each farm. As time progressed, farms became fewer but larger. In the 1990s, there were only 2.2 million farms in the U.S., but each averaged 470 acres of farmed land. Even though the number of farms decreased, technological advances now enable farmers to continue producing more food. This allows farmers not only to feed the U.S. but also feed the world.

“Agriculture is arguably the most important sector of the economy,” said John M. Antle, professor of Agricultural Economics at Montana State University.

In a world of economic uncertainty, agriculture continues to support the American financial markets. With the recent proposed bailout of several troubled corporations and the problems of Lehman brothers, AIG and Merrill Lynch, the dollar will likely weaken further, making U.S. products more attractive and likely leading to an increase in agricultural exports. Furthermore, the need to stabilize the tumultuous financial markets can only benefit the American consumers. Doing so would hopefully increase discretionary spending (dining out, purchasing of ethanol vehicles, etc.), which also will benefit the agricultural industry for years to come.

In 2007, farmers earned $86.8 billion. The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts this number will rise to $95.7 billion by the end of 2008. Although quite a large number, farming contributes only 1 percent of the U.S. GDP. In Ohio alone, 75,700 farms contributed $1.95 billion to the state’s economy, making agriculture the largest industry in Ohio, which is one of only five states where over 44 percent or 14.3 million acres of land is used for farming.

As the nation frets over the current economic crisis, it remains to be seen how American farmers will be affected. And with a change in administration looming, how will the next president’s policies affect the U.S. farming industry? Let me know your thoughts.