What will it take to pass a new federal Farm Bill? The last one was approved in 2018.

A new Farm Bill will have to work around political
flashpoints. (Graphic by Adam Dixon, Offrange)

The last Farm Bill was passed by Congress in 2018, but political divisions over Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding and farm subsidies have prevented lawmakers from agreeing on a new Farm Bill, leaving sectors that depend on the massive omnibus package relying on extensions for authorized funding, reports Clare Carlson for Offrange. Farm policy experts say any new Farm Bill will have to navigate around conflicts to address an evolving set of farming and rural needs.

Mike Lavender, a policy director at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, told Carlson that as the number of U.S. farms has shrunk, and the size of the remaining farms has grown, what farmers need in a Farm Bill has changed.

As politicians continue to battle over SNAP and subsidies, those two entities only "make up two of the Farm Bill’s 12 titles, which include research, conservation, forestry, and rural development," Carlson reports. "The programs under those other 10 titles are what get neglected, Lavender said, hurting farmers and rural communities in the process."

With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025, SNAP funding was separated from the Farm Bill and "wrapped into budget reconciliation bills," Carlson explains. OBBA cut SNAP’s budget by 20% while "doubling funding to subsidy programs for commodities like soybeans, wheat, and corn."

Michael Happ, a program associate at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, told Offrange, “We might be living in a post-Farm Bill world right now where we just pass farm policy through budget bills and we leave out a lot of really important research and programs that help farmers."

Meanwhile, House Agriculture Chair Glenn Thompson "pledged to complete a five-year farm bill in committee by the end of February, as lawmakers try to bridge political divides that have stalled the legislation," reports Marc Heller of E&E News. "Thompson (R-Pa.) told state agriculture officials that finishing the bill. . . is his top priority."

Carlson adds, "Without a Farm Bill, food and agricultural policy could be left to the whims of whichever party controls the White House. . . . Planning for the future is also a lot harder for farmers without a Farm Bill."

Farmer income declines and U.S. government disaster payments begin; roughly $9.8 billion will be paid out

Approximately $9.8 billion will be paid out to farmers.
(FAPRI and RaFF map via Farm Journal)

As some U.S. farmers tally thousands of dollars in losses, the federal government has responded with disaster aid checks. "America has long provided subsidies to its farmers, dating back to the 1930s as a way to tackle rural poverty when a quarter of the population lived on farms," reports Patrick Thomas of The Wall Street Journal. "Today, subsidies largely come in the form of insurance. . . . Direct cash payments, while at times controversial, have been used to bolster farmers during agricultural downturns."

U.S. farmers have coped with declining profits and high input costs for the past two seasons. "Net farm income declined 4% this year to $141 billion after falling about 20% last year," Thomas explains. "Weaker prices for commodities such as soybeans and wheat have weighed on farmers’ earnings after growers in the U.S. and elsewhere reared big crops, swelling supplies. Their costs for essentials such as fertilizer and equipment are also higher."

Farm income woes will likely continue in 2025. Thomas reports, "Some of the world’s largest grain shippers and pesticide suppliers are girding for a shrinking farm economy by cutting costs or laying off workers. . . . [The] financial pain on the farm comes after one of the ag industry’s strongest runs on record. . . . In Iowa, the top corn-producing state, farmland values decreased by 3% this year, breaking a five-year streak of rising prices."

President-elect Donald Trump's pledged tariffs on Mexico and China may also hit farmers in the pocketbook. Both countries are "major importers of U.S. crops," Thomas writes. Still, many farmers "believe that Trump's policies may benefit the agricultural economy. . . . In 2018 and 2019, during Trump’s first term, about $23 billion in taxpayer money was paid to farmers to offset the impact of trade disruptions."

The current farm bill extension through Sept. 30 includes "$9.8 billion in market relief payments for 20 covered crops," reports Jim Wiesemeyer of Farm Journal. "According to an analysis by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, the top 10 states based on estimated total payments for corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, sorghum, rice, barley, oats, and peanuts are:

• Texas: $963 million, primarily because of its status as the largest cotton producer
• Iowa: $846 million, with strong support for corn and soybean farmers
• Illinois: $790 million
• Kansas: $787 million
• Nebraska: $625 million
• Minnesota: $616 million
• North Dakota: $597 million
• South Dakota: $497 million
• Indiana: $400 million
• Missouri: $391 million

To get more details on the American Relief Act of 2025, click here. To see the state and crop breakdown and what it means for U.S. farmers, click here.

In their first 3 years, Biden has sent as much federal money to farmers as did Trump, who likes to talk about his largesse

Politico illustration

Former president Donald Trump "makes hay in farm states like Iowa by reminding farmers of how much money the federal government paid them during his presidency," but President Biden has delivered about the same in the first three years of their presidencies: $57 billion.

So reports Garrett Downs of Politico's Weekly Agriculture, adding, "Nearly half of Trump’s total $109 billion in direct payments were delivered in his final year, 2020." That's when the Department of Agriculture "paid farmers more than $52 billion, an unprecedented sum since USDA began recording farm payment data in 1933. Those tallies don’t include billions in other types of farm support, like crop insurance and loan financing — traditionally the largest types of ag subsidies."

Applying other measures, "Biden has been better for farmers than Trump," Downs writes. "Net farm income has actually gone up since the Democrat entered the White House. On average, net farm income has totaled $165 billion between 2021 and 2023, compared to $94 billion between 2017 and 2019. Farm income reached a record high of nearly $189 billion in 2022. And while it is projected to drop off in 2023 (USDA is still tallying receipts from December 2023), it remains above the 20-year average for receipts."

Looking ahead, Downs notes that Trump is proposing "a universal tariff on nearly all goods," while Biden "is telling farmers that his administration is working to distribute the recent surge in ag profits to farmers across the spectrum, not just the largest ag conglomerates." Joe Glauber, former chief USDA economist, told Downs that Trump’s proposed tariff could bring another trade war and “really hurt U.S. agriculture.”

When that happened under Trump, he used the USDA's Commodity Credit Corp. to send $28 billion in relief to farmers, but Glauber said farmers shouldn't expect another bailout. “I think that’s taking a big leap of faith,” he said. “Those were big, extraordinary payments, and I think it may be naive to think that they would be there year in and year out.”

Farm Bill debate snags on GOP efforts to cut climate funds and food aid to increase subsidies for cotton, peanuts, rice

"Congress appears unlikely to pass a new Farm Bill by the end of this year amid standoffs over Republicans’ push to extend subsidies to three specific Southern crops — at the potential cost of billions in both food aid and popular farm conservation programs," reports Saul Elbein of The Hill.

The Farm Bill will expire Dec. 31 unless Congress passes an extension, which senators say could be included in a bill to keep the government open after next week. But Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., "said Speaker Mike Johnson had committed December floor time to the farm bill — and gave The Hill a preview of what such a bill might look like," Elbein reports.

The GOP plan would boost subsidies for peanuts, cotton and rice, "the only commodities that won’t get automatic price increases" under current law, Elbein reports: "To pay for this increase, Republican supporters of those programs want to cut food aid and take money from $20 billion previously allocated to conservation payments backed by Democrats, environmental groups and a wide array of farm groups. Thompson argues this move is necessary because 'at least two of those commodities are really upside down right now,' or facing expenses above the market prices of their products — an apparent allusion to cotton and peanuts. . . . According to USDA figures, market prices for cotton in 2022 weren’t high enough to cover the sector’s total expenses."

The plan would raise payments in the Agricultural Risk Coverage/Price Loss Coverage (ARC/PLC) program. "Critics say the proposed increases to the ARC/PLC will direct money only to a few thousand of the nation’s biggest farmers at the expense of programs that benefit all of them," Elbein reports. "Ten percent receive 80 percent of the payments, and 'only the largest of peanut farmers receive more than a few thousand'," Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group told Elbein.

The plan also has conservative opposition. David Ditch of the Heritage Foundation "argued that in an era when interest payments on the national debt are already dragging on the economy, Thompson’s proposal would lock in permanent payments to farmers who — while they may have had a hard year — are already well-subsidized," Elbein reports.

Jonathan Coppess, an attorney in the University of Illinois agricultural economics department, also takes a longer view. "However bad this year’s picture is for cotton, rice and peanuts, Coppess said, agriculture as a whole is coming off of two record years — and most farms that will qualify for ARC/PLC payments are very large, highly diversified operations that grow many crops, rather than just a few," Elbein writes.

"And even the idea that crops such as cotton are underwater this year relies on counting — as the USDA does — costs that include opportunity or capital recovery costs, or the “expense” of using land, labor or equipment for farming as opposed to using it for something else. This strains the very notion of 'expense,' said Anne Schechinger, Midwest director of the EWG."

Republicans float $50 billion in cuts to farm programs that Democrats want to preserve; top Democrat's role debated

Republicans have tentatively proposed $50 billion in possible cuts to farm programs, and all the Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee are objecting, while some worry about how the committee's top Democrat is handling negotiations with the Republican majority, Politico reports.

The cuts include money for conservation and climate-change-prevention programs that were included in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act passed by House Democrats when they were in the majority, "to make up budget shortfalls in other sections of the Farm Bill, like the commodity support title," Politico reports. Democrats "contend the money should be kept where it is because demand for the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, two programs boosted by the IRA, far exceeds the available funding."

Rep. Scott (Photo by Bill O'Leary, The Washington Post)

The list of possible cuts "was presented to Democrats by ranking member David Scott at a previously unreported meeting two weeks ago, and it raised new concerns about his ability to negotiate a Farm Bill with Republicans," Politico reported Friday. "Scott didn’t tell panel members where the $50 billion would come from before the meeting, only that the committee had found extra money to be used for bipartisan priorities," according to anonymous sources. "So Democratic members were flummoxed when Scott’s staff presented the list of climate and nutrition programs that would be hit."

The list includes "$15 billion in unspent funds from Democrats’ prized IRA climate-agriculture programs, limits on future updates to the Thrifty Food Plan and the Conservation Reserve Program," as well as "potential clawbacks to the Commodity Credit Corp., USDA’s internal bank," which "has come under intense scrutiny from both sides of the aisle after it was used to bail out farmers injured by former President Donald Trump’s trade war, and to stand up the Biden administration’s flagship Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program."

Farm net income could drop for the first time in five years; amount is still much higher than 10-year average

This year's farming net income decrease was expected.
(Photo by Gregory Hayes, Unsplash)

U.S. net farm income is expected to decrease for the first time in five years, but 2023 income is still above the country's 10-year average. "National net farm income will fall nearly 23% in 2023, coming down from a record high in 2022," reports Chris Clayton of Progressive Farmer. Net farm income, defined by Department of Agriculture as "a broad measure of profits," has risen each of the past five years, "but will come down $41.7 billion in 2023 to $141.3 billion in 2023. That's a 22.8% decline from 2022's record of $183 billion" but still higher than the 10-year average of about $101 billion.

The decrease in net income was expected. "Strong global demand plus the supply chain disruptions caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drove up commodity prices in 2022," reports Chuck Abbott of Successful Farming. "The value of U.S. crop and livestock sales leaped by $100 billion, to a record $536.6 billion, said USDA economist Carrie Litkowski. The cash receipts figure was expected to drop to $513.6 billion this year." Joe Glauber, senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute, told Abbott, “2022 was a remarkable year, so it’s not a surprise that income declined this year.”

Production prices and farm equity values have increased alongside farm net income. "Production expenses are up for the fifth year in a row, setting another record high at $458 billion, said the USDA. Yet, farm sector equity would increase by nearly 8% this year; assets are growing in value much more rapidly than farmers accumulate debt," Abbott reports. "Farm groups have pointed to rising production costs as a reason for Congress to make it easier in the new farm bill to trigger crop subsidy payments and to expand the taxpayer-supported crop insurance programs. The budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense called for retrenchment — the government will lose $16.3 billion on crop insurance this year, it said, despite high farm income."

Pat Westhoff, director of the Food & Agriculture Policy Research Institute, at the University of Missouri, told Abbott, "Yeah, it’s a complicated story. It’s equally true that the 2023 farm income figure is off sharply from 2022, and that it’s still a very high number by historical standards. Different people would want to emphasize one of those stories or the other.”

The USDA farm income forecast is available here.

Farm Bill seems likely to be delayed past Sept. 30 deadline

Passage of a new Farm Bill for the next five years seems likely to be delayed, as chairs of the House and Senate agriculture committees say Congress may need to pass a short-term extension of the current law that expires Sept. 30, reports Leah Douglas of Reuters.

Senate Agriculture Chair Debbie Stabenow said "It would not surprise me" if a short-term extension will be needed. "We can't give you a date [for a draft], but we're moving as quickly as we can" in the Senate, she said at an event hosted by Bloomberg Government.

Stabenow said the process was delayed by debate over the recent debt-and-spending deal, including changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which the Farm Bill authorizes. Work requirements for the program, once known as food stamps, will now apply to people under 55, not 50.

House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson said the pandemic also delayed the lengthy process, and "said he hopes to have a draft bill ready for markup by the House in September," Douglas reports.

"The American Farm Bureau Federation has about 80 priorities for the new Farm Bill, but the group is focusing on risk management programs," reports Philip Gruber of Lancaster Farming. "These programs — like Dairy Margin Coverage and grain farmers’ Agriculture Risk Coverage — are the most relevant to farmers’ bottom line. For safety-net programs, Farm Bureau has two big goals — increase funding and reset payment thresholds. The rules of some commodity programs are such that farmers won’t get paid unless they have a crop failure," according to Farm Bureau Public Affairs VP Sam Kieffer, speakeing at the PennAgExpo.

USDA hides outlays to farmers with operating loans, saying it's lenders who get the checks; USDA is the biggest lender!

Environmental Working Group photo illustration

It's harder to track payments of farm subsidies because the U.S. Department of Agriculture is listing lenders rather farm owners in answering open-records requests from the Environmental Working Group, which has long maintained a database of the payments.

"For most of the 22 years EWG has tracked subsidies, USDA has released the names of all farm recipients," the group reports. "Now . . . when a recipient has an operating loan with any bank or other financial institution, USDA now releases the name of the bank or financial institution, not the person’s name. Farm subsidies are sent to the banks instead of the recipients, to help pay off farmers’ operating loans.

"This is not a new practice. But it is new for the USDA to give us the bank names instead of the farmers’ names. The change occurred when the Trump administration switched to a new reporting system in 2019. USDA claimed the move was to increase efficiency but gave no reason why the new system names banks instead of recipients. The agency has denied our appeals for the farmer names."

EWG says the policy "effectively conceals the beneficiaries of almost $3.1 billion in taxpayer dollars between 2019 and 2021," about 6 percent of the total. "But it also means we can garner unprecedented insight into the main lending institutions farmers use. Surprisingly, the financial institution that received the most farm subsidies was the USDA." Its Farm Service Agency "got almost $350 million in farm subsidies between 2019 and 2021, more than any other financial organization." How about asking for those payments' real parties in interest?

Farm Bureau backs farm-program boost, alliance with food advocates to pass Farm Bill as GOP plans non-defense cuts

The nation's largest organization of farmers and ranchers wants the new Farm Bill to expand funding for federal agriculture programs but that "may run into a roadblock in the House of Representatives," where Republicans in a new but thin majority "are calling for cutting up to 25% of spending in federal non-defense agencies," Chris Clayton reports for DTN/The Progressive Farmer.

American Farm Bureau Federation convention delegates in Puerto Rico "voted Tuesday to expand baseline funding for the Farm Bill and ask Congress to develop more flexible disaster-relief programs," Clayton notes. Most Farm Bill money funds nutrtion programs run by the Department of Agriculture, by far the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly food stamps. An alliance of farm and nutrition advocates has been key to passing farm and food programs, and delegates' voters confirmed that the lobbying interests "should stick together to get a Farm Bill passed," Clayton reports: Delegates "approved new policy to support access to nutrition programs including connecting farms directly with food banks, increasing the number of SNAP-approved food sales outlets, and other efforts to make produce available to families living in food deserts."

There will be less presure to get a five-year Farm Bill passed by Sept. 30, the end of the federal fiscal year, than in past cases, because the current law lets nutrition and crop-insurance programs continue, DTN Political Correspondent Jerry Hagstrom reports.

On other issues, the delegates "also want to see more crop insurance options for specialty crops" and "more transparency" in the federal milk-pricing system," a Farm Bureau press release said. "Changes they would like to see in milk programs include more USDA audits of processing costs to ensure data remains accurate," Clayton reports. "Farm Bureau would also like to see the Federal Milk Marketing Orders voting procedure changed that would require 'cooperatives to communicate more clearly with members regarding proposed changes'."

Whom does Farm Bureau represent? AFBF said a poll of the 334 delegates found that 99% of those who cast votes "operate family farms and almost 65% represent small- to mid-size farms as defined by USDA," Clayton reports.

Opinion: Rural America is listening for leadership to support its economic and social renewal, but hears mostly silence

America needs a coherent rural policy, writes Tony Pipa, a senior fellow at the Center for Sustainable Development at the Brookings Institution, leader of the Reimagining Rural Policy Initiative and host of its Reimagining Rural podcast.

"Despite widespread acknowledgment since 2008 that rural places have generally been left behind, our nation still lacks a coherent federal rural policy," Pipa writes for The New York Times. "The Rural Electrification Act, Title V of the Housing Act and other national-scale development programs helped bring rural America into the modern era, and its contributions helped make the American economy the envy of the world. But today’s federal programs were built for a different era. We need a renaissance of rural policy to enable a renaissance of rural America.

"What we have are lots of programs — over 400 available for community and economic development spread across every nook and cranny of the federal government. But navigating that maze and the peculiarities of their applications, reporting and matching requirements is a high bar for anybody, let alone the part-time volunteer elected officials and the bare-bones staffs that make up many local rural governments. That leaves most rural communities starved for investment. Very few can get the type and level of resources necessary to reinvent their economy or unleash the full potential of their human, intellectual and natural capital as they face rapid change."

Agricultural policy is often mistaken for rural policy, Pipa writes: "Farming now accounts for just 7 percent of rural employment. Service jobs, retailing, manufacturing and government employment all outweigh agriculture." And contrary to prevailing belief, rural America is ethnically and racially diverse: "People of color make up 24 percent of the rural population. Close to half of rural Native Americans and more than half of rural Black Americans live in a distressed county. That’s compared with 18 percent of rural white residents." The image of rural America as an overwhelmingly white place may have cooled some Democrats' interest in it, but elements of the Biden administration remain interested.

"While the Biden administration has started the Rural Partners Network to embed federal staff members in rural communities to help them identify and secure federal resources, the program is limited to select communities in just 10 states and Puerto Rico," Pipa notes. "The country needs a national rural prosperity strategy that offers a coherent vision for rural America in the 21st century. Someone at the highest levels of the White House should be responsible for its execution and cutting through the bureaucratic entanglements. Canada and Ireland, among other countries, have completed such policies and created cabinet-level positions to carry them out. Governors in Wisconsin and Michigan have created rural prosperity offices."

What about Congress? "Rural policy is one issue where Republicans and Democrats should be able to find common ground to work together," on such things as the new Farm Bill, Pipa writes. "Yet early indications signal high-profile fights over food stamps, agricultural subsidies and conservation investments — and limited attention to rural development. . . . Rural America is listening for how public leadership and resources can better support the economic and social renewal of rural communities, but it hears mostly silence."

FSA chief calls for relaxing rules on conservation-reserve land to help young livestock producers build their herds

(Photo by Priscilla Du Preez, Unsplash)

The federal Farm Service Agency is looking for ways to use Conservation Reserve Program land to help younger producers by putting marginal row-crop land into livestock production. FSA Administrator Zach Ducheneaux told Chris Clayton of Progressive Farmer, "We've got CRP land sitting all over the country. If we think about incentivizing the proper use of that instead of penalizing the regular use of it."

Erin Ogle, who works with the Southern Iowa Land Use Conversion Project in Taylor County, told Clayton, "There is a place for CRP, but producers also see the benefits of programs that would allow them to integrate livestock as well. There is a lot of CRP in Iowa, especially in southern Iowa." That’s where Ducheneaux recently advocated a change in federal law to help.

Ducheneaux told Clayton that Congress needs to stop the mindset of separating conservation and production: "Right now, policy dictates landowners face a 25% rental-payment penalty for CRP ground that is hayed or grazed unless the ground is in a county that has a D2 "severe drought" or higher designation by the U.S. Drought Monitor . . . That land is becoming more productive if we use it thoughtfully and it is a better reserve for the future if we use it thoughtfully."

As of July, USDA is accepting offers for more than 3.1 million acres from agricultural producers and private landowners through this year’s CRP Grassland Signup, the highest in history, its website says, along with providing some CRP highlights:

• Top states were Colorado (642,000 acres), South Dakota (nearly 425,000 acres) and Nebraska (nearly 422,000 acres).
• States with the highest increase in acres compared with last year include Arizona (141% increase), California (129%), and Utah (122%).

Don't separate food benefits from agricultural spending in next Farm Bill, American Farm Bureau Federation says

Congress is expected to begin work on the next Farm Bill early next year, and Republicans appear likely to be in control of the House. Expecting conservatives to bring up their past wish that Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits be separated from agricultural spending, the largest farm lobby again rejected that idea when it announced its priorities for the bill last week, Chuck Abbott reports for Successful Farming. 

Vincent "Zippy" Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, said "It makes perfect sense" to combine SNAP benefits with agricultural supports in the same bill, Abbott reports. The 2014 and 2018 farm bills were delayed "by attempts by conservative Republicans to slash SNAP spending and expand the program’s work requirements." Some conservative think tanks have argued for separating SNAP and farm benefits into separate bills. "Proponents say it would be easier to revamp SNAP that way; other analysts say the approach could put farm programs in peril. Only a small fraction of Americans live on the land," Abbott writes.

"This unified approach has the benefit of bringing farm advocates together with anti-hunger advocates, and it’s the right approach to take," Duvall said. The 2018 Farm Bill is set to expire this fall and SNAP accounts for at least three-fourths of its spending. SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, will cost $1.1 trillion over the next decade while mandatory farm programs will cost $168 billion, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Democrats' reconcilation bill has money that can be used for a 'climate-focused Farm Bill' next year, Stabenow says

The budget-reconciliation bill announced Thursday by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia has $20 billion for "voluntary conservation practices on the farm, such as cover crops, to sequester greenhouse gases in soils, plants, and trees," Chuck Abbott reports for Successful Farming.

Senate Agriculture Committee chair Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, said the money would allow the next Farm Bill, up for reauthorization next year, to be focused on climate. “We are equipping farmers, foresters, and rural communities with the necessary tools and resources to be a part of the solution and grow their local economies at the same time,” she said.

The bill has another $14 billion in rural spending and $5 billion for forests. It also "would extend or expand tax credits for sustainable aviation fuel, carbon capture, biodiesel, and renewable diesel," Abbott reports. "With the $20 billion earmarked for agricultural conservation, the Senate and House Agriculture committees could ramp up climate mitigation efforts that would otherwise go wanting." The bill "would prioritize practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase climate resiliency."

A one-page summary of the bill is available here. A summary of the bill’s climate and energy provisions is available here. The text of the bill is available here.

The Economist asks: Do farm subsidies sustain the decline of rural America, by encouraging larger and larger farms?

Nearly a decade of high crop prices and record farm subsidies from taxpayers isn't necessarily good news for rural America, says The Economist, a London-based global magazine that still calls itself a newspaper.

"Despite all this cash, rural America is in deep decline," says The Economist, which generally doesn't name its reporter/writers. "Two-thirds of rural counties lost population from 2010 to 2020, and the total population of rural America fell for the first time in history. The counties that grew were mostly not farming ones but pretty places where people go to retire, near mountains or the ocean, or those with lots of oil. The Midwestern areas which grow most of America’s food are shrinking fastest."

The population is shrinking, but the farms are not. As they are sold or merged into larger operations driven by mechanization, fewer people are needed to tend them. "Just 6 percent of jobs in rural areas are directly linked to farming, and "Most farms, even small ones, 'are highly capitalized agribusinesses growing one or two commodity crops and employing very few people'," says Anne Schechinger, an agricultural economist for the Environmental Working Group," a research-and-lobbying group that dislikes farm subsidies.

"Subsidies, largely in the form of crop insurance, help to ensure the food supply continues, and protect farmers from going bust during downturns," The Economist notes. " But they also determine what America farms—incentivizing farmers to grow vast amounts of soybeans and corn, as well as wheat, which is mostly exported. . . . Fresh fruit and vegetables, which Americans ought to eat more of, are more expensive to grow, and require more labor, but farmers receive almost no subsidies for them."

As farmers get wealthier, "The communities they live in are not," the Economist says, using as its object example North Dakota wheat farmer Phillip Volk, who "says that when he went to school, there were 40 children on his school bus. Today his youngest son goes on the bus with fewer than 10 classmates. His eldest son is likely to take over the farm, but future children may have to go to a boarding school. It is harder to find people to serve as voluntary officials on the school board and county government. Many young people end up moving to places where the job opportunities are more exciting, if not necessarily more profitable. Over half of the churches that used to serve the community have closed. . . . Helping out farmers is politically popular, not least because rural communities are over-represented in Congress. Yet the subsidies may in fact be sustaining the decline of rural America."

USDA surveys find more big farmers embrace cover crops

Just over half of the nation's largest farms said they planted cover crops in 2017, showing increased acceptance of the practice's benefits for soil health and water retention, according to a newly released Agriculture Department survey of 400 producers with production worth at least $500,000 a year (putting them in the top 7.4 percent of farms). Here are some takeaways from the poll:

• In 2017, farmers reported planting 15.4 million acres of cover crops, a 50% increase from 2012.
• 81% of growers with cover crops said the practice improved soil health and crop yields. One in seven said it improved soil health but not crop yields.
• 48% of farmers polled said they abandoned cover crops in the past or have never planted them before.
• Field-level surveys of crop fields found that expanded adoption of cover crops is highest on fields that include corn silage in the rotation and lowest on fields that include wheat.
• In 2018, about one-third of the acreage planted with a cover crop received a financial assistance payment from either federal, state, or other programs that support cover-crop planting.
• Most of the farmers who planted cover crops were fairly new to the practice. Half the farms with cover crops reported doing so for five years or less, and on 25% or less of their land. Only one-fourth of the growers who plant cover crops had done so for more than 10 years.

Farmland prices and rents in Midwest climb as farmers seek to expand amid booming agricultural economy

"Across the Midwest, prices to buy and rent farmland are climbing as demand is driven by rallying grain markets, historic government payments and low interest rates, according to economists, agricultural lenders and land managers," reports Jesse Newman of The Wall Street Journal. "The battle for farmland is playing out in small town community centers, online portals and parking lots, where . . . auctioneers are peddling parcels of land to farmers eager to cash in on the best commodity prices in nearly a decade. They are also presiding over intense jockeying for fields that can test the fabric of rural communities as a shrinking set of growers compete for control of the nation’s prime soil."

Some parcels of land are selling at or above prices in the farm boom almost a decade ago, say farmland managers. "U.S. farmland values surged in the decade leading up to 2014, more than tripling in big farm states like Iowa and Nebraska, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data. By 2020, however, land values in those states had fallen by about 15%, pressured by a drop in crop prices that cut farmers’ incomes and drove some out of business," Newman reports. "Now, a sharp turnaround in the farm economy is breathing new life into the land market. Farmland values rose during 2020 as soaring grain prices last fall revived farmers’ fortunes, according to February reports from three regional Federal Reserve Banks. Land prices in the Chicago Fed region, which covers parts of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin, climbed 6% last year, the largest such increase since 2012, the bank said."

An agriculture economy roundup from the University of Illinois' Farm Policy News illustrates the trend with charts and links to numerous reports. The trend is also reflected in rural Midwestern bankers' record-high sunny outlook on their local economies, compiled in Creighton University's Rural Mainstreet Index.

USDA announces $12 billion agriculture aid program; aims to reach smaller producers overlooked in previous aid

The Agriculture Department has announced a program to distribute more than $12 billion to farmers from the relief-and-stimulus bill passed at the end of December. USDA said the Pandemic Assistance for Producers program is meant to "reach a broader set of producers" than previous pandemic aid has.

"Most of the nearly $24 billion in coronavirus aid during the Trump administration was funneled toward big farmers and major commodities. White farmers collected almost 97 percent of the cash in the first round, said the Environmental Working Group, based on a review of USDA data. Advocates for small farmers and producers who sell their crops and livestock locally also said they had been given short shrift," Chuck Abbott reports for the Food and Environment Reporting Network. "Along with dedicating at least $6 billion to new forms of coronavirus relief, USDA said it would put a greater emphasis on reaching out to small and socially disadvantaged producers, specialty crop and organic producers, and timber harvesters, among others." Click here for an in-depth breakdown of how the money will be apportioned.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told Laura Reiley of The Washington Post that 0.1% of overall pandemic relief for agriculture went to Black farmers. "Of the 3.4 million farmers in the United States today, only 45,000 — 1.3% — are Black," Reiley writes, introducing an interview. "Vilsack said the Biden administration would be focused on closing those inequalities. USDA will battle three systemic problems concurrently, he said: a broken farm system, food insecurity and a health-care crisis." 

"Where statutory authority allows, the old programs will be refined," Natalina Sents reports for Successful Farming. "CFAP 2 sign-up will be reopened for at least 60 days beginning April 5, 2021. The [Farm Service Agency] has committed at least $2.5 million to improve outreach for this program and will partner with organizations to ensure socially disadvantaged communities are informed and aware of the application process."

Jump in net farm income driven by government payments, at a level that is unsustainable, agricultural economists write

The Agriculture Department's final 2020 Farm Sector Income Forecast predicted an increase in net farm income from $83.6 billion in 2019 to $119.6 billion in 2020. That's the good news. The bad news: that increase "did not come from the market. Instead, it took a $24.0 billion increase in federal- government direct farm-program payments to achieve this result," Harwood D. Schaffer and Daryll E. Ray of the University of Tennessee write in their latest "Policy Pennings" column.

The payments came mainly from pandemic relief programs (the Coronavirus Food Assistance Programs and the Paycheck Protection Program) as well as Market Facilitation Program payments meant to help farmers hurt by the trade war with China. "In this context, what is important is the near certainty that ad-hoc and disaster-assistance payments of this magnitude ($32.4 billion) will not continue very far into the future. It is also important to note that despite these large payments, 2020 farm debt increased by $16.6 billion (4.0 percent) between 2019 and 2020," Schaffer and Ray write. "This represents the continued increase in farm debt totaling $119.8 billion since 2013 and is relatively unrelated to the coronavirus."

It's noteworthy that farm debt is rising. "In 2013 the farm debt-to-equity ratio was 12.86 percent reaching a forecast 16.20% in 2020. Similarly, the debt-to-asset ratio increased from 11.39% to 13.95% over the same period," Schaffer and Ray write. "While this level of debt is not catastrophic for any given farm operation, it is not the farm at the average that is of critical concern, but rather the farm on the upper end of the debt spectrum where an event like the coronavirus and a spouse’s resulting loss of an off-farm income and health insurance could be enough to push a farm family into bankruptcy."

American farming families will be at risk until the government adopts policies that help farmers prosper without so much direct aid, Schaffer and Ray write.

Direct federal aid to farmers predicted to more than double in 2020, driving forecast of 41.3% rise in net farm income

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service has published the last of three 2020 Farm Sector Income Forecasts. The forecast is updated three times a year, usually in February, August and November. ERS released a webinar Wednesday discussing the findings. The recording is not yet available, but will be posted here soon. Here are some of the report's top findings:

• Direct government farm payments (excluding USDA loans and crop-insurance payments) are forecast to total $46.5 billion, a $24 billion (107.1%) increase from 2019. That's mostly because of supplemental and disaster assistance for the coronavirus pandemic.
• Net farm income, a broad measure of profits, is projected at $119.6 billion, a $36 billion (41.3%) increase from 2019. That figure is not adjusted for inflation.
• In inflation-adjusted 2020 dollars, net farm income is projected to increase $35 billion, also up 41.3% from 2019.
• Net cash farm income (a more precise measurement of profits) is predicted to increase $24.7 billion (22.6%) to $134.1 billion from last year. That figure is not adjusted for inflation.
• In inflation-adjusted 2020 dollars, net cash farm income is predicted to increase $23.4 billion, or 21.1%, from 2019. 
• Overall farm cash receipts are forecast to decrease $3.2 billion, or 0.9%, to $366.6 billion.
• Total animal and animal product receipts are predicted to decrease $9.7 billion, or 5.5% from 2019.
• Total crop receipts are forecast to increase $6.4 billion, or 3.3%, from 2019. Receipts for fruits, nuts, soybeans, vegetables, melons and sugar beets are projected to increase, while receipts for corn and cotton are expected to decrease.
• Total production expenses are predicted at $343.6 billion, a $5.2 billion (1.5%) decrease from 2019.
• Interest expenses are predicted to decrease $5.4 billion, or 25.9%, from 2019.
• Spending on livestock, poultry, oils and fuels is also expected to decline, but fertilizer spending is forecast to increase $1.1 billion, or 5.1%, from 2019. 
• Net rent to landlords is projected to increase $1.3 billion, or 7.6%, in 2020.
• Farm sector equity is projected to decline by 0.1% after adjusting for inflation.
• Farm sector assets are forecast at $3.12 trillion, a 1.5% rise from 2019, following increases in farm real estate assets and other investments and financial assets.
• Farm sector debt is projected at $435.2 billion, a 4% increase from 2019.
• Real estate debt is projected to increase 6.1% from 2019.
• Farm sector debt-to-asset levels, which have been trending higher since 2012, are predicted to increase again in 2020 to 13.95%. 
• Working capital is projected to increase 6% this year, after an 11.9% increase last year.

Here are the top findings from the September 2020 update and from the December 2019 update.

Food and farm workers need food, despite federal farm aid

President Trump has given farmers record amounts of pandemic relief, but many farmworkers, food-processing workers, and small family farmers need food assistance, according to dozens of food banks nationwide; meanwhile, hunger is rising in the U.S., particularly in states with a high proportion of rural residents, Christopher Walljasper and Gabriela Bhaskar report for Reuters.

"The Trump administration has paid farmers nearly $18 billion in direct payments since June through its Coronavirus Food Assistance Program, but nearly 92 percent of farmers in Wisconsin received less aid than it costs to run an average dairy in the state for a month," Reuters reports. "More than 54 million people in the United States could struggle to afford food during the pandemic, with the biggest increases in food insecurity in North Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin, according to Feeding America, a network of 60,000 U.S. food shelters."

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said the CFAP is meant to keep food on Americans' tables, but Reuters says much of the aid isn't reaching farmworkers, since the program doesn't stipulate that.

"The agriculture department has distributed 9.5 million food boxes since June under a program meant to funnel food quickly to those who need it, but food pantry workers say it will not be enough," Walljasper and Bhaskar report. "Weekly survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau and an annual study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that hunger is rising, particularly in rural states, after a decade of decline. By late September, Vermont, West Virginia and North Dakota topped the Bureau’s list, with a more than 50% increase in respondents saying they lacked enough to eat."