Farm Bill

House Passes 2026 Farm Bill: The Impact on U.S. Farmers

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:28:02 GMT

With a bipartisan vote of 224-200, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 7567 , the bipartisan Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, on April 30. In addition to extensive updates to food and agriculture programs in a budget-neutral package, this vote marks the farthest a farm bill has made it in Congress since the most recent reauthorization was signed into law in 2018.

After a series of floor debates and last-minute amendments, the bill now moves to the Senate with some notable changes, including:

Year-round E15 sales removed from bill to be voted on in two weeks
Late amendment includes language to strengthen the domestic supply of fertilizer
Pesticide liability protections were stripped from the bill

My amendment passed! Pesticide liability protections have been stripped from the farm bill. 🔥⚔️🔥
— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) April 30, 2026

“Working in Congress on behalf of our nation’s farmers, ranchers, and rural communities is an honor — even when the work requires debating the farm bill through the night,” says House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (PA-15). “I can think of no more important work than championing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and I am extremely pleased to see this bill pass out of the House of Representatives with a strong bipartisan vote.”

With a vote of 14 Democrats in favor, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 obtained the highest number of votes from the minority party on a House farm bill since 2008. Similarly, with over 96% of the GOP Conference voting in favor, this is the highest level of Republican support for a House farm bill in history, affirming the commitment of House Republicans to rural America.

“I especially want to thank all parties who were involved in the negotiations that allowed the farm bill to proceed to the floor and secure a future vote on year-round E15,” Thompson says. “Members of the Biofuels Caucus are tireless champions for rural America, and I look forward to joining them May 13 in advancing that important legislation.”

Swift Senate Action Needed

As the bill heads to the Senate for debate, Thompson reinforces that “farm country needs updated policy” that reflects current challenges in U.S. agriculture.

“The 2026 farm bill fills that gap,” Thompson says. “I look forward to seeing Chairman Boozman and the Senate make progress on this important legislation so we can get the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 sent to President Trump’s desk as soon as possible.”

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, along with all of the Democrats on the committee, says the committee looks forward to working with Senate Republicans on a bipartisan Farm Bill that can be successful on the Senate floor.

“We have been clear that the Farm Bill must address the needs of American farmers and families,” Klobuchar says. “With a five-year high in small farm bankruptcies, the Farm Bill must address rising input costs, provide new opportunities for domestic markets, and fight for a trade agenda that works for everyone. Senate Democrats are committed to ensuring all states are treated equally by delaying the new SNAP cost shifts and addressing the needs of farm country.”

Pesticide Amendment Passes

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-Fla.) highly debated bill passed the House, stripping the farm bill of pesticide liability provisions. Before the amendment, the bill’s original language reaffirmed EPA as the sole agency capable of determining the information listed on a pesticide label. Critics, including Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) advocates, worried the language would shield pesticide manufacturers from liability claims.

D.C. consultant Callie Eideberg, with the Vogel Group, saysthe provision’s controversy means the bill will likely have an uncertain future moving forward.

“This means that pesticide companies, the chemical companies, are now still going to be dealing with the status quo, dealing with different requirements from different states,” Eideberg says.

In a post on X, Rep. Luna reaffirmed her disapproval of glyphosate and other pesticides.

“I do not support giving blanket immunity to corporations at the expense of American families. Pesticides are linked to a 30% increase in childhood cancer and over 170 studies corroborate the evidence,” Luna says.

In a press release following the bill’s approval in the lower chamber, the Modern Ag Alliance, a group backed by chemical company Bayer and over 100 agriculture companies wrote, “Today, the House turned its back on the farmers who feed, fuel and clothe this country. By gutting common-sense crop protection provisions from the farm bill, lawmakers caved to anti-science MAHA activists instead of standing with those who grow our food.”

Iowa farmer Mark Jackson says it is “unfortunate” Congress could not give farmers support for chemical weed control products. Jackson said farmers should be allowed the “freedom to farm” and said glyphosate’s scientific approval process, and the product’s 50-year registration history make it a credible product for farmers to use.

“I think we need to rally around science, follow the science,” he adds.

Eideberg says as the bill moves to the Senate, the MAHA movement could continue to influence debates. She believes the smaller body of the Senate will bring a different dynamic to the issue.

“I think we’re going to see those MAHA influencers feeling very emboldened by this win today and pushing even harder in the Senate to get more of what they’re looking for,” she says.

Farmers Praise Passage of Farm Bill
Ohio farmer and National Corn Growers Association President Jed Bower says USDA programs are important to the success of corn farmers and rural communities, particularly as growers face their fourth year of net losses and struggle with high input costs.

“We look forward to working with our allies in Congress over the next two weeks to secure passage of the E15 legislation,” Bower says. “Thanks to continued efforts on this issue from our biofuel champions, Speaker Johnson promised a vote on E15, and we refuse to allow a handful of multi-million and multi-billion-dollar energy companies to derail our efforts. Allowing the year-round sale of E15 would help our growers by expanding ethanol sales while also saving consumers money at the pump at a time when fuel prices are on the rise.”

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) is looking forward to the Senate taking up the farm bill without delay as farmers face unprecedented challenges.

“The House-passed 2026 Farm Bill supports the farm safety net, preserves existing conservation programs that include opportunities for dairy and livestock producers, bolsters trade promotion programs while protecting common food names, recognizes the important role of dairy in nutrition, and supports animal health programs,” said NMPF President & CEO Gregg Doud. “All of these are important priorities to dairy farmers and the broader industry, and we appreciate the leadership shown by House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson and other dairy champions to get this legislation through the House.”

U.S. pork producers are praising a very significant section that provides “much-needed relief from the misguided California Proposition 12 ” in addition to expanding the Animal Health Protection Act to include improving animal disease traceability and requiring thorough documentation on USDA’s ability to protect producers from significant economic losses due to a foreign animal disease outbreak.

Prop. 12 is creating uncertainty for pork producers and raising costs across the supply chain. Congress has a role to restore regulatory clarity.

It’s time for a fix. #FixProp12

🎥 Video credit: @HouseAgGOP pic.twitter.com/lkAmG1bmAw
— NPPC (@NPPC) April 30, 2026

“Today’s House farm bill passage is a testament to the power of rural America when we stand up for our farms and future generations with a unified voice,” said Rob Brenneman, National Pork Producers Council president and pork producer from Washington County, Iowa. “We wholeheartedly thank our champions—House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson, Rep. Ashley Hinson, and others—for not backing down from the fight for what is right for rural America. He and congressional supporters on both sides of the aisle heard our plea to help America’s pork producers.”

Eideburg points out that opposition to the farm bill pork provisions in the House are coming from several fronts.

“First, it’s coming from animal welfare groups that want to see those requirements in place,” she says. “We want to see minimum standard requirements for gestation rates. This other opposition is coming from companies and farmers who have already complied with Prop 12 and they don’t want that requirement removed because then they are going to be a) at a competitive disadvantage and b) out a ton of capital investment that they made on their to comply.”

The bill reflects many of wheat farmers’ top priorities from modernizing farm credit and safeguarding international food aid programs to enhancing export competitiveness, says National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) President Jamie Kres.

“These provisions will help ensure America’s wheat farmers can remain resilient and globally competitive,” Kres says.

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Ethan Lane appreciates how Thompson and House leadership took the time to listen to real farmers and ranchers.

“Instead of caving to attacks on the livestock industry from shell activist groups that impersonate real producers, a bipartisan group of lawmakers advanced a bill that will provide certainty and important policy fixes for cattle country,” Lane says. “We look forward to engaging with the Senate to advance this farm bill to the president’s desk.”

Industry Says This Farm Bill is Needed Now

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) CEO Ted McKinney says this legislation supports farmers, ranchers and consumers while providing economic growth opportunities for rural communities. H.R. 7567 prioritizes provisions that strengthen local food purchasing programs, enhance international market opportunities, reauthorize the three-legged stool for foreign animal disease prevention and preserve the viability of the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.

The American Veterinary Medical Association says the inclusion of the Healthy Dog Importation Act is just one of the many key veterinary provisions they applaud in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. This would improve importation standards to ensure a dog is healthy when imported into the U.S., which is especially important considering New World screwworm in Mexico continues to move closer to the U.S. border.

“The AVMA applauds the House for advancing a Farm Bill that will strengthen dog importation standards, fund and assess federal programs vital to veterinary medicine, and protect the country’s animal and public health,” says Dr. Michael Q. Bailey, AVMA president. “Enacting the Farm Bill is essential to advancing research into effective recruitment and retention strategies for veterinarians serving in rural and underserved communities. With the legislation now moving to the Senate for consideration, we look forward to working further with Congress and will continue to underscore the importance of including veterinary priorities in the final version of the Farm Bill.”

Now, Not Tomorrow

After voting in support of the bill, Congressman Rick W. Allen (GA-12) says, “Rural America needs a new Farm Bill now, not tomorrow. With today’s passage of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act, House Republicans have once again reaffirmed our commitment to American agriculture and delivered for hardworking growers and producers.”

Eideburg says funding for SNAP program will likely be a major fight in the Senate. The “One Big Beautiful Bill” shifted some costs within the program to state governments. She says the funding restructure and the combined potential vote to ban soda from SNAP could cause tension in the upper chamber.

She also says year-round E15 provisions, which were taken from the farm bill and punted for a vote in the House next week, could see as much opposition in the Senate.

“This really is a big hurdle to get E15, year-round E15 over the line.”

House Ag Committee Starts Farm Bill Mark Up

Mon, 02 Mar 2026 16:24:43 GMT

The push to get a five-year farm bill has been renewed in the House Ag Committee as Chairman G.T. Thompson released language and mark up began on Tuesday.

One Big Beautiful Bill Omits Farm Bill Titles

While some question why a new long term farm bill is needed, a cross section of the nation’s farm groups explain the bill did not cover all the titles normal included in a long-term farm bill.

“We had a lot of the provisions of the farm bill that were included in the One Big Beautiful Bill — the increase in reference prices, some changes and improvements to crop insurance, etc. But there’s still some really important aspects of the farm bill that need to be passed,” says Steve Censky, chief executive officer of the American Soybean Association.

Sam Kieffer, chief executive officer of the National Association of Wheat Growers, points out the One Big Beautiful Bill did not touch the conservation title or reauthorize programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Nor did the legislation deal with credit or expand farm loan limits.

“It is time to give our folks some certainty when it comes to conservation programs, when it comes to credit. The cost of doing business is drastically different than it was in 2018. And the 2018 Farm Bill was based off of data from three, four years prior. So, we want to make sure that we improve the credit section of of the farm bill, get that finished,” Kieffer says.

Farm Safety Net Needed

Kieffer adds a farm bill is also needed to provide certainty to farmers and offer a farm safety net in times of negative margins.

“There’s three years of market loss that our growers are struggling with at the moment, and they’re making hard decisions. Some of them are reducing acres, some of them are letting land go and there’s a price to be paid for that as well,” Kieffer says.

House Ag Committee Language Includes Prop 12 Ag Labeling Uniformity Act

Chairman Thompson’s farm bill language includes a Ag Labeling Uniformity Act, which covers pesticide registrations, according to Censky.

“Which means that the EPA is going to have preeminence when they make a health and safety determination of a pesticide, a crop protection product. You can’t have a state adopt different rules,” Censky says.

The House language also includes a national fix to California’s strict Prop 12 sow production standards and the possible patchwork of rules in other states.

However, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) would lose around $1 billion in budget authority over the next four fiscal years under the House Agriculture Committee’s GOP farm bill draft, according to calculations by the Congressional Budget Office. EQIP was essentially used as a funding source for other priorities in the legislation.

Include Food for Peace Program

Kieffer says NAWG also wants Congress to move the Food for Peace Program to USDA in the language of the Farm Bill.

“USDA knows how to deal with farm commodities. USDA is already in the business of engaging in food aid programs globally. They have the infrastructure. They have the personnel and they understand agriculture. So, the farm bill that is ready to be moved in the house here soon has a provision that would include that,” Kieffer adds.

Senate Preparing for Farm Bill Mark Up

While the Senate Agriculture Committee has not released farm bill language or scheduled a mark-up, chairman John Boozman told Agri-Pulse his committee will take up a farm bill of its own in the coming months. Timing will be dependent in part on how debate over a House version proceeds.

Will Congress Pass a Farm Bill?

Still there’s uncertainty about the appetite for passage of a farm bill in Congress according to Tim Lust, chief executive officer of National Sorghum Producers.

“A lot of these details honestly have been negotiated for a year or two, and it’s maybe little tweaks to them, but a lot of the main things haven’t really changed. It’s a matter of how do we get that across the finish line and find a way to get it signed into law?” he says.

Beyond An '80s Buyout: A New Voluntary Approach to Dairy Surpluses and Beef Supply

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 17:03:41 GMT

The dairy industry is no stranger to the relentless cycle of “low prices cure low prices,” a brutal reality where dwindling profits force producers to consider exiting the business. The rearview mirror of history reveals a pattern: When milk prices plummet, the government intervenes.

From the 1980s to more recent times, various assistance programs have attempted to curb milk supply and stabilize prices with mixed results. Now, as dairy producers once again grapple with challenging margins and low milk prices, a new farmer-driven proposal is emerging.

Voluntary Program to Cull Dairy Cows

The Make America More Ground Beef (MAMGB) initiative is designed to help dairy farmers monetize surplus dairy-origin cattle, increase domestic beef supply and help lower grocery prices for American families. Bolstered by Western United Dairies, it is not a mandate but a voluntary program open to all U.S. dairy operations, potentially launching as early as this spring.

Anja Raudabaugh, CEO of Western United Dairies, a trade organization that represents more than 75% of milk produced in California, says they’re answering the Trump’s administration’s call to make real food affordable while putting American farmers first.

“This plan is something new and different. We don’t have to choose between America’s affordable access to high quality nutrition and farmers’ bottom lines,” Raudabaugh says. “Incentivizing farmers to cull only what’s needed to generate affordability for the American consumer is a win-win. It is not a herd buyout, and there are guardrails to ensure the cows end up in slaughter. We want to ensure the U.S. dairy industry stays strong and resilient in the future, and that we have a long-term, reliable supply of American-grown beef in our feedlots.”

Recently, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) has been vocal in opposition to such government interventions. During the organization’s recent annual convention, an amendment was made from the floor because “USDA started having talks about a dairy buyout program to bring down beef prices,” said Mike McCormick, Mississippi Farm Bureau president, when introducing the amendment.

AFBF delegates added language by unanimous consent opposing “any federally funded dairy buyout program that has the potential to create further market volatility in livestock market sectors.”

“Discussions of such a program are deeply concerning. We need solutions that benefit all of agriculture, not solutions that benefit one ag sector at the expense of another,” says John Newton, vice president of public policy and economic analysis with AFBF. “Solutions to help farmers should be market-driven and lasting, not short-term actions that could potentially damage the long-term strength of agriculture. We recognize the challenges facing dairy farmers and look forward to partnering with them to find solutions that work for all of agriculture.”

A Legacy of Government Intervention

The MAMGB proposal follows a long history of interventions, starting with the first significant federal effort to address milk surpluses in 1984-1985 with the USDA-Administered Milk Diversion Program. Responding to a surge in surplus dairy product purchases that cost USDA $2.7 billion in 1983, Congress enacted a temporary program. Farmers were paid $10 per cwt. to reduce their milk marketings by 5% to 30%, funded by a farmer assessment.

While $955 million was paid out and milk production was reduced by an estimated 3.74 to 4.11 billion pounds in 1984, the program suffered from “adverse selection” and “moral hazard” issues. Many participants had already reduced production, and non-participants expanded, leading to no measurable impact on national average milk price or overall production trends. Milk supply quickly rebounded, prompting further intervention.

This led to the more drastic 1986-1987 Milk Buyout Program (Dairy Termination Program - DTP), part of the 1985 farm bill. The goal was ambitious: Reduce U.S. milk production by 12 billion pounds annually by paying farmers to permanently exit production. Approximately 15,000 farmers accepted bids, removing about 1.55 million cows at a cost of $1.8 billion. However, like its predecessor, the DTP faced “free-rider” problems; non-participating farms increased their output, offsetting the intended reduction. While growth remained flat, national milk production did not decline as significantly as intended.

“The Dairy Termination Program, or Whole Herd Buyout, legislated in the 1985 farm bill, was a response to the now discontinued dairy price support program that had ratcheted milk prices to a level that was generating very costly surpluses of government dairy product purchases under the program,” says Peter Vitaliano, long-time chief economist of the National Milk Producers Federation. “Our analysis suggests that DTP and support price reductions during 1986-90 have proven to be a cost-effective means of reducing the quantity and expense of government purchases under the price support program.”

According to Vitaliano, the beef cattle industry strongly opposed any future legislated programs due to the impact on the cattle market and prices.

“The current political sensitivity about food affordability could also attract a wider focus on any legislated program to ‘elevate milk prices,’ he says.

Following these federal efforts came industry-funded voluntary herd buyouts from 2004 to 2011 through the National Milk Producers Federation Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) program. Dairy farmer cooperatives collectively aimed to reduce the milk supply by more than 1 billion pounds annually, ultimately removing an estimated 510,000 milking cows over seven years, with a notable 250,000 in 2009.

“The CWT program, a consortium of dairy cooperatives, initially operated a herd retirement program, loosely modeled on the DTP, in addition to an export assistance program,” Vitaliano says. “It attracted some class-action lawsuits brought under various state antitrust-type laws that resulted in a large legal settlement. This has established some legal precedents that would doubtless prove cautionary to undertaking a similar program in the future.”

A more recent concept, the Dairy Market Stabilization Program (DMSP), was debated in the 2014 farm bill. This proposed program would have been coupled with the Margin Protection Program (MPP), levying penalties on dairy farmers who didn’t reduce supply when MPP margins fell below certain thresholds. Though not enacted, historical analysis shows DMSP would have been infrequently triggered, highlighting the challenge of effective supply control.

How Make America More Ground Beef Would Work

Western United Dairies shares the MAMGB program aims to divert 800,000 to 1 million additional dairy-origin cattle in spring 2026, injecting an estimated 900 million to 1.1 billion pounds of lean trim into the ground beef market. This added supply is projected to:

Lower retail ground beef prices by 18% to 25%.
Increase overall beef demand.
Support packing plants and rural jobs. This aligns with national dietary guidance encouraging affordable, high-quality protein.

MAMGB offers two voluntary tracks with payments on top of normal market sale prices:

Immediate Cull Track. For culling dairy cows of any age or condition, this track offers $1,600 per head, plus a $200 early-delivery bonus, for a total potential payment of up to $1,800 per head, paid upon proof of slaughter within 30 days.
Feedlot Beef Track. For dairy heifers over 400 lb. shipped to approved feedlots for a minimum finishing period, this track offers $1,800 per head, plus a $200 early bonus, for a total potential payment of up to $2,000 per head.

MAMGB is designed with guardrails to protect long-term dairy viability:

Above-Baseline Rule. Incentives apply only to additional animals beyond a farm’s normal culling levels.
Strict Dairy-Only Verification. Ensures only dairy-origin animals qualify through breed checks, RFID and packer attestations.
Capacity Safeguards. Real-time monitoring can pause regional signups if packing plants near 90% capacity, preventing bottlenecks.
USDA-Aligned Caps. Per-entity payment caps adhere to standard USDA program limits.

Dairy Industry Optimism and Growth

Michael Dykes, CEO of the International Dairy Foods Association, stresses the industry’s eagerness for growth among both dairy producers and processors.

“The U.S. dairy industry is growing thanks to record domestic demand and exports and innovation from the farm to the plant. Dairy is meeting the moment because it delivers what matters most today — flavor, affordability and complete nutrition,” he says. “That growth has led dairy processors to invest more than $11 billion in new processing capacity to come online by 2028. We’re optimistic that our industry will continue to grow with the passage of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act and the recently released Dietary Guidelines that recognizes the nutritional benefits of dairy in all fat levels. Our industry continues to produce innovative new products that meet the evolving consumer interests, and we’ll continue to grow dairy’s market share at home and abroad in the coming years for the benefit of the entire industry.”

This excitement has spread from boardrooms to barns, driving remarkable growth in milk production across the U.S. The latest USDA Milk Production Report details a vigorous increase in milk output. November’s milk production in the 24 major states reached a total of 18.1 billion pounds, reflecting a 4.7% increase from the previous year.

Phil Plourd, president of Ever.Ag Insights, says he looks at cow numbers first and with 211,000 more cows year-over year, he says it will be a while before we see a dramatic slowdown in milk production.

“We’ve got over 200,000 more cows, and those cows are producing around 20 pounds more milk than last year,” adds Robin Schmahl of AgMarket.net. “We have a lot of milk.”

As the dairy industry continues its perennial battle against the “low prices cure low prices” cycle, the landscape of intervention remains complex and ever-evolving. History shows a clear pattern of attempts, from direct government payments to voluntary buyouts and proposed stabilization programs, each with its own set of challenges and limited long-term success in fundamentally altering market dynamics. What remains constant is the dairy producer’s pursuit of resilience and profitability. Whether through farm diversification, such as the strategic growth of beef-on-dairy, or through collective industry efforts, the quest for stable margins and a sustainable future continues to drive innovation and adaptation.

Another Temporary Fix: Stopgap Bill Includes Farm Bill Extension — Is This the New Normal for Ag Policy?

Tue, 11 Nov 2025 15:26:51 GMT

A new stopgap spending bill to reopen the government also extends key Farm Bill programs for one year—covering the provisions left out of July’s budget package. While the Senate waits on the House to vote, it brings up what some economists think may be a new reality: the days of passing a comprehensive Farm Bill may be over, and a piecemeal approach could be the new norm in Washington.

It’s been about 6 years and 11 months since Congress passed a new, comprehensive (5-year) farm bill. This week, the continuing resolution (CR), which funds the federal government through January 30, includes an extension of the current farm bill, again. This prevents outdated “permanent law” provisions from taking effect. Without action, those Depression-era statutes could have triggered mandatory price supports for certain commodities, disrupting markets.

The bill also includes an extension of the U.S. Grain Standards Act, ensuring official grain inspection and weighing services continue without interruption.

Senate Votes 60–40 to Advance the Measure

The Senate advanced the package in a 60–40 vote Sunday night, providing farmers relief from uncertainty over whether core safety-net programs might lapse.

An earlier package dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” increased funding for commodity programs, crop insurance, and export promotion, but it left out several smaller and conservation-related initiatives—including the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The new CR temporarily fills that gap while Congress works toward a full Farm Bill reauthorization.

Boozman: “Critical USDA Services Resume”

Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, praised the bill’s passage, emphasizing its importance for both producers and rural communities.

“Ending the government shutdown ensures critical USDA services resume so vulnerable families no longer experience disruptions to nutrition benefits, farmers can access the programs and personnel they rely on to keep their operations running efficiently and disaster assistance is delivered,” Boozman said in a statement.“We advanced long-overdue farm bill policy improvements in the One Big Beautiful Bill, including enhanced risk management tools farmers have been calling for, and we’re continuing work to reauthorize other key initiatives. Extending the farm bill and the U.S. Grain Standards Act gives us more time to finalize these programs essential to farmers, ranchers and rural America.”

Is This the New Norm?

The extension buys lawmakers additional time to complete a comprehensive Farm Bill reauthorization, expected to be one of the top legislative priorities in early 2026.

But the loss of urgency to pass a new, comprehensive five-year farm bill may be due to the fact Congress included key enhancements to the Farm Safety Net in the One Big Beautiful Bill earlier this year. The Farm Journal Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists in July if that makes it more difficult or easier to pass a Farm Bill this year. 70% said yes. And in September, the Monthly Monitor asked when Congress will pass a new farm bill. Nearly 40% (39%) said a piecemeal approach for passing the farm bill is the new norm.

According to the Congressional Research Service, Sections 10101 and 10108 (Title I, Agriculture) would increase federal outlays by about $52.3 billion + $1.6 billion over 10 years.

The American Farm Bureau Federation says the bill directs about $65.6 billion in new agricultural investment over 10 years: ~$59 billion for core farm safety-net enhancements, ~$6.6 billion for other ag priorities.

Key Farm Bill-style Provisions in the OBBB

Here’s a breakdown of major provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that impact legislation within the Farm Bill:

1. Extension & enhancement of commodity support / safety-net programs

The bill extends core programs originally in the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) through crop year 2031.
Reference prices under the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program are raised.
The Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program’s revenue guarantee is increased (for example, from 86% to 90%) and maximum payment rates increased.
Marketing Assistance Loan rates are increased.
The bill provides a one-time opportunity for eligible producers to update base acres (“new base acre holdings”).

2. Crop insurance and disaster assistance

Premium subsidies for crop insurance increase; the bill boosts coverage levels for the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) and Whole Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) policies.
Disaster assistance programs are expanded: loss types eligible are broadened, thresholds for payment triggers are lowered, and coverage levels increased.

3. Dairy, sugar, and specialty commodities

For dairy: The bill increases the amount of milk production a producer can enroll in the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program. Also, it requires dairy product manufacturers to report cost/yield data so that “make allowances” under the federal milk marketing order system can be updated.
For sugar: Under the sugar support program, priority is given to sugar-beet processors if marketing allotments are raised; the bill also mandates reallocation of tariff-rate quota shortfalls by March 1 and requires USDA to report on refined sugar imports.

4. Agricultural research, animals, trust funds, and miscellaneous programs

Section 10108 of the bill funds: the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, National Animal Disease Preparedness Response Program, and the National Animal Vaccine and Veterinary Countermeasures Bank.
Extends funding for trust funds supporting pima cotton, wool, certain textile, and citrus industries.
Miscellaneous investments in horticulture, energy (for agriculture), trade promotion, and rural infrastructure also included.

While nothing is easy in Washington, it seems addressing portions of farm bill funding within other legislation is the path of least resistance. Which could change the way farm bills are shaped - and passed through Congress- in the years ahead.

Opposition to the Farm Bill Extension

While most farm groups applaud the one-year extension of the 2018 Farm Bill, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) says it comes with potential issues for small and medium size farmers.

“The Senate’s deal to reopen the government has a number of problems that will hurt farmers and rural communities. The Senate attaches a 12-month Farm Bill extension to the deal, setting up the possibility for more chaos just a year from now,” says Michael Happ, Program Associate for Climate and Rural Communities. “Even worse, it is not a clean extension. The text proposes eliminating payment limitations for Farm Bill conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). In most years, well over half of applicants to EQIP are turned away due to a lack of funds — and without payment limits, the USDA will likely issue fewer, larger EQIP contracts. By getting rid of the payment limit, the Senate opens the door for more of EQIP’s finite resources to be diverted to the largest operations while more small and midscale farms are closed out.”

IATP is urging the Senate needs to keep payment limits in place and go back to the negotiating table.

What's Missing in the Big Beautiful Bill When It Comes to Agriculture?

Tue, 10 Jun 2025 17:04:35 GMT

The fate of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill is with the Senate. The 1,000-page bill includes nearly $4.9 trillion in tax breaks and budget cuts, and is also packed with priorities that cover agriculture . That includes one provision that will allow community banks to pass along lower interest rates to ag producers. However, not all of agriculture’s wants are in the bill.

American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) recently dug into the details of the massive bill being debated in Washington. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the House-passed version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would increase spending for agriculture-facing programs by $56.6 billion over the next decade. Of that increase, $52.3 billion is for enhancements to the current farm safety net, including higher reference prices for ARC and PLC, and $4.3 billion is for trade promotion, livestock biosecurity, research and rural school funding.

According to AFBF, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would increase agriculture-facing programs spending by $56.6 billion over the next decade (fiscal years 2025–2034).

(American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) )

According to AFBF, here’s what the current version of the bill includes for farm bill provisions (Title 1, Subtitle B-Investment in Rural America):

Updates and funding for many core agriculture titles through 2031.
Enhancements to safety nets including ARC, PLC and Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) through the 2031 crop year.
Increases to reference prices for major covered commodities between 11% to 21% under the farm bill provisions of the bill.
Addition of a reference price escalator mechanism beginning in the 2031 crop year, which AFBF says would increase reference prices by 0.5% annually on a compounded basis. That increase is capped at 115% of the original statuary value.
Permits for farmers to add up to 30 million new base acres
Updates to ARC by adjusting revenue guarantee and the payment cap beginning in 2025. That would increase the coverage threshold to 90% of benchmark revenue, and increase the payment cap of 10% to 12.5%.
Enhancements to the DMC program and an increase of Tier 1 coverage eligibility from 5 million pounds to 6 million pounds per farm.

Proposed changes to the safety net

(AFBF)

Changes to Conservation Programs
AFBF’s analysis of the reconciliation bill shows long-term funding authority for USDA’s major conservation programs will continue through 2031. That includes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).

The levels are higher than what was included in the 2018 farm bill, but align with funding under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), making these programs permanent baseline versus new program expansions.

AFBF says the bill doesn’t retain all IRA-funded initiatives.

“For example, it rescinds $450 million in unobligated IRA funds that had been allocated for competitive forestry grants to non-federal landowners. According to the Congressional Budget Office, these adjustments collectively result in a net reduction of $1.8 billion in conservation spending over the next decade,” said the AFBF analysis. “The bill also renews smaller initiatives that were not funded in the last farm bill extension. This includes the Grassroots Source Water Protection program, which safeguards well water, and the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive program, which rewards farmers for opening land to hunting and recreation. In addition, the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program, a vital initiative to combat over $1.6 billion in annual damages caused by invasive wild pigs, is extended with new funding through 2031.”

Focus on Trade
Another important element included in the House version of the Big Beautiful Bill includes establishing a new Agricultural Trade Promotion and Facilitation Program, which would be similar to Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD), while also providing $285 million annually in permanent, mandatory funding through a separate account.

“Because the bill does not modify or replace MAP or FMD, which are typically funded at $200 million and $34.5 million per year, respectively, the new program effectively doubles USDA’s total trade promotion capacity,” said AFBF’s analysis.

National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) CEO Bryan Humphreys says the trade portion of the bill, as well as the tax provisions, are a “win” for livestock producers.

“We’re very pleased with what came out of the House version. We included in there were animal health priorities, some additional funding for MAP and FMD to promote our product internationally, and then, of course, the tax package was included in there on things like 179, bonus depreciation and estate taxes,” he says. “We are very pleased those were in there even if some of our other assets we need to be in the farm bill weren’t able to make it in there.”

Humphreys says the House version of the reconciliation bill includes funding for animal health priorities, including $233 million per year on animal disease prevention and response.

What’s Not in the Bill?
According to Humphreys, there’s one major priority that didn’t make it into the Big Beautiful Bill — and that’s provisions for Prop 12.

“We still need a farm bill to address Proposition 12 in California. At the end of the day, this is an issue that, as California continues to regulate outside of their borders, is not just a pork industry issue. It is an American agriculture issue,” he says. “We’ve been asking — along with the American Farm Bureau, Corn, Soy and others — for Congress to address this issue of California regulating farmers outside of their borders. And we still need that to be addressed.”

Humphreys says a farm bill is still needed to address Proposition 12 in California. But if a farm bill doesn’t happen this year, Humphreys says NPPC is exploring other options to do it.

“Even though there are other solutions for Proposition 12 and other potential vehicles out there that we’ll continue to explore with our friends on the Hill, at the end of the day, we still believe as American pork producers that America and the pork industry need a farm bill — a skinny version, a large version or whatever. We need to maintain that coalition not just for now, but for decades to come as well. We’re not ready to give up on that yet,” Humphreys says.

Renewable Energy In The Bill
Energy programs are another area of focus under the reconciliation bill. According to AFBF, USDA’s farm energy and biofuel programs are reauthorized through 2031 to spur renewable energy innovation in rural America. That would include the Biobased Markets Program, which is a program that promotes biobased products through federal procurement. It also addresses the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels, which provides payments to producers of biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol and other next-generation fuels.

Tax Provisions That Would Benefit Ag

Farm CPA Paul Neiffer calls the tax provisions within the House version of the bill “very favorable for agriculture,” rating them a 8 or 9 out of 10. Here’s why:

As of Jan. 20, farmers will have 100% bonus depreciation for the next four years
The Section 199A deduction that was at the 20% level will now be bumped up to the 23% level.
Cooperative deductions will still be included
Starting next year, Section 179 will increase to $2.5 million, up from $1 million
An increase in the gift tax exemption amounts to $15 million per individual and $30 million per couple, adjusted for inflation annually.

Neiffer say farmers who’ve built net worth through land or other assets, there’s a piece of the legislation that will also benefit them.

“The lifetime exemption starting next year will be $15 million, and it’s made permanent,” Neiffer says.

Lower Interest Rates for Ag Producers?

If the bill passes, agricultural producers could also see lower interets rates for loans. According to Jeff T. Kanger, president of First State Bank in Lincoln, Nebraska, there’s another provision that will allow community banks to pass along lower interest rates to ag producers and rural housing.

“The community banks have less tax exposure and can therefore pass along some interest savings to customers,” Kanger told AgWeb. “This provision is very important to a lot of our growers.”

It’s called the “Exclusion of interest on loans secured by rural or agricultural real property.” According to the provision text, it “allows for a partial exclusion of interest on certain loans secured by rural or agricultural real estate. Speciﬁcally, it allows for the exclusion of 25 percent of interest received by a qualiﬁed lender on any qualiﬁed real estate loan.”

What’s Next?
The Senate could roll out its version of bill later this week, which is expected to include changes from the House’s version that passed in May by one vote.

House Speaker Mike Johnson also said this week he still believes July 4 is a realistic target for passing President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill.”

Big, Beautiful Bill: What's in it for Agriculture?

Thu, 15 May 2025 20:06:14 GMT

House Republicans are holding hearings this week about President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” The bill could benefit agriculture, including positive tax provisions for farmers, an extension for 45Z and an increase in farm bill reference prices. However, potential changes to SNAP and putting more of the burden on states are also raising concerns.

Pieces of the overall bill passed both the House Agriculture Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee this week. Committee markup is the first test the provisions had to pass. The provisions from each committee will then be inserted into the overall bill.

The House Ways and Means Committee’s portion includes making 2017 tax cuts permanent, eliminating the estate tax and reducing taxes on interest income for agricultural loans.

Farm CPA Paul Neiffer calls the tax provisions very favorable for agriculture, rating them a 8 or 9 out of 10. Here’s why:

As of Jan. 20, farmers will have 100% bonus depreciation for the next four years
The Section 199A deduction that was at the 20% level will now be bumped up to the 23% level.
Cooperative deductions will still be included
Starting next year, Section 179 will increase to $2.5 million, up from $1 million
An increase in the gift tax exemption amounts to $15 million per individual and $30 million per couple, adjusted for inflation annually.

Neiffer say farmers who’ve built net worth through land or other assets, there’s a piece of the legislation that will also benefit them.

“The lifetime exemption starting next year will be $15 million, and it’s made permanent,” Neiffer says.

The draft legislation also includes an extension of 45z tax credit. Established by the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed in 2022, it provides a tax credit for the production and sale of low-emission transformation fuels.

Increase in Reference Prices

On Wednesday night, the House Agriculture Committee passed its portion of the budget reconciliation package, but not without debate around farmer interests versus food stamps.

According to the House Ag Committee, the provisions increase Price Loss Coverage (PLC) reference prices to levels proposed last year. Those include:

$4.10 per bushel for corn
$10 for soybeans
$6.35 for wheat

“Essentially, they took the proposal from last year and are going to stick it in this bill,” Neiffer says. “We’re going to have about a 10%-to-20% increase. Since it was effective immediately, I thought it might apply to the ’24 crop, but Jim Wiesemeyer reached out to let me know it’s likely going to apply for ’25. The problem I have with that, they were talking about immediate help for farmers, which if they’re applied to ’24, they’d be getting the help in October ’25. Now, if it’s applied to ’25, their help isn’t going to be until October ’26, at the earliest.”

In the proposal, farmers would also see payment limits increase from $125,000 per individual or entity to $155,000, starting with the current 2025 crop year.

Those in favor of the increase in reference prices on the House Ag Committee argue this is a vital lifeline for farmers at a time of great financial need.

“Since 2019, SNAP costs have skyrocketed from $60 billion to $110 billion annually, an 83% increase, while enrollment has grown from 36 million to 42 million,” said House Ag Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA).

“The truth is our current farm safety net hasn’t kept up — it’s outdated and often it doesn’t even get triggered when prices drop,” says Rep. Zach Nunn, R-Iowa. “This is an investment that will provide predictability when prices fall and another provision to keep our crop insurance programs strong and intact.”

The Fight in the House Ag Committee Over SNAP

That includes a projected $290 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next decade.

The plan also removes $290 billion from the program, redirecting some of that money to farmers by expanding support for commodities and crop insurance.

But Democrats on the committee spoke out against the cuts to SNAP benefits calling them a non-starter.

“The average SNAP benefit is about $6 per day. Let me say that again, $6 a day. You don’t build a life on SNAP. You build a bridge to the next paycheck,” says Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn. “The cuts you are proposing to SNAP would be the largest rollback of an anti-hunger program in our nation’s history.”

Both the Committee’s portion of the legislation will also be rolled together into the bigger reconciliation package and must be reconciled with the Senate bill.

While it’s a long road until the complete bill is passed in Congress, Trump has said he wants this passed and plans to sign it on July 4.

Ag Groups React

The majority of ag groups support the tax provisions, saying this will be beneficial to farmers.

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) says the tax package must be approved by the House of Representatives as part of the reconciliation process.

“The Death Tax is a death warrant for family businesses and the top threat to family-owned cattle operations. NCBA has been working with members on and off the Ways and Means Committee for months to educate them about the needs of cattle producers and advocate for the tax provisions that are the most effective for cattle operations,” said NCBA President and Nebraska cattleman Buck Wehrbein. “This work would not have been possible without the broad participation we had in NCBA’s tax survey from producers, who detailed the struggles they have had with paying the Death Tax and what they would like to see in a broader tax package. This is a huge victory for grassroots advocacy and everyone that made their voice heard—from the producers that have not paid the Death Tax yet—to those that have paid it multiple times to avoid losing their livelihoods.”

Associations representing row crop farmers applaud the House Ag Committee’s push to adjust reference prices.

“We appreciate Chairman Thompson’s efforts to include key agricultural investments in must-pass legislation,” said Illinois farmer and National Corn Growers (NCGA) President Kenneth Hartman Jr.

However, the cuts to SNAP are a concern for others. The National Young Farmers Coalition, a group who says its vision is to create a future where farming is “free of racial violence, accessible to communities, oriented towards environmental well-being, and concerned with health over profit,” is against the proposed cuts.

“This budget proposal is a betrayal of the values that sustain our food system. These are not the investments young farmers need,” said Erin Foster West, Policy Campaigns Director of the National Young Farmers Coalition . “Instead of passing a bipartisan Farm Bill that builds resilience for farmers and families alike, this bill fast-tracks harmful cuts to nutrition programs that serve as both a safety net for families and a revenue stream for farmers. It trades long-term food security for short-term austerity.”

59% of Ag Economists Think Congress Won’t Pass a New Farm Bill Until 2026

Thu, 08 May 2025 21:44:55 GMT

It’s a contentious battle continuing to play out in Congress. Two years overdue, Congress still hasn’t passed a new farm bill, and as the calendar approaches the half-way point of 2025, optimism of passing a farm bill this year is waning.

The April Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor found most agricultural economists think it could be 2026 before we see Congress finally pass a new bill. One reason why, according to agricultural economists, is the fact Congress passed $10 billion in financial relief payments late last year.

The April Monthly Monitor asked the nearly 70 ag economists surveyed each month when they think Congress will pass a new farm bill:

59% said 2026
24% think it won’t happen until 2027
18% said the second half of 2025.

April Ag Economists’ Monthly Montior

(Lindsey Pound)

None of the economists think Congress will pass a new farm bill in the first half of 2025. The survey also asked economists, “Does the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) program make it more difficult for Congress to pass a new farm bill this year?

62% said yes
38% responded no.

Most major agricultural groups argue that the current farm bill is outdated. Passed in 2018, it was designed to cover five years. Congress has passed an extension for two straight years that’s helped agriculture limp along, but another extension might not suffice in addressing the current financial pain being felt on the farm, especially for cotton and rice farmers.

Other Hurdles for Passing a Farm Bill in 2025

Even with the GOP in control of the House and Senate, it’s no secret one of the main obstacles in passing a new farm bill, or any bill in Washington, is the budget.

The April Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists what are the biggest hurdles in passing a new farm bill, the top response was budget. But economists also say Congress is racing against a calendar, and deeper cuts to SNAP could end up hurting agriculture priorities in the end. One economist even argued ARC and PLC just aren’t effective programs.

“The farm bill just isn’t as important to the administration as is getting their policy agenda through Congress,” said one economist.
“The budget. If farm legislation is approved in 2025, it will likely be part of the budget reconciliation bill and passed without Democratic support, meaning increased support for farmers is provided by deeper cuts in SNAP. Only if that effort collapses is there any real possibility of a bipartisan farm bill,” said another economist in the anonymous survey.
“In general, Congress has difficulty passing any legislation. This is very detrimental to the long-run health of U.S. agriculture and the U.S. economy. We simply have to address entitlements and deficit spending in the next few years.”
“If the new farm bill has to have no new spending similar to the 2018 farm bill, then which title wins and which title loses is the biggest fight,” an economist said in the April survey.
“They have to be working on a bill first. Currently, I do not think a bill is even in the works,” said another economist.
“Pushing back on SNAP,” stated an economist.

Bottom line: The likelihood of passing a farm bill this year is low. Both the Senate and House Committees say it’s a top priority and are working behind the scenes to get a farm bill passed this year, but similar bottlenecks remain, which are a lack of additional funding and a polarized Congress. Debates were heated this week, and the blame game continues. Until Congress can find a way to compromise on Title I and SNAP, the stalemate could continue.

Concerns About a Recession in Agriculture

The farm economy doesn’t seem to be improving. The latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows agricultural economists are also growing more pessimistic about the ag economy. The April survey found 72% of ag economists say the row crop side of agriculture is in a recession, up from 62% last month. Eighty-two percent of economists also think this could force more consolidation in agriculture.

Senate Overwhelmingly Confirms Brooke Rollins as 33rd Secretary of Agriculture

Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:10:35 GMT

Brooke Rollins, President Trump’s nominee for Agriculture Secretary , was overwhelmingly confirmed by the Senate on Thursday. The vote was 72-28. Her confirmation was expected, as the Senate maintains its quick pace of confirming President Donald Trump’s key Cabinet positions.

“America’s farmers, ranchers and foresters need a leader at USDA who will be an advocate for their livelihoods and rural America and be a strong voice to address the pressing needs of our agriculture community. Brooke Rollins is that person,” Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, said on the Senate floor prior to the vote.

Congratulations @USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins. We look forward to working together to serve rural America. pic.twitter.com/CIljFpYQZX
— Senate Ag Committee Republicans (@SenateAgGOP) February 13, 2025

“I congratulate Secretary Rollins on her confirmation,” said House Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig (D-MN) in a statement following the vote. “Secretary Rollins begins her new role at a critical time for American agriculture. Family farmers are struggling with high input costs and low prices; tariffs are being proposed that will raise costs on American producers and American consumers; the agricultural workforce is being threatened; and Congress is behind schedule in passing a new, bipartisan farm bill. If we want to tackle these challenges in a way that supports family farmers and the communities they feed, we will need to work together. I look forward to building a strong working relationship with Secretary Rollins as ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee.”

Today, @SecRollins was sworn in as the 33rd U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. Here’s a snapshot of her first day at USDA! pic.twitter.com/GFpIYdnovF
— Dept. of Agriculture (@USDA) February 14, 2025

Rollins’ close ties to President Trump are viewed as a positive for U.S. agriculture as some say, “she has President Trump’s ear.”

When President Trump made the nomination announcement in November, he said her “commitment to support the American farmer, the defense of American food self-sufficiency and the restoration of agriculture-dependent American small towns is second to none.”

Important Issues in Immediate Focus

Rollins has some important issues to focus on immediately, including:

Reviewing the various USDA grants and other funding that remain frozen;
Getting ag disaster ($21 billion) and economic aid ($10 billion) payments made to eligible producers;
Working with NEC Director Kevin Hassett and others on the bird flu situation;
Monitoring the impact of Trump tariffs on the U.S. ag sector and any need for a farmer aid program
Advising key congressional members on a new farm bill;
Working with Treasury/IRS, EPA and Energy Dept. personnel on finalizing information regarding the 45Z program;
Informing President Trump and others about the impact on farm country from mass deportations relative to border security action;
Checking on and working with other agencies and departments regarding food aid;
Working with her new staff and other key USDA personnel as they officially come into USDA;
Getting ready for fiscal year 2026 budget matters for USDA;
Working with EPA and the Dept. of Energy on the 2026 RFS RVOs;
Dealing with a smaller USDA workforce via buyouts and other actions to reduce the number of government workers;
Addressing issues raised by the GAO relative to operation of the SNAP/food stamps program and other operational aspects of the program should they see any major alternations under budget reconciliation.

Rollins Gets Straight to Work

Rollins already held a meeting at 4 p.m. CT Thursday at USDA on bird flu, gathering who she said were “some of the most brilliant professionals I’ve encountered. Their insights were invaluable.” Rollins will be very visible in the days ahead, she said on X that she will be in four states, give six speeches, attend the National Farm Machinery Show in Louisville and “so much more.”

Today, I had the immense honor of being sworn in as the next Secretary of Agriculture by one of my heroes — and a true American judicial titan — Justice Clarence Thomas.

Being surrounded by my precious family as I took the oath of office is a moment I will forever cherish. pic.twitter.com/CrprXOuW7Z
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) February 14, 2025

A Look Back at Rollins’ Confirmation Hearing

During Rollins’ confirmation hearing in the Senate Ag Committee last month , she outlined several key priorities for USDA if confirmed:

Rapid deployment of disaster and economic assistance authorized by Congress.
Addressing current animal disease outbreaks.
Modernizing and realigning USDA.
Ensuring long-term prosperity for rural communities.

Rollins also clarified her stance on ethanol and RFS, distancing herself from past positions of the Texas Public Policy Foundation:

She stated the Foundation’s position on ethanol/RFS was written a decade ago and was one of 900 to 1,000 papers produced annually.
Rollins emphasized she did not author those papers.
While admitting to being a defender of fossil fuels, she insisted she would be “a secretary for all of agriculture” and a “champion for all fuels.”

Tariff Impact Aid for Farmers

During questioning, Senate Ag Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) asked Rollins about her approach to working with President Trump’s trade agenda. Rollins responded she would prioritize working with the White House to address any challenges farmers and ranchers might face under potential tariff implementations.

Rollins committed to supporting farmers in the case of tariff-related harm:

She pledged to undertake efforts such as the Market Facilitation Program (MFP) via payments from the first Trump administration. MFP was part of a broader effort by USDA to assist farmers impacted by retaliatory tariffs and trade disruptions.
Rollins has consulted with former USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue about the implementation of such programs.

Rollins previously servied as the president and CEO of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a think tank established by former Trump officials to promote conservative policies.

AFPI has advocated for curbing foreign ownership — particularly from China — of U.S. farmland, an issue with bipartisan support in Congress. She served as the president and CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) from 2003 to 2018, where she significantly expanded the organization and positioned it as a leading state-based think tank.

Economists Says Rollins is a Positive for U.S. Agriculture

How Farmers Size Up RFK Jr.

(Farm Journal )

80% of economists in the January Ag Economists’ Monthly say Rollins is a positive pick for U.S. agriculture .

“Rollins knows ag and has Trump’s ear,” said one economist.

“Her close connection the President and reasons outlined in the letter sent by 427 ag organizations and businesses on January 15th,” said another economist.

20% of economists say Rollins wouldn’t be positive for U.S. agriculture.

One economist said, “USDA focused heavily on under-served producers during the Vilsack era and my sense is that producers wanted the Secretary to come from a production ag view; whereas Rollins come at it more from an overall domestic policy view. Also, feel the administration isn’t helping her out with the Deputy Secretary nomination. Producers don’t see themselves in the upcoming USDA leadership.”

Ag Groups React to Rollins’ Confirmation

“Congratulations to Secretary Brooke Rollins on her confirmation to lead USDA. America’s pork producers are eager to work with Secretary Rollins to fix the multitude of problems caused by California Proposition 12 and ensure farm families have reasonable policies to pass down our farms to future generations,” said National Pork Producers Council (NPPC).
“On behalf of America’s farmer cooperatives, I would like to congratulate Brooke Rollins on her confirmation as Secretary of Agriculture today. In this role, Secretary Rollins will lead an agency that impacts the operations of every farm and ranch in the country and touches every local community across rural America. She will also serve as the voice of producers within the Trump administration at a critical moment. NCFC looks forward to working with Secretary Rollins on a range of issues within USDA that impact farmer co-ops and their members,” said National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC).
“Congratulations to Secretary Brooke Rollins on her bi-partisan confirmation to become U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. Clearly, President Trump has selected a highly capable and accomplished individual to lead USDA. Secretary Rollins’ commitment to returning USDA to its core mission of supporting all of agriculture is exactly the focus our country needs right now. I am confident that she will be an effective advocate for farmers, ensuring that President Trump’s policies reflect their needs and support the vitality of our rural communities,” said Mike Naig, Iowa Secretary of Agriculture.
“The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) congratulates the Honorable Brooke Rollins on her confirmation to lead USDA as the 33rd U.S. agriculture secretary. Rollin’s policy crafting experience and passion for opportunities for agriculture will contribute tangible impacts for American farmers and ranchers and people around the globe who enjoy U.S. food products.
NASDA is enthusiastic to work with the secretary on our priorities including increasing economic opportunities for farmers, ranchers and food producers, advancing a new farm bill, improving Americans’ access to nutrient-dense foods and ensuring American agriculture can continue to provide the most secure, affordable and nutritious food supply in the world,” NASDA said in a statement.
“Secretary Rollins understands the pain points the agriculture industry faces and has a plan to address these right away,” Hawkins said. “She understands the importance of a strong safety net and is prepared to work with Congress to implement a modernized Farm Bill. She will work with farmers to eliminate burdensome and costly regulations that hamper innovation, will spearhead animal disease prevention and mitigation, and will identify new export channels across the globe to support markets. Raised in rural Texas, Secretary Rollins knows the importance of strengthening our rural communities and making them a great place to live, work, and raise our families. We are thrilled with her bipartisan confirmation and welcome the opportunity to work with her to advance the agriculture industry,” said Missouri Farm Bureau President Garrett Hawkins.
Michael Dykes, President and CEO of the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), expressed confidence in Rollins’ capabilities.
“IDFA congratulates Ms. Rollins on her confirmation to lead USDA as the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. We’re confident she will be a strong voice for the U.S. food and agriculture industry across the federal government. As USDA navigates a dynamic trade environment, we need Secretary Rollins’ leadership to expand U.S. dairy exports, support a coordinated response to animal disease outbreaks, and preserve dairy’s critical place in federal nutrition programs, including SNAP milk and dairy nutrition incentives, WIC and school meals. IDFA looks forward to working with Secretary Rollins at USDA to strengthen Americans’ dietary health, support farmers and the entire dairy supply chain in the production of wholesome food, and build a regulatory environment that promotes innovation, growth and food safety. These efforts will enable our industry to continue leading the world in the production of high-quality, nutritious dairy foods,” Dykes stated.

Congratulations, @BrookeLRollins on your confirmation to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture @USDA . We look forward to working with you to be a strong voice for the U.S. food and agriculture industry, expand U.S. dairy exports, support a coordinated response to animal… pic.twitter.com/1pqhNrzDnc
— IDFA (@dairyidfa) February 13, 2025

Rollins and will now finish assembling her team at USDA. Here are the key appointments already made by President Trump:

Stephen Vaden: Nominated for Deputy USDA Secretary

Undersecretary Nominees

Richard Fordyce: Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation
Dudley Hoskins: Undersecretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs
Luke Lindberg: Undersecretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs
Michael Boren: Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Scott Hutchins: Undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics

Senior Staff Appointments:

Kailee Tkacz Buller: Chief of Staff at USDA
Preston Parry: Deputy Chief of Staff
Jennifer Tiller: Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary and Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
Dominic Restuccia: White House Liaison for USDA
Ralph Linden: Principal Deputy General Counsel
Audra Weeks: Deputy Director of Communications

Natural Resources and Environment Appointments

Kristin Sleeper: Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
Tom Schultz: Chief of Staff for Natural Resources and Environment

Other Notable Appointments

Brooke Appleton: Deputy Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation
Tyler Clarkson: USDA General Counsel

10 Charts to Explain What's Shaping the Ag Economy to Start 2025

Mon, 10 Feb 2025 15:03:32 GMT

Last year’s initial net farm income forecast showed the two largest consecutive declines in net farm income history, the picture seems to be improving in 2025.

According to USDA’s Economic Research Service, the first net farm income forecast of the year shows net farm income is expected to reach $180.1 billion, up $41 billion from 2024, while net cash farm income is projected to hit $193.7 billion, a $34.5 billion increase. A staggering 34.5% increase in government payments, from $9.3 billion in 2024 to $42.4 billion in 2025, is the key factor behind the income boost.

Yet, when you look at the specifics, economists continue to be more bullish when it comes to livestock, specifically cattle.

Farm Journal’s January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

According to economists in the January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor survey, shrinking supplies and strong demand are the two major drivers of the historic run in cattle prices. And that’s why out of the 10 major commodities, economists are most bullish on cattle in 2025.

Recession in Row Crops?

Even with the expectation for improved net farm income, with a 34% increase in expected government payments, ag economists are still concerned about the current state of the ag economy for the row crop sector. Sixty-four percent of economists say the row crop side of agriculture is currently in a recession, 36% say it’s not.

Farm Journal’s January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

“A modest recovery in prices for some major crops has slightly improved the current state of the farm economy, and the outlook has brightened somewhat as well,” said one economist in the anonymous Monthly Monitor survey. “The prospect of economic assistance and disaster payments also improves the farm income outlook in 2025.”

“For row crop profitability, corn and soybean prices have seen some improvement recently offering some decent pricing opportunities, but some farmers may not have any old crop to sell now to take advantage of improved prices,” said another economist. “Without additional price improvement, there is still poor profitability outlook for new crop. But when you look at demand opportunities, there are a lot of unknowns about the future demand for trade and biofuels in the Trump administration. It could be positive or negative and will likely be impactful over the next 12 months.”

Those who argue agriculture is not in a recession, say it’s because:

$31 billion in direct payments and disaster aid passed by Congress in December.
The fact strong land values and rents have slowed their increases yet have not seen any significant declines

“We are not in a recession when farmers were still paying off pre-bought 2025 input expenses in 2024 to minimize 2024 tax bills, nor when land values and cash rents are holding as well as they are. There are producers that are over extended and all crop producers are making adjustments, but these are the ebbs and flows that the agricultural industry has managed for decades,” one economist said. “The expectations are changing to expect downside risk, and so people aren’t planning for the downside, and those that do are being penalized.”

Consolidation Concerns

Farm Journal’s January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

With concerns about a recession, the survey then asked economists if the current environment will accelerate consolidation, and an overwhelming number of economists, 86%, said yes.

Those economists who think it will force consolidation said:

“Probably mostly in the related industries as they try to consolidate to protect profit margins as producers maybe pull back on input choices or become much more price-conscious.”
“Farmers will think about exiting earlier, debt/income ratio”
“It’s only the most cost-efficient survive.”
“More people are exiting because they have little choice. Much consolidation would be happening even if the market situation were better.”
“Low margin producers will always be squeezed out by these type of times.”
“The ability of larger producers to spread costs over a larger number of acres.”
“Semi-retired farmers tend to call it quits during a down cycle. Farms that rent a substantial portion of their acreage find it increasingly difficult to sustain high cash rents.”

However, other economists argue the downturn hasn’t lasted long enough to force consolidation.

“If the current situation persists for several years, then yes. At this point, it’s too early and not severe enough,” one economist said.

The Main Factors Driving the Ag Economy

When asked to list the main factors driving the health of the ag economy right now, ag economists said:

Poor grain prices offset by improving livestock margins
Biofuel policies, tariffs, commodity prices
The potential for a trade war with China
South America’s crop
Ad hoc government payments
Improved grain ending stocks in the U.S.
Lower costs for fuel and interest

Trump’s Priorities and the Impact on Ag

The January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor released this week asked which of Trump’s priorities will have the most negative impact on agriculture. Seventy-nine percent said it’s trade and tariffs. Twenty-two percent said border security and deportation.

When asked which of the president’s priorities would have the most positive impact on agriculture, 54% of economists said cutting regulations, and 38% said tax changes.

January Ag Economists’ Monthy Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

Tariffs on the U.S.'s top three trading partners could have a major impact on agriculture. The January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists which input is most at risk. The top answer was fertilizer.

“From a headline standpoint, it’s probably potash,” says Samuel Taylor, farm inputs analyst, Rabobank. “We get 85% to 90% of our potash from imports from the Canadian market. The residual is made up by Russia and Israel, in principle, with some other markets coming in.”

Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

Direct Payments to Farmers

As USDA noted in its 2025 net farm income forecast this week, Congress included economic aid for farmers in the continuing resolution (CR) . The “Economic Loss Assistance Program” earmarked $10 billion in direct payments for farmers, which is expected to improve the net farm income picture this year.

Farmers are still waiting for the payments from USDA, but it’s been called a “cash infusion” into the farm sector.

January Ag Economists’ Monthly Montior

(Lindsey Pound )

The January Monthly Monitor asked economists if those payments were needed in agriculture. Sixty-four percent said yes, and 36% said no.

In the survey, of the economists who said the payments were needed, some of the reasons why include:

Land values continue to climb
Input costs will remain elevated and inefficient farmers that overleveraged themselves the past couple years will remain in business
Delays producers cutting fixed costs, especially cash rents

But not all economists agree the payments were needed, warning of some unintended consequences, including prolonging what some economists argue are adjustments needed in the industry. In the survey, economists said:

“I think there could be some pushback when the longer-term farm bill comes up for authorization with budget hawks pointing to the $10 billion as a down payment of sorts.”
“This will slow some adjustments that arguably are needed. For example, land rents are generally higher than can be justified by current market returns. Getting approval for another round of payments in 2025 is far from certain, so unless markets improve considerably, there could be a renewed financial squeeze in 2026.”

Future of the Farm Bill

Farm Journal’s January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

The Senate and House leadership for both Ag Committees have made clear they want to see a farm bill early this year. Fifty-seven percent of economists think it will be the second half of this year before Congress passes a new farm bill. Twenty-nine percent say 2026, and 14% of economists still think Congress will pass a new farm bill the first half of 2025.

45Z and Impact on Farmers

In the Biden administration’s final days in office, USDA finally released an interim rule establishes guidelines for quantifying, reporting and verifying the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the production of biofuel feedstock commodity crops grown in the U.S.

The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) also issued preliminary guidance on the 45Z tax credit in January, which was created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA/Climate Act), including the addition of sorghum as a crop that could qualify as a feedstock for a fuel that can claim the 45Z credit if certain climate smart agriculture (CSA) practices are followed.

The Treasury also released a notice that provides the emissions rate table for the 45Z credit.

Farm Journal’s January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

The January Monthly Monitor asked if the rule becomes final, when it could impact farmers and ethanol producers. Fifty-five percent said it could impact them as soon as the second half of this year.

Trump’s Key Cabinet Picks

Rollins and RJK Jr. in Farm Country

(Farm Journal )

The future of 45Z is now up to the Trump administration.

Late last month, Brooke Rollins, Trump’s nominee for Agriculture Secretary , powered through her confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Ag Committee . The Senate still needs to vote on her confirmation, but no timeline has been given on when that vote will happen yet.

Eighty percent of economists in the January Ag Economists’ Monthly say if confirmed, Rollins is a positive pick for U.S. agriculture.

“Rollins knows ag and has Trump’s ear,” said one economist.
“Her close connection the president and reasons outlined in the letter sent by 427 ag organizations and businesses on Jan. 15,” said another economist.

Twenty percent of economists say Rollins wouldn’t be positive for U.S. agriculture.

One economist said, “USDA focused heavily on under-served producers during the Vilsack era and my sense is that producers wanted the Secretary to come from a production ag view; whereas Rollins comes at it more from an overall domestic policy view. Also, I feel the administration isn’t helping her out with the Deputy Secretary nomination. Producers don’t see themselves in the upcoming USDA leadership.”

However, economists aren’t as confident that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, will be a positive for U.S. agriculture. Ninety percent of the economists surveyed said no.

One economist said, “His disrespect for science is troubling.” Another economist weighed in by saying, “His positions on crop protection will be an interesting storyline to watch early in 2025.”

However, not all economists think RFK Jr. would be bad for agriculture. In fact, one economist thinks he could actually restore confidence in agriculture.

“Improving health outcomes, even if over a longer time period, should improve the consumer opinion of agriculture and be a net gain overall,” one economist said in the anonymous survey.

Congress Approves CR, Includes $31 Billion in Farmer, Disaster Aid and Farm Bill Extension

Mon, 23 Dec 2024 16:50:13 GMT

With little if any drama like the House, the Senate easily cleared the 118-page continuing resolution (CR) early Saturday morning with a vote of 85-11 (four members did not vote). The measure funds the government through March 14. The CR includes nearly $110 billion in disaster and farmer aid ($21 billion ag disaster and $10 billion in farmer aid), and a one-year extension of the 2018 Farm Bill.

The Senate vote came hours after the House passed the measure on a 366-34 vote, well above the two-thirds majority threshold required under that chamber’s suspension of the rules procedure, with no Democrats voting no along with 34 Republicans. Texas Dem Rep. Jasmine Crockett voted “present”.

Debt Ceiling

GOP leaders dropped a two-year suspension of the statutory debt ceiling that was in a previous CR version and that helped push the bill through both chambers. Democrats opposed inclusion of the debt limit provision, arguing it would make it easier on Republicans next year to cut taxes and ram through other partisan priorities. Cutting the debt limit language was enough to convince Democrats to go along with the stripped-down bill, even though it excluded their priorities contained in an i nitial 1,547-page bipartisan measure .

One ag sector lobbyist said, “Ag groups need to start playing the game… those who always vote no on everything… why not actively oppose them… they don’t support farm bills anyhow.”

Breaking Down the Votes

Here is the list of House Republicans who voted no on the CR that contained $31 billion in ag sector assistance:

House no votes on CR

(House of Representatives)

Some notable representatives who voted against the CR include Nancy Mace (South Carolina), Thomas Massie (Kentucky), and Chip Roy (Texas). The reasons for voting against the CR varied among representatives, with some citing concerns about high levels of spending, lack of reforms, or opposition to giving the current administration additional funding.

Here is the list of Senate Democrats who voted no:

Senate no votes on CR

(U.S. Senate)

Farmer Aid in the CR

This is a breakdown of the $31 billion in farmer assistance via the CR:

Farmer aid breakdown

(House Ag Committee)

Possible Payment Amounts to Farmers

The farmer aid should be available 90 days after the legislation’s enactment. Farm CPA Paul Neiffer estimated per acre payment amounts via the Economic Loss Assistance program based on his knowledge of the provisions.

Possible payments as calculated by Farm CPA Paul Neiffer

(Lindsey Pound )

While USDA will make the final calculations, based on Neiffer’s estimates, producer payments look like this per acre, using the following calculation: (USDA’s Projected Cost of the Crop – National Projected Returns) x Eligible Acres x 26% = Total Payment.

Corn: $43.80
Soybeans: $30.61
Wheat: $31.80
Cotton: $84.70
Rice: $69.66

Neiffer says there is a payment limit of $125,000 dollars, which is down from the $175,00 originally proposed in the FARM Act. He says it’s also key to note with the updated relief, if 75% of your total gross income comes from farming, which includes wages and interest and dividends, then you qualify for the double payment.

Related Story: Poll Results: 71% of Farmers Say Congress Should Approve Economic Aid Before Year-End

House Ag Committee Fact Sheet Details Payments

The House Ag Committee released a fact sheet on the farmer economic assistance that is provided in the current Continuing Resolution (CR), modeled off of Rep. Trent Kelly’s (R-Miss.) FARM Act (HR 10045). There is a list of eligible commodities, a payment formula, administrative provisions, and estimated payment rates.

House Ag panel staffers say please keep in mind that the payment rates in this document are estimates and “almost certain to change slightly once implemented. These rates are the best approximation based on the data cited in text. This does incorporate the minimum payment rate provision. You’ll see that those crops receiving payments via the minimum payment provision have an asterisk.”

The House Ag panel had the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M analyze the impact of the economic assistance provided through this provision. Their findings suggest that the funds will improve ending cash position on their Representative Farm system by nearly 20% by the end of 2025.

Farmer aid

(House Ag Committee)

Your Next Reads:

Poll Results: 71% of Farmers Say Congress Should Approve Economic Aid Before Year-End

Ag Gets Potential Christmas Gift from Congress: Continuing Resolution Includes $31 Billion in Aid for Producers

Continuing Resolution Includes $31 Billion in Aid for Producers

Wed, 18 Dec 2024 16:20:47 GMT

Farm groups and farm-state lawmakers had to first sell Congress on the need for substantial aid via the Continuing Resolution (CR) , now congressional leaders must sell others to pass it.

While the measure still needs to pass both the House and Senate, the stopgap deal to avoid a government shutdown includes $10 billion in direct payments for farmers, $21 bllion in ag disaster aid, a one-year extension of the 2018 farm bill and year-round E15.

Passage of CR Now in Question

Congress actually passing the stopgap spending measure is far from a done deal. Washington insiders were confident Wednesday morning Congress would pass the measure with bipartisan support, but strong opposition from the incoming Trump administration later in the day on Wednesday is now throwing that into question.

A statement from President Donald J. Trump and Vice President-Elect JD Vance:

The most foolish and inept thing ever done by Congressional Republicans was allowing our country to hit the debt ceiling in 2025. It was a mistake and is now something that must be addressed.…
— JD Vance (@JDVance) December 18, 2024

President-elect Donald Trump has asked to keep certain measures House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) supports in the continuing resolution (CR), like aid for farmers and natural disaster survivors, but also demanded the House ditch items that Democrats negotiated.

Trump has also requested that Republicans extend the suspension of the debt ceiling, a limit on how much the U.S. government can borrow, which is set to expire early in his new term next year.

Johnson’s legislative strategy has sparked significant discontent among Republicans, casting doubt on his ability to retain the gavel in the next Congress. On Tuesday, Johnson introduced a sprawling bill to extend federal funding until March 14, allocating $110.4 billion for natural disaster relief ($21 billion in ag disaster funding) and incorporating a range of unrelated policy provisions. Late-stage negotiations added $10 billion in aid for farmers, opening the floodgates to additional Democratic demands, including the transfer of RFK Stadium to D.C., a congressional pay raise, health plan regulations, and funds to rebuild Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge.

The concessions enraged GOP lawmakers across the party’s ideological spectrum, with members voicing concerns about Johnson’s leadership. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has already pledged not to support Johnson in future leadership elections, and private discussions among Republicans suggest Johnson may face insurmountable opposition come Jan. 3. The Freedom Caucus and moderates alike criticized his handling of the bill, while high-profile figures like Elon Musk, now a Trump adviser, lambasted the legislation as “criminal.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) warned of potential Senate resistance, labeling the bill a “cramnibus.” Johnson defended the compromise as a necessary measure under a divided government, framing it as a preparatory step for Republicans to advance Trump’s “America First” agenda in the next Congress. However, with a slim three-seat majority and growing fractures within the party, Johnson’s future as speaker hangs in the balance.

Breaking Down the Proposed CR

While the fate of the stopgap spending measure is now in question, if passed, the funding would last through March 14 for fiscal year 2025 that began Oct. 1.

Highlights of the bill that will impact agriculture includes:

One-year extension of the 2018 Farm Bill, including provisions that don’t have “baseline,” or cost money to extend. Negotiators found $143 million in unspent agricultural funds to rescind to offset those extensions. GOP leaders said they would push to consider a new bill the first quarter of 2025.
$10 billion in farmer financial aid along the lines of a bill introduced by Rep. Trent Kelly (R-Miss.).
$21 billion in ag disaster aid for farmers and ranchers as part of an overall $100.4 billion disaster package. The measure sets aside $2 billion of the disaster aid specifically for livestock producers, with much of the rest available via block grants to states and territories and direct aid to farmers and ranchers. It includes $3 million specifically for regular testing of procedures in place for inspections of molasses imports at the Canadian border, a provision sought by U.S. sugar producers.
Year-round E15, including other biofuel provisions detailed below.
SNAP provision. Language extending authorization of a program that replenishes stolen Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/food stamp) benefits, which Democrats said would prevent a $1.5 billion cut to those benefits.

Disaster Aid

The disaster crop loss program will likely operate similarly to the 2021 program without any of the 2022 quirks that made it into a debacle. The livestock program will likely operate similar to the 2022 livestock program where the Biden administration actually managed to get it right. The economic aid program is very similar to Kelly farm act with a factor applied to keep it within budget.

Direct Payments to Farmers

Paul Neiffer’s analysis of the $10 billion in financial aid included in the CR calculates what the possible payments could be, including $43 per acre for corn, $30 for soybeans, $31.80 for wheat, $85 for cotton and $70 for long-grain rice.

Possible payment calculations

(Paul Neiffer )

When will payments be received by farmers? Economic aid will come 90 days after enactment. As for ag disaster, the push is on to use the 2020 approach where most payments came out of USDA’s Kansas City office.

Here are the key details and the differences from the original FARM Act:

The same 8 crops are specifically identified (corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton, rice, peanuts, oats and barley).
You will be paid on total 2024 planted acres by crop plus 50% of prevent planted acres by crop.

How Ag Financial Aid Will be Determined

The calculation uses national avg payment yield for PLC. Regarding the legislative language on the minimum payment rate calculation for economic assistance, we previously used 8% of the reference price multiplied by the national average yield. The legislative calculation uses the national average payment yield for PLC instead.
The payment limit is lowered from $175,000 to $125,000 and if your Farm AGI exceeds 75% of total AGI, then this is doubled to $250,000. Definition of AGI remains the same and this limit is per entity/ per person. This means an LLC has one payment no matter the number of owners. AGI is based on a three-year average of 2020-2022 tax years.

Here is a table of Neiffer’s estimated per acre payment amounts based on his knowledge of the provisions:

Year-Round E15

CR package includes nationwide year-round sales of 15% ethanol gasoline (E15) and offers short-term biofuel blending relief to small refiners.

Previously, E15 was restricted during summer months, though eight Midwestern states had already been granted year-round sales earlier this year. The inclusion of the E15 language, based on a bill by Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), marks a major win for ethanol producers and farm state lawmakers who have spent years lobbying to permanently allow year-round E15 sales.

The bill would also provide short-term relief to some small refiners under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) that retired renewable identification numbers (RINs) in 2016-18 in cases when their requests for “hardship” waivers remained pending for years. The bill would return some of those RINs to the small refiners and make them eligible for compliance in future years.

Enacting the stopgap funding bill would also make it unnecessary for eight states to follow through with a costly gasoline blendstock reformulation — set to begin as early as next summer — they had requested to retain year-round E15 sales in the midcontinent. Oil industry groups last month petitioned EPA to delay the fuel reformulation until after the 2025 summer driving season, citing concerns about inadequate fuel supply and the prospects that a legislative fix would make required infrastructure changes unnecessary.

Ethanol Groups React

Ethanol groups say the E15 legislative change could pave the way for retailers to more widely offer the high-ethanol fuel blend, which is currently available at 3,400 retail stations and last summer was about 10-30¢/USG cheaper than 10% ethanol gasoline (E10).

Offering the fuel year-round would be “an early Christmas present to American drivers,” ethanol industry group Growth Energy chief executive Emily Skor said.

Monte Shaw, executive director of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, said biofuels “champions” are fighting for the provision allowing the sale of E15 year-around. “We have been working to get a year-round E15 solution for over 10 years,” he said in a statement. “It would be monumental for ethanol demand to support rural farmers and would save drivers 10 to 20 cents at the pump.”

Calculating What It Means for Corn Demand

The potential increase in ethanol consumption and corn use due to year-round E15 sales is relatively modest based on the available information. The additional ethanol consumption from year-round E15 sales is estimated to be approximately 15 million gallons. This represents a small fraction of the total U.S. ethanol production. The 15-million-gallon increase in ethanol consumption would translate to an additional corn use of about 5.6 million bushels. It’s important to note that the impact of year-round E15 sales is limited by several factors:

Distribution network: E15 has a small distribution network, available at only a fraction of gas stations.
Consumer adoption: The shift to E15 may be gradual and dependent on factors such as price differentials and consumer awareness.
Seasonal demand: While year-round sales are now permitted, demand may still fluctuate seasonally.

Looking ahead, maintaining current corn use levels for ethanol (around 5.5 billion bushels) would require increasing the national average ethanol blend rate to 15-17% by 2042, given projected declines in gasoline consumption. This suggests that year-round E15 sales alone may not be sufficient to significantly boost corn use for ethanol in the long term. However, others note the quickest way to get consumer attention is with price and E15 is the cheapest option for most cars… in many markets it’s cheap enough that consumers seek it out. Also, some think it’s not even a question for new facilities to include E15 … it’s the easiest way to be competitive in a market. Either way, year-round E15 sales represent a symbolic victory for corn ethanol advocates, the immediate impact on ethanol consumption and corn use is expected to be minimal in the short run, but differences of opinion are in place regarding long-term impacts.

A bewildering assessment of the year-round E15 impact came from some traders, based on a Reuters article.

The concern expressed by traders regards a potential shift in demand from biodiesel to ethanol due to year-round E15 sales. That is a questionable conclusion. Consider:

Separate products with different applications. Ethanol and biodiesel are distinct biofuels with different uses and markets: Ethanol is primarily blended with gasoline for use in standard gasoline engines. Biodiesel is typically blended with petroleum diesel for use in diesel engines. This fundamental difference makes a direct substitution between the two unlikely in most applications.
Potential market impacts. While the products aren’t directly interchangeable, there are some potential indirect effects to consider:
- Fuel blending choices: Refiners and fuel blenders might adjust their overall biofuel strategy, potentially favoring increased ethanol blending if E15 becomes more widely available year-round.
- Feedstock competition: Both ethanol (from corn) and biodiesel (often from soybean oil) compete for agricultural resources. Increased demand for corn-based ethanol could impact crop planting decisions and prices.
- Policy uncertainty: The combination of year-round E15 approval and the upcoming change in administration adds complexity to the biofuels policy landscape, which could affect investment decisions in both ethanol and biodiesel sectors.
- Market reaction may be premature. The sharp drop in soybean oil prices mentioned in the Reuters story likely reflects short-term market uncertainty rather than a definitive shift in demand. Several factors suggest this reaction may be overblown:
  - Infrastructure limitations: Widespread adoption of E15 will take time due to the need for compatible fuel pumps and consumer education.
  - Separate mandates: The RFS has separate volume requirements for different biofuel categories, including biodiesel.
  - Diesel market stability: Demand for biodiesel is also driven by the diesel fuel market, which has different dynamics than the gasoline market.

Additional Details From the Bill

Democrats celebrated inclusion of priorities like funding for childcare and 9/11 survivors’ health care benefits; restrictions on China-related investments; legislation intended to crack down on publication of artificial intelligence-generated “deepfakes,” and on “junk” fees charged for hotel stays and concert tickets; new safety standards for lithium-ion batteries; and more.

Taxpayers would recoup some of the bridge rebuilding cost through proceeds from insurance and litigation payouts by the owner of the cargo ship Dali, which crashed into the bridge in March.

Also included is $25.6 million for residential security and protection of Supreme Court justices.

Negotiators also agreed to a 100% federal cost-share for Francis Scott Key Bridge reconstruction in Baltimore, a key demand of the Maryland delegation — who elsewhere in the bill had to accept language paving the way for a new Washington Commanders stadium on the old Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, while transferring a D.C. National Guard fighter squadron to Maryland.

Appropriators threw in an unrequested $300 million for fisheries disaster aid, which Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and others sought.

The deal omits language that Democrats were seeking to unfreeze $20 billion in IRS enforcement funding.

What’s Next?

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is expected to turn to Democrats to supply the bulk of votes needed to get the bill to the Senate. It appears lawmakers would have at least a day to review the package. It looks like Johnson will bring the CR up under suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds majority for passage.

A floor vote has yet to be scheduled, but the initial assessment is that the House will take it up as early as Thursday or more likely on Friday. That leaves the Senate little time to clear the measure before Friday’s midnight deadline. But even if the final action does not occur Friday, there is wiggle room on the weekend to get it done.

House Ag Panel Says Ag Economic Aid in Current CR Would Improve Ending Cash Position by 20% By End of 2025

The following is a quick fact sheet released by the House Ag Committee on the economic assistance that is provided in the current Continuing Resolution (CR), modeled off of Rept. Trent Kelly’s (R-Miss.) FARM Act (HR 10045). There is a background portion, a list of eligible commodities, a payment formula, administrative provisions, and estimated payment rates.

House Ag panel staffers say keep in mind that the payment rates in this document are estimates and “almost certain to change slightly once implemented. These rates are the best approximation based on the data cited in text. This does incorporate the minimum payment rate provision. You’ll see that those crops receiving payments via the minimum payment provision have an asterisk.”

The House Ag panel had the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M analyze the impact of the economic assistance provided through this provision. Their findings suggest that the funds will improve ending cash position on their Representative Farm system by nearly 20% by the end of 2025.

Additional Analysis on Potential Aid for Producers

The following is what Combest-Sell and crew put out about the ag financial aid and disaster aid:

Crop Loss Assistance

For crop loss disaster assistance for the 2023 and 2024 calendar years, the measure makes provision for nearly $21 billion.

The language is pretty wide open with slight refinements of prior years’ disaster bills. There are some carve-outs including: $2 billion of the total amount is provided for livestock losses in 2023 or 2024 due to drought, wildfires, or floods; block grant authority to compensate producers with timber losses, citrus, pecan, and poultry losses (including poultry infrastructure losses); and a special provision for agricultural producers who suffered losses due to Mexico’s failure to adhere to its water rights treaty with the U.S.

For the bulk of the disaster program, the eligible causes of loss are the same as those under the 2022 program, including losses of revenue, quality or production losses of crops (including milk, on-farm stored commodities, crops prevented from planting, and harvested adulterated wine grapes), trees, bushes, and vines, as a consequence of droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, derechos, excessive heat, tornadoes, winter storms, freeze, including a polar vortex, smoke exposure, and excessive moisture occurring in 2023 and 2024.

Please note that while the 2022 statute was used again as base text (and it used 2020 which used 2019, etc.), that is not an endorsement of the badly flawed implementation used by the Vilsack USDA. We would say that the disaster program from 2020 and 2021 is more of the standard bearer to think back to.

Losses are to be covered under terms and conditions determined by the Secretary but subject to previous requirements that: (1) smoke tainted wine grapes due to wildfires are covered; (2) losses due to drought are eligible if in a county with a D2 drought for 8 consecutive weeks or D3 drought or higher at any time during the calendar year but excessive heat as a cause of loss can cover lesser drought if it meets STC parameters; (3) sugar beet and sugar cane disaster be implemented through processors that elect to deliver aid to their producers; (4) not more than 1 percent of funds may be used for implementation; (5) payment limitations required under previous ERP programs apply (i.e., $125,000 per entity, or $250,000 if not less than 75% of AGI is derived from farming); (5) higher pay limits for specialty crops and high valued crops under previous ERP programs apply (i.e., $125,000 per entity, or $900,000 if not less than 75% of AGI is derived from farming) (Note: there is *no* AGI means testing for disaster aid; the portion of AGI derived from agriculture is just used as a measure to determine eligibility for the higher pay limit)] ; (6) prescribed pay limits are separate for each of the 2023 and 2024 calendar years; (7) payments under the program plus crop insurance and/or NAP (less premiums or fees paid) cannot exceed 90% of the loss; and (8) the same future crop insurance purchase requirements under previous ERP programs apply. In addition, to the extent that any factor must be applied to stay within budget, one single factor must be applied to the eligible benefit of each producer (i.e., no progressive factor).

No gender or race-based components are expected to be applied either in light of the federal court’s injunction.

The Secretary may use $30 million to provide equitable relief for specialty crop A&O for 2022 and 2023 reinsurance years.

The Secretary shall use $3 million to test product coming into the country under the molasses tariff line to ensure that it is molasses.

USDA is required to report to Appropriations Committees on progress of implementation within 120 days of enactment and quarterly until all payments are made. We will be pushing with the new Administration at USDA to get the FSA back on track with a quick and clear implementation that treats a loss as a loss regardless of the gender or race of the producer. Federal courts will also be ensuring this.

Economic Loss Assistance

For economic loss assistance for the 2024 crop year, the measure provides $10 billion in relief.

The program is not as robust as the Rep. Trent Kelly (R-MISS.) bill (the “FARM Act”) that was introduced this fall and spread in popularity like wildfire. But it is still generous, and we hope that when coupled with disaster relief it will go a long way in helping producers until Congress reauthorizes a new Farm Bill next year with a strong, meaningful safety net.

The measure uses the Kelly model, with a 26% factor to keep overall costs within budget, and another factor (8% of reference price) that creates minimums that improve the payment rates for certain crops (barley, rice, peanuts, minor crops).

Eligible commodities are commodities eligible for a marketing loan, except wool, mohair, and honey.

Under the program, if the Secretary determines that the expected gross return per acre for an eligible commodity is less than the expected cost of production per acre for that eligible commodity, the Secretary shall make a 1-time economic assistance payment to each producer of that commodity within 90 days of enactment of the supplemental.

The expected gross return per acre for an eligible commodity is equal to the following:

For wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, cotton, rice, and soybeans, [the projected average farm price for the commodity for the 2024–2025 marketing year contained in the most recent World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates published before the date of enactment of the Supplemental by the World Agricultural Outlook Board] X [the national average harvested yield per acre for the commodity for the most recent 10 crop years, as determined by the Secretary].

For other loan eligible commodities, a comparable estimate of gross returns, as determined by the Secretary.

The expected cost of production per acre for an eligible commodity is equal to—

For wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, cotton, rice, and soybeans, the total costs listed for the 2024 crop year with respect to the commodity contained in the most recent data product entitled “national average cost-of-production forecasts for major U.S. field crops” published by the Economic Research Service.

For other loan eligible commodities, a comparable total estimated cost-of-production, as determined by the Secretary.

The amount of an economic assistance payment to a producer for a commodity is equal to [the economic loss for the commodity] X [the eligible acres of the commodity on the farm] X [26%].

The economic loss for a commodity is equal to the difference between the expected cost of production per acre for the commodity and the expected gross return per acre for the commodity.

Eligible acres of a commodity on a farm is equal to the sum of the acreage planted on the farm to the commodity for harvest, grazing, haying, silage, or other similar purposes for the 2024 crop year and an amount equal to 50% of the acreage on the farm that was prevented from being planted during the 2024 crop year to the commodity because of drought, flood, or other natural disaster, or other condition beyond the control of the producers on the farm, as determined by the Secretary.

The Secretary shall consider acreage planted to include any land devoted to planted acres for accepted skip-row planting patterns, as determined by the Secretary.

In determining the payment rate for a crop for which there is no sufficient available data, the Secretary shall use the data related to a similarly situated crop to establish a comparable rate.

In no case shall the amount of an economic assistance payment to a producer for an eligible commodity be equal to less than [8% of the PLC/ARC reference price for the commodity] X [the national average payment yield for the eligible commodity] X [the number of eligible acres for the commodity].

As for pay limits and means tests, the total amount of payments received, directly or indirectly, by a person or legal entity (except a joint venture or general partnership) under this section may not exceed —

(A) $125,000, if less than 75% of the average gross income of the person or legal entity for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years is derived from farming, ranching, or silviculture activities; and
(B) $250,000, if not less than 75% of the average gross income of the person or legal entity for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 tax years is derived from farming, ranching, or silviculture activities.

Please note the “average” is different from “adjusted.” Recall the scenario where a farmer grosses $1 million on the farm but had expenses that exceeded this, so his AGI (adjusted gross income) was negative. He or his wife also had a job teaching history and science at the local school creating a situation where his non-farm income was more than 75% of his AGI and he was therefore not eligible for the higher limit to address the losses. Using “average” gross is meant to correct that problem.

The pay limits for economic assistance are separate from the pay limits for crop loss assistance described above. And, just like the crop loss portions, this economic assistance is not subject to the AGI means test to determine eligibility that traditional farm bill benefits are subject to.

We are sure that you have seen estimated payment rates floated in various publications. These are certainly within the range, but it is important to note that final numbers have not yet been determined.

Beyond Crop Loss/Economic Assistance

Besides the aforementioned economic and disaster aid, the CR/Supplemental also includes other priorities for agriculture, including year-round E15.

The package also extends the current authorities in the farm bill for one year; makes investments in the FFAR research program; provides scholarships to 1890 universities; and addresses problems with fraudulent skimming of food stamp benefits from EBT cards.

Take Our Poll: Should Congress Pass Emergency Relief for Farmers?

Mon, 16 Dec 2024 21:39:34 GMT

According to the latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor , 56% of economists think U.S. agriculture is already in a recession and 81% believe agriculture is on the brink of one.

The bleak outlook for row crop producers has ag groups pleading to lawmakers: Don’t pass a farm bill extension or continuing resolution without also including emergency relief for farmers and/or an increase in reference prices in Title I of the farm bill.

A one-year extension of the 2018 farm bill, tied to the continuing resolution, has sparked intense negotiations over economic assistance to farmers .

Time is running out to grant such relief. Should Congress approve economic aid for farmers before year-end? Should Congress raise reference prices in a farm bill extension? Answer those two questions here , or tap on the green “Take Poll Here” button at left.

Your Next Reads:

A Farm Bill Extension Without Economic Aid for Farmers Sparks Intense Negotiations and Debate in Congress

Majority of Ag Economists say U.S. Agriculture is Ending the Year in a Recession

A Farm Bill Extension Without Economic Aid for Farmers Sparks Intense Negotiations and Debate in Congress

Mon, 16 Dec 2024 16:44:47 GMT

A one-year extension of the 2018 Farm Bill, tied to the continuing resolution (CR), has sparked intense negotiations over economic assistance to farmers. Initially, leaders considered diverting Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funds intended for the National Resources Conservation Service in exchange for farmer aid. However, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) opposed this, aligning with President-elect Donald Trump’s intent to dismantle the IRA in the next Congress.

Sensing an opening, Democrats pushed for concessions in return for their support, proposing initiatives like 100% federal funding for Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, duty-free trade benefits for Haiti and Africa, funding for museums honoring women and Hispanics, and re-entry support for former inmates under the Second Chance Act.

AFBF Calls for a No Vote If Congress Ignores Ag Recession 📰 https://t.co/ejlB4kQZh4 https://t.co/WaArdCYkdw
— American Farm Bureau (@FarmBureau) December 14, 2024

Farm-state lawmakers, pushed by farm group lobbyists, said they would not support a CR without farmer aid. American Farm Bureau Federation publicly called on lawmakers to oppose the stopgap bill if it doesn’t include farm aid. “I call on members of Congress who represent ag to stand with farmers by insisting the supplemental spending bill include economic aid for farmers and voting it down if it doesn’t,” AFBF President Zippy Duvall said Saturday.

The Dilimma

Democrats know Johnson wants farmer aid language and must rely on them to help pass it, perhaps a majority of votes. House GOP leaders may have to take the CR up under suspension, meaning it will need a two-thirds majority to pass. If congressional leaders release CR bill text today, the House may not vote until Thursday. If so, the Senate could follow on Thursday or more likely on Friday.

Unlocking the farm aid package is the key to a broader CR deal. Both sides want to get aid to farmers, but they differ on the funding mechanisms. Republicans rejected a Democratic offer to include about $10 billion in aid to farmers while moving several conservation/climate programs into the farm bill baseline, which technically scores as deficit neutral. Republican leaders opposed continuing the conservation programs beyond their 2031 expiration, as they’d like to claw back as much of the 2022 law’s climate-related spending as possible once they have full control of the House, Senate and White House next year. Democrats in turn rejected a GOP counteroffer of $12 billion in unoffset economic aid, saying it came at the expense of some of Biden’s requested $21 billion in emergency agricultural assistance for farmers and ranchers impacted by natural disasters

The American Soybean Association (ASA) and other farm groups announced opposition to any year-end spending package that excludes economic assistance for agricultural producers. ASA President Caleb Ragland emphasized the urgent need for aid as farmers grapple with inflation, soaring input costs, and declining commodity prices.

Ragland, a soy farmer from Kentucky, called on congressional leaders to re-engage in negotiations to deliver both economic and disaster relief. He warned that failing to act would exacerbate the financial struggles of farmers, potentially leading to widespread impacts on rural communities and the broader U.S. economy. Soybean prices have fallen 40% over two years, with many farmers citing an insufficient safety net to weather the crisis.

ASA and other agricultural groups argue that without meaningful support, the nation risks an escalating agricultural recession that will reverberate through households across the country.

Meanwhile, the National Cotton Council (NCC) said it also strongly opposes any supplemental spending package that lacks meaningful short-term assistance for farmers. An NCC statement said the failure of Congress to provide short-term support to producers will mean that many farm families will go out of business in 2025, leading to devastating impacts throughout the rural economy. “We urge Congressional leadership to return to the negotiating table to find a path forward on economic assistance. If not, we will vigorously oppose a supplemental spending package that does not provide the immediate support our producers need. The current stalemate is a completely unacceptable outcome,” said NCC Chairman Joe Nicosia.

American Cotton Producer Chairman David Dunlow of North Carolina said, “Our producers will lose as much as $300 per acre on this year’s harvest due to soaring production costs and low market prices. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship has resulted in legislators turning their back on farmers during our hour of greatest need.”

Senate Democrats Respond

House Ag Committee Ranking Member David Scott (D-Ga.) and Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) issued a statement ( link ) condemning Republican Leadership for rejecting a $10 billion farm bill extension proposal. They said the Democrats’ plan aimed to provide economic aid and bolster conservation programs without diverting funds from disaster relief. They warned that the GOP’s counteroffer falls short, jeopardizing farmers’ livelihoods and risking widespread foreclosures.

Congressional Democrats are proposing $9.8 billion in economic assistance to farmers that is completely paid for and doesn’t add a penny to the deficit. This is real help that will reach farmers by the spring planting season. pic.twitter.com/9ty2uSKDFJ
— Senate Ag, Nutrition, & Forestry Committee Dems (@SenateAgDems) December 11, 2024

“For weeks, congressional Democrats have provided a pathway to a farm bill extension that will deliver tens of billions of dollars in economic assistance and investments in farm bill programs that farmers rely on,” Stabenow said in a statement. “Republican Leadership turned down this $10 billion proposal, rejecting needed economic assistance and increased conservation spending for decades. It is important to stress that this proposal is paid for and does not take any funding away from the critical natural disaster aid that has been requested. Their eleventh-hour offer fell short of what farmers need, shortchanged critical farm bill programs, and steals from critically needed assistance to address recent natural disasters. We can and should do both economic and disaster assistance, not pit one against the other.”

Senate GOP Lashes Out

House Ag Committee Chair GT Thompson (R-Pa.) and Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), ranking on the Senate Ag panel, criticized Democrats for neglecting rural needs and announced their opposition to any package lacking robust farmer assistance.

.@FarmBureau calls for prioritizing emergency assistance for farmers.

"We lost 141,000 farms in five years and if Congress fails to include economic aid for farmers, the sad reality is that we’ll lose more."

Read the statement: https://t.co/lQuJ35f2R1
— Senate Ag Committee Republicans (@SenateAgGOP) December 14, 2024

”America’s farmers have lost over $30 billion this year. And for the last few months we have led many of our colleagues in raising the concerns of the farm community in meetings, in hearings, on the House and Senate floors, and in private conversations with other Republicans and Democrats. We are deeply disappointed to learn that congressional leadership is failing to provide our farmers with the economic assistance they need to weather the crisis they are currently facing,” Boozman and Thompson said in a release “Last week, Republican leaders offered Leader Schumer and Leader Jefferies a $12 billion economic aid package for our nation’s farmers, which they rejected. It appears that congressional Democrats have not learned the lessons of the most recent election and continue to neglect the needs of rural America.”

Stabenow Finally Releases Full Text of Senate Farm Bill; Here's What It Means for Agriculture

Mon, 18 Nov 2024 17:35:09 GMT

Stabenow unveiled 1,397-page details of her long-awaited farm bill Monday morning. This comes as early Sunday evening Pro Farmer broke the news that Senate Ag Chairwoman (D-Mich.) had briefed Democrats but not Republicans on her coming farm bill text, which was expected to be released Monday.

Stabenow said in a news release and summary of the bill , “The foundation of every successful farm bill is built on holding together the broad, bipartisan farm bill coalition. This is a strong bill that invests in all of agriculture, helps families put food on the table, supports rural prosperity, and holds that coalition together.”

BREAKING: Chairwoman @SenStabenow Introduces Rural Prosperity and Food Security Acthttps://t.co/qRunZlk6zj
— Senate Ag, Nutrition, & Forestry Committee Dems (@SenateAgDems) November 18, 2024

The Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act includes $39 billion in new resources “to keep farmers farming, families fed, and rural communities strong.” The bill builds on the proposal Stabenow released in May by investing new resources and including innovative, new ideas to deliver the assistance farmers need faster.

It provides farmers with the certainty of a 5-year farm bill and the immediate help they need to manage the urgent needs of the present. It doubles down on our commitment to rural communities, ensures that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) keeps up with the realities of American life, and brings the historic investments in climate-smart conservation practices into the farm bill. These new investments include:

$20 billion to strengthen the farm safety net to support all of agriculture and establishes a permanent structure for disaster assistance so emergency relief reaches farmers faster;
$8.5 billion to help families make ends meet, put food on the table, and improve access to nutrition assistance;
$4.3 billion to improve quality of life in the rural communities that millions of Americans call home.”

Farm CPA Paul Neiffer has already combed through the bill, and says, “This is our first preview of the Senate Farm Bill Proposal. There appears to be some benefit to production Ag, however, many of the proposals seem to penalize production ag such as the following:

Very limited increase in base acres
Restriction on payments due to ownership of farmland by higher AGI individuals or entities
Reduction in AGI limits
No change to definition of farm income
Possible limit on PLC payments
Items that may benefit production ag include:
Permanent ERP (although this is a very messy program)
Partial advance payments of ARC and PLC
Automatic 2023 and 2024 ARC or PLC decisions”

Senate GOP Ag Committee Ranking Member Reacts

Senate Ag Committee ranking member John Boozman (R-Ark.) on X wrote: “An 11th hour partisan proposal released 415 days after the expiration of the current farm bill is insulting. America’s farmers deserve better.”

“An 11th hour partisan proposal released 415 days after the expiration of the current farm bill is insulting. America’s farmers deserve better.” RM @JohnBoozman
— Senate Ag Committee Republicans (@SenateAgGOP) November 18, 2024

Meanwhile, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) issued the following statement:

“Though America’s pork producers appreciate Chairwoman Stabenow’s efforts to publish Farm Bill text, this is simply not a viable bill, as it fails to provide a solution to California Prop. 12,” said NPPC President Lori Stevermer, a pork producer from Easton, Minn. “Pork producers have continually spoken up about the negative impacts of this issue, and it is a shame these conversations were disregarded.”

In May, NPPC secured 100 percent of pork producers’ priorities in the House Agriculture Committee-passed bipartisan 2024 Farm Bill. In June, producers once again secured all policy priorities in Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member John Boozman’s 2024 Farm Bill framework.

NPPC said it urges both chambers of Congress to swiftly consider and pass a Farm Bill this year that includes a fix to California Proposition 12, a state law that places arbitrary housing standards on the pork industry, creating uncertainty for pork producers as they look to continue their operations to the next generation.

Additional Impact on Agriculture from Farm CPA

In a post this morning, Paul Neiffer of Farm CPA Report included a quick preview of the items that jumped out at him relative to the farm bill details released by Stabenow.

Reference Prices: The House proposal raised reference prices by approximately 10-20%. The Senate proposal appears to raise reference prices by a flat 5% (rounded). Although it appears that Cotton only went up by 4% instead of 5%.
Increase in Base Acres
- Only underserved and disadvantaged farmers may increase base acres
- Based on average of 2018-2022 plantings
- Includes prevent planted acres
- Maximum increase of 160 acres per farm
- If disadvantage farmer does not farm acres during 2025-2029, then increased base acres are eliminated
- Special 2023 and 2024 ARC/PLC election
- Automatic election to be paid the highest amount for 2023 and 2024 crop year even if the farmer originally elected ARC or PLC.

Limit on PLC Payment: The maximum amount of payment for PLC will be 15% of the effective reference price. As example, assume a farmer has a PLC yield of 200 bushels for corn and the effective reference price is $4.30 and the final corn harvest price is $3.50. Under the old PLC rules, the farmer could receive 200 bushels times 80 cents per bushel or $160. Under this proposal, the farmer is limited to 65 cents or $130 per acre.
Partial PLC Payments: Instead of waiting until after October 1 to collect a PLC payment, the farmer, in certain situations may elect to receive up to 50% of the crop beginning February 1. This is based on firm projections by USDA that the final harvest price will be below the effective reference price. If USDA pays too much, then the farmer must pay it back.
Agricultural Risk Coverage: As expected, the Bill increases the guarantee from the current 86% to 88%, less than the 90% in the House Bill. However, not expected, the Bill increases the maximum payment to 12.50% of benchmark revenue, matching the House Bill and makes this retroactive to the 2024 crop. 2023 crop remains at 10%.
Partial ARC Payments: Provides same mechanism for partial payments as under PLC.
Increase to Marketing Loan Rates: For 2025 crops and subsequent years, the loan rate will be the lesser of 110% of current loan rates or an adjustment based on current input costs versus a five-year average.
Sugar Program: Increase sugar cane payment to 24 cents per pound for 2025-2029. Sugar beet growers will receive 136.5% of sugar cane payment rate.
Permanent ERP: Emergency Relief Program would be made permanent (at least until next farm bill). Payment limits of $500,000 for specialty crops and $250,000 for all other crops.
Terms appear similar to old ERP programs, but it does not mandate how USDA will administer it, etc. Also, no extra payment limit if you can prove you are a farmer. This may still be messy for CPAs to help farmers calculate their claim. Also, requires farmers to insure all acres.
Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) limits: AGI limits dropped from $900,000 to $700,000.
- Increases AGI limits to $1.5 million for specialty and high-value crops.
- What happens if a farmer grows both? The Bill does not address this, other than likely leave it up to USDA to come up with rules.
- Waiver of AGI rules available to economically distressed producer.
- It appears that no payments will be allowed if the land is owned by someone or an entity whose AGI is over $700,000. This means that a farmer who is cash renting that ground will not qualify for any payment on that ground. Under current rules and the House Farm Bill proposal, any farmer who is cash renting the ground and their AGI is under the limit will qualify for a payment. This is a major change and will create the law of unintended consequences. They seem to want to not have an incentive for wealthier individuals to purchase land since their high AGI will not qualify them for any payments but under current rules they get no payment anyway.

Increase in CCC Scoring: Section 1708 indicates that for purposes of CBO scoring, the restrictions on utilizing CCC funds shall be $6.7 billion per year for 2024-2033. The last scoring by CBO was $400 million per year.

CRP Rentals Limit Increased to $125,000 from current $50,000

Crop Insurance Changes: Increases subsidies for beginning and veteran farmers and ranchers to essentially match House proposal.
- Increases SCO to allow for payment at 88% instead of 86% of guarantee. House was at 90%.
- Increases premium subsidies.
Makes improvements to Whole Farm and Micro Farm insurance plans.

Comments:

Several contacts, asked to respond to Stabenow’s late farm bill details, used the same words: “Wow, finally, but too late.” Stabenow is departing Congress after this session ends, and veteran farm bill watchers say this late-entry farm bill is not a positive chapter in her long career. Most are asking why she chose today in releasing the details, and why she took a partisan approach in briefing about the matter.

Why John Thune's Election as Senate Majority Leader is Considered Beneficial for U.S. Agriculture

Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:50:43 GMT

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) wins Majority Leader race. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) was eliminated on the first ballot. And Thune beat Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) 29-24 on the second ballot.

The Thune selection is good for the U.S. ag sector. He has one of the best staff in Congress.

The leadership race unfolded in two rounds of voting: 

In the first ballot, Scott was eliminated. 
In the second and final ballot, Thune secured 29 votes, defeating Cornyn, who received 24 votes.

Donald Trump stayed out of the contest but did make public demands that the incoming majority leader allow him to make recess appointments to his Cabinet. All three men quickly agreed.

Thune’s election as Majority Leader is considered beneficial for the U.S. ag sector for several reasons: 

Agricultural background: Thune has a deep background in ag policy and is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. 
Farm bill experience: He has been involved in writing several farm bills, demonstrating his expertise in agricultural legislation. 
Conservation programs: Thune is an avid supporter of conservation title programs like the Conservation Stewardship Program and Conservation Reserve Program.
Bipartisan approach: He is a skilled negotiator, working for the benefit of all.
Constituency focus: Coming from South Dakota, an agriculture-based state, Thune is likely to keep agricultural interests at the forefront of his agenda.  • Experienced staff: Thune has one of the best staffs in Congress, which can be crucial for effective policymaking and implementation.

Of note: This leadership change marks the end of Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) 18-year tenure as the Senate’s Republican leader. Thune will assume the role of Majority Leader for the next two years, coinciding with President-elect Donald Trump’s second term. While Thune has had differences with Trump in the past, he has recently worked to improve their relationship and has pledged to advance Trump’s legislative agenda.

Which Presidential Candidate Is More Likely to Tame Inflation or Support Farm Policies and Biofuels?

Mon, 04 Nov 2024 19:29:27 GMT

The presidential race is a close one , according to election analysts. And when it comes to agriculture, there’s an immense focus on the potential impact on trade, inflation, farm policy and biofuels.

Ahead of the election, the October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists which presidential candidate will be better for agriculture on taming inflation, providing more certainty on farm policy, as well as more likely to support biofuels policies. The Monthly Monitor is an anonymous survey of 70 ag economists from across the U.S.

On the question of which candidate would be more effective at taming inflation, 53 percent said Donald Trump.
When it comes to providing more certainty on farm policy and crop insurance, 61 percent of economists said Trump will provide more certainty.
However, when looking at policies that benefit biofuels, 53 percent of economists said Kamala Harris.

45Z and Biofuels Tax Credit in Question

Today, there is no clarity on 45Z that’s causing soybean processors like Cargill and Bunge to possibly slow or even idle production by the end of the year.

“We have industry looking to shut down production of biofuel. If we don’t get the 45Z requirements here released soon, and that doesn’t look likely, unfortunately, that’s going to hurt demand for soybean crushing for soybeans per se,” Suderman said.

“The fact that we don’t have those today, I think, is impeding investment in the sector. And people are asking for that before they spend millions of dollars to do that. And I think that has been a hiccup,” said Brown.

Role of the Federal Government

Heading into a crucial election with not just the presidential race, but also the House and Senate, the October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked, “What is the most important role of the federal government?”

Forty-six percent of economists ranked financial aid as the top priority. Nearly 43 percent said it’s passing a farm bill.

October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

“There’s all this discussion that the safety net is inadequate relative to commodity programs, and there’s the potential for some rather large ARC and PLC payments to come,” said Brown. “But are they too late? That’s the question. Is it too late in the cycle? Does any type of ad hoc support through a farm financial package bridge that gap?”

The October survey of economists also asked them to weigh in on the fate of the farm bill. The majority of economists think Congress will pass a new farm bill in 2025, but 21 percent think it could be 2026 before it crosses the finish line.

Farm Bill Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

Your Next Reads:

Presidential Poll Results: How Farmers and Economists View Candidates’ Impact on Agriculture

Will USDA Fumble The 45Z Football?

Which Presidential Candidate Would Have the Biggest Impact on Ag?

A Possible Recession Still Hangs Over the Ag Economy, But Positive Shifts Are Starting to Surface

A Possible Recession Still Hangs Over the Ag Economy, But Positive Shifts Are Starting to Surface

Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:19:58 GMT

In September, 75 percent of ag economists warned of an impending agricultural recession. October brought slight optimism to the Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, attributed to rising U.S. corn export demand and forecasts about cattle herd rebuilding. Yet, economists remain cautious about the potential impact of the upcoming election.

Harvest is winding down across the Midwest, and some farmers saw a record harvest pace in 2024. Harvest is typically the time of year the market sets harvest lows, but this year, commodities, like corn and wheat, came to life.

“I think over the last month, we’ve seen a little bit of a rebound or stabilization of prices, if you will. Some of that’s simply been fund short covering that is supported, some of it is a little better long-term picture for wheat and for corn, although for soybeans, it’s still looking somewhat bleak long-term,” said Arlan Suderman, chief commodities economist with StoneX Group.

The latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, which is a survey of nearly 70 ag economists and conducted by Farm Jounal each month, reflected that with short-term sentiments among economists seeing a slight improvement, but a bigger jump when asked to compare them to last year.

“We could have told you two to three years ago that, after a period of high prices, eventually we were going to have a recovery in production and that was going to suppress prices probably more than input costs. We knew that. I think when you take into account expectations heading into the year, has it deteriorated more than expectations? Probably not. We just know that we’re worse off today than where we were,” said Ben Brown, an agricultural economist with the University of Missouri.

Each month, the Monthly Monitor asks economists to list the factors that could impact crop prices over the next six months. In the latest survey, economists said:

South American weather
U.S.-China trade relations
Election outcomes
Global geopolitical risks
Biofuel demand

The Biggest Wildcard: South America

“The biggest thing that will l impact the markets is going to be South American weather. What happens in Brazil and Argentina and what’s the size of the soybean crop they’re going to get? Right now, it is raining. The crop is being planted late. Our people on the ground in Brazil are expecting a big crop if these rains continue,” Suderman said.

While the soybean crop could see suppressed prices if Brazil grows a big crop this year, the later-planted crop could eat into the supplies of corn.

“Even where we’re at today could have an impact on that second-crop corn, given that I anticipate that we’re going to see a very robust corn export picture even without a shrinkage in that second-crop Brazilian corn. I still think there’s an upside potential for the corn market, and it’s going to be based on the size of that second-crop corn in Brazil,” said Brown.

A Recent Surge in Corn Sales

The corn export demand picture has been strong, which is thanks to a surge in sales to Mexico. T hat’s one significant factor currently fueling corn prices .

“If we didn’t have it, corn prices would be a lot lower today than where they are,” said Brown.

“When we look at the export pace that we’re on right now, it’s stronger than what we normally have at this time of year, and it’s largely been because of Mexico. Mexico has been a very aggressive buyer of U.S. corn here, at what they perceive to be the harvest lows,” Suderman said.

Outlook for Livestock and Dairy

The October Monthly Monitor asked economists to list the factors that could impact livestock and dairy prices over the next six months. Economists said:

Herd size and tight cattle supplies
Outcome of the election
Health of general economy in the U.S. and consumer demand changes
Disease issues (H5N1, etc.)
Developments in China and other major importers
Consumer demand given high meat and dairy prices
Weather in the Corn Belt and Great Plains

When Will Beef Producers Start to Rebuild Their Herds?

October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

The October survey also asked economists when they think producers will start to rebuild their cow herds:

50 percent said in the first half of 2026
30 percent think it’ll happen the second half of 2025
20 percent said in the first half of next year.

“We’ve seen a slowdown of cow slaughter. That’s step one, but that’s not rebuilding,” said Suderman. “It really comes down to when do we turn this weather pattern around and start getting the pasture, the feed necessary in the West in order to incentivize rebuilding the cowherd? That is the problem right now.”

Other than weather, what else is preventing producers from starting to rebuild? Economists say it’s the average age of producers, replacement costs and heifer prices.

“I also think there is this economic pull on producers of ‘how can I justify retaining these heifers when they’re bringing the prices that they are?’” said Brown.

The Inflation Factor

When you look at what could impact both livestock and row crop producers over the next six months, a major wild card is interest rates. The October survey asked economists how much farm interest rates need to fall to find economic stability for farmers, and 46% said 2%.

Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

But even with the Fed cutting the benchmark interest rate last month, interest rates have actually gone up, not down.

“The two-year break-even inflation rate is what the market trades. It’s expectations of what inflation’s going to average over the next two years. And over the last six weeks or so, we have seen it jump a full percentage point. That is a significant short-term jump, saying that reinflation fears are coming back in a hurry,” Suderman said.

Suderman points out the Fed can influence mid- and longer-term rates, but the agency can’t control them. And it’s concerns about inflation that are pushing those rates back up again.

“That could all change over the next couple of weeks, or it could be reinvigorated. I think longer term, what I’m looking for is a return to the interest rates that we saw in the ‘90s and early 2000. But I think there’s going to be a lot of volatility in getting there,” Suderman said.

Election Impact on Ag

October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

Ahead of the election, the Monthly Monitor asked economists which presidential candidate will be more effective at taming inflation. Fifty-three percent said Donald Trump.

When it comes to providing more certainty on farm policy and crop insurance, 61 percent of economists said Trump will provide more certainty.

However, when looking at policies that benefit biofuels, 53 percent of economists said Kamala Harris.

Today, there is no clarity on 45Z that’s causing soybean processors like Cargill and Bunge to possibly slow or even idle production by the end of the year.

“We have industry looking to shut down production of biofuel. If we don’t get the 45Z requirements here released soon, and that doesn’t look likely, unfortunately, that’s going to hurt demand for soybean crushing for soybeans per se,” Suderman said.

“The fact that we don’t have those today, I think, is impeding investment in the sector. And people are asking for that before they spend millions of dollars to do that. And I think that has been a hiccup,” said Brown.

Role of the Federal Government

Heading into a crucial election with not just the presidential race, but also the House and Senate, the October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked, “What is the most important role of the federal government?”

Forty-six percent of economists ranked financial aid as the top priority. Nearly 43 percent said it’s passing a farm bill.

October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

Farm Bill Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

Conclusion

The October Monthly Monitor reflects cautious optimism in certain areas of agriculture, marked by export strengths and potential price recoveries. But the optimism is shadowed by long-term rebuilding challenges, weather dependencies and the impact of the upcoming election.

Time is of the Essence for the Farm Bill, Vilsack Says

Mon, 28 Oct 2024 18:59:51 GMT

“Time is of the essence. We need a farm bill now,” U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said during a conversation with members of the American Farmland Trust.

He said that time is running short for Congress to come together to address the farm bill in a bipartisan way.

“Either we have a real bipartisan deal on a new farm bill, or, at a minimum, an extension of the existing farm bill,” Vilsack said.

A farm bill would at least add some certainty for farmers and their lenders, he pointed out. So far, Vilsack has been fairly general in saying just what exactly he would like to see in a farm bill, pointed out Gary Crawford, reporting for USDA.

“The farm bill needs to be one that is not leaving anyone behind, whether that be farmers concerned about losing their farms in tight times or working families struggling to get by,” Vilsack said.

Vilsack added that lawmakers need to get together in a bipartisan way to craft a realistic, practical farm bill.

“Frankly, the longer we wait, the harder it is to get this done,” Vilsack said.

Your Next Read: It is Time to Pass to Farm Bill Now, Pork Producers Say

Expert Shares What Could Spark Progress On The Farm Bill

Wed, 25 Sep 2024 17:53:33 GMT

John Newton, former Senate Ag Committee economist and now executive head at Terrain, shares what will move the Farm Bill out of the Senate Ag Committee and toward finalization.

“Chairwoman Stabenow could release bill text whenever she’d like. On the Republican side, I was happy to be part of that team and we released our framework earlier this year,” Newton says. The ball is obviously in the chairwoman’s court to do something on the Senate side.”

In addition to no bill text on the senate side, there’s no floor vote scheduled in the house. But Newton highlights three priorities and a time frame for a final farm bill:

More “Farm” in the Farm Bill: “I was part of a team that put together a Republican Farm Bill framework based on feedback we have received from over 23 states that Senator Bozeman visited. And in every single one of those states, what farmers and ranchers said is we need more farm in the Farm Bill,” Newton says.
Improved Safety Net: “There are real needs in agriculture to make safety net tools better,” Newton says. He sees the need to enhance crop insurance and cites how many reference prices are more than a decade old.
Bipartisan effort: “I would hope that there would be a bipartisan agreement in the Senate to move a farm bill that recognizes the challenges farmers and ranchers are facing right now. Net farm income is down over $50 billion over the last two years, net cash farm income is seeing the steepest two years’ decline of all time,” he says.

As for when the farm bill could make progress, Newton expects next month’s campaign trips home to help with some momentum.

“Folks are going to go home during October, and they’re going to hear from farmers and ranchers on what their needs are,” he says. “I think they’ll come back motivated to get something done, whether that’s a short term bridge or whether that’s a full five-year farm bill over the finish line. I think members can be motivated to do that when they get back in November.”

Hear more from Newton on ARC and PLC programs as well as the nutrition and conservation titles in this AgriTalk segment:

Your next read: Ag Economist John Newton Named Executive Head of Terrain

CBO Estimate Shows House Ag Committee's Farm Bill Would Increase Federal Budget Deficit by $33B Over 10 Years

Mon, 05 Aug 2024 12:43:12 GMT

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as expected late Friday, Aug. 2, released an official House farm bill cost estimate indicating that the House Agriculture Committee’s farm bill would increase the federal budget deficit by $33 billion over the next decade.

The CBO’s report estimates that the farm bill will cost $1.25 trillion over the 2025-2033 period, with a net increase in the federal budget deficit by $33 billion. The primary driver of this increase is the cost of several commodity program provisions, which are expected to rise significantly due to higher reference prices in the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program and other enhancements.

Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Provision

A contentious provision in the bill aims to suspend USDA’s use of Section 5 under its Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) spending authority. This section essentially acts as a revolving fund used by the USDA to address various agricultural challenges. House Agriculture Committee Chair GT Thompson (R-Pa.) proposed reallocating this authority to boost farm subsidies and crop insurance premium subsidies by between $50 billion and $53 billion over ten years.

However, CBO estimates potential savings from suspending this authority to be between zero and $8 billion, far short of the needed amount. The CBO’s skepticism stems from the provision’s ambiguous language, which could be interpreted in multiple ways, making it unclear whether it would effectively prevent USDA from spending funds under Section 5.

Political and Legislative Implications

The funding gap highlighted by the CBO could force House Republican leaders to either direct the CBO to revise its budget estimate or modify the legislation to align with budget constraints. Any attempt to direct CBO could lead to political backlash and is unlikely to be accepted by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

The House bill includes several enhancements to existing programs:
• PLC and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) programs: Expected to increase payments by $34.9 billion and $9.7 billion, respectively.
• Dairy Margin Coverage Program: Costs would rise by $300 million due to updates in eligible production amounts.
• Federal crop insurance program: Costs would increase by $3.5 billion due to higher premium subsidies and administrative funding.

Conversely, the bill proposes cuts to the nutrition title, saving an estimated $29.4 billion by imposing restrictions on future updates of the Thrifty Food Plan, which sets Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

Of note: CBO’s analysis of the House farm bill language would zero out the sugar program over time. “There was a technical, clerical error in the introduced bill that will be fixed prior to the bill moving to the floor,” said Rob Johansson, Director of Economics and Policy Analysis at American Sugar Alliance. Farm bill writers say efforts will be made to correct any misunderstanding if the House farm bill gets to the floor for debate and votes. The CBO score would then be $58 million.

Reaction:
Thompson expressed dissatisfaction with the CBO’s scoring, particularly regarding the savings from suspending Section 5 of the CCC Charter Act. Thompson believes the CBO’s methodology underestimates the potential savings and has criticized the CBO for what he sees as a history of underestimating CCC outlays. He argues that the House farm bill is designed to provide significant investments in various agricultural sectors, including the farm safety net, biosecurity, and trade promotion. Thompson insists that more work is needed to ensure the bill is financially sound and can be passed into law.
Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has been critical of the House Republican proposal. She argues the CBO score reveals the bill is not financially viable, relying on what she describes as “magic math and wishful thinking.” Stabenow emphasizes the need for a bipartisan agreement that includes realistic negotiations on funding investments for various components of the ag sector. She has called for her Republican colleagues to engage in serious discussions to find viable funding solutions and has expressed her willingness to explore creative funding options outside the traditional farm bill framework. Republicans stress that unlike the House, Stabenow has not officially filed a new farm bill in the Senate, just pages of summaries.

Outlook: Thompson has indicated a willingness to work with CBO and the Budget Committee to clarify the interpretation of the CCC provision and address the funding gap. However, the top Democrat on the House Ag Committee, David Scott (D-Ga.), and Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) have called for abandoning the current version of the bill due to its budgetary implications.

Is Agriculture on the Brink of a Farm Economy Cliff? The Emotional Testimonies from Capitol Hill this Week

Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:25:04 GMT

Is agriculture on the brink of an impending farm economy cliff? A panel of experts testified before the House Ag Committee this week about the severe challenges facing agriculture, all the way from the farmer to the supply chain.

The hearing on Capitol Hill comes as net farm income is forecast to decrease by $43 billion from 2023 to 2024, marking the most significant two-year decline in history. Meanwhile, production expenses are forecast to increase by $17 billion.

During the hearing the Chair of the House Ag Committee expressed his concerns about another farm financial crisis brewing.

“We are living through the largest two-year decline in farm income in history,” said Rep. G.T. Thompson (R-PA), House Agriculture Committee Chair during the hearing on Tuesday. “At the end of 2024, total farm sector debt will be the highest the U.S. has seen since at least 1970. 3:45 Most farmers and ranchers, including those here with us today, are likely to be worse off financially by years’ end.”

Dana Allen-Tully provided insightful comments and testimony during the hearing that captured the anxiety and price downturn in U.S. agriculture She and her family run a diversified farm in Eyota, Minnesota, producing dairy, corn, soybeans, and alfalfa. She also serves as President of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association, representing 7,000 farm families across the state.

“Unless conditions change we’re facing a ‘perfect storm’ although I don’t think it will be fully understood until next year when farmers are unable to secure loans because they can’t cash flow,” said Allen-Tulley. “Plummeting crop prices, high production costs, doubling interest rates, natural disasters and tightening credit are just some of key culprits, as well as depleting working capital.”

She discussed the importance of passing a stronger farm bill this year, and shared the economic challenges producers are facing. We’re heading into a “perfect storm” of plummeting crop prices, high production costs, rising interest rates, natural disasters, and tightening credit, leading to depleted working capital, she stressed.

She noted recent analyses by the Federal Reserve Bank and the Farm Bureau highlight the brewing trouble, with John Deere’s layoffs as an early warning sign. An extension of the current farm bill won’t prevent economic issues, she informed, and a new farm bill, while essential, may not be timely enough. She said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) recently emphasized the need for a disaster supplemental to address these challenges.

Alley-Tully cited USDA estimates projecting a drastic fall in farm income this year, marking the largest year-to-year drop ever recorded. From 2022 to 2024, net farm income will have fallen by 40%, explaining the declining farmer sentiment and increased mental health issues in rural America.

For farmers to break even this year, she detailed, national average corn yields must be 219 bushels per acre, and soybeans 56 bushels per acre — both significantly higher than the past 10-year average. Losses per acre are projected to be over $150, with even higher losses in Minnesota.

Her bottom line: Farm and ranch families need help. The Commodity Title and Crop Insurance provisions in the House farm bill, she concluded, provide a meaningful safety net, with a $4.10 PLC/ARC reference price and improved revenue thresholds. These measures are crucial, especially under current conditions, she said. While she supports these provisions in the next farm bill, she added it’s important to resume ERP payments for 2022 and consider a disaster supplemental for near-term assistance.

Other witnesses pointed out a host of economic issues are converging to lower net farm income by 25 percent from 2023 to 2024, which is depleting working capital and worsening credit conditions.

“With rising input costs and lower commodity prices farmers and ranchers have worked through the liquidity and working capital they built up over the past few years at a more rapid rate than anticipated and are now beginning to leverage equity through refinancing debt,” said
Tony Hotchkiss, Chairman, Ag and Rural Bankers Committee, American Bankers Association. “This has made ag bankers feel like they are looking over the cliff when it comes to the farm economy.”

Other witnesses urged policymakers to enhance risk management tools through a new farm bill to avert a crisis. And the Chairman agreed that is his goal.

“There are a few pundits that have taken the last few months to spread misinformation about this committee’s bipartisan product in an attempt to sow division. 5:00 Let me be clear; this is a farm bill that provides significant improvements for all producers,” Thompson said.

Thompson also said resources dedicated to the total farm safety net have declined 30 percent in the last 22 years with the commodity title seeing an 81-percent reduction. He says they want to change that with the new farm bill and he’s still open to trying get a bill passed in 2024 to avert a farm financial crisis.

Beyond the farm bill, Allen-Tully noted issues like trade deficits and flawed regulations impact farm families. She urged new trade agreements and better rules for biofuels to support domestic producers. “We face high stakes in farming, risking everything annually for thin margins. This discourages young people from farming, posing a problem for food security. Policies must reflect modern farming realities to address global hunger.”

Here Are The Notable Changes In The House Farm Bill

Tue, 04 Jun 2024 19:04:11 GMT

The House Ag Committee recently released and approved their initial version of the long-awaited 2024 Farm Bill, which included changes to several areas important to production agriculture – such as reference prices, base acres and federal programs. During an episode of the Top Producer podcast, Farm CPA Paul Neiffer explained how farmers could expect those changes to affect them.

Reference Prices
According to Neiffer, the proposed farm bill would increase reference prices across the board, with the smallest increases in barley, oats and corn and the largest in rice. The changes for other crops include:

• Legumes: ~19%
• Peanuts: 17.8%
• Cotton: 14.4%
• Wheat: 15.5%
• Soybeans: 18.5%

It’s important to note, however, these likely won’t be the final numbers in the farm bill.

“I think this is going to increase the cost of the farm bill by – over a 10-year period – maybe $15 billion to $20 billion,” Neiffer says. “If they need to cut some, they can cut it out of here.”

Base Acres
Another update includes base acres. In the new House-approved language, if you have planted more acres than you have base acres, the excess acres will now qualify to be increased to reflect what your plantings were over the average of 2019 to 2023 crop years.

“This is a pretty good deal. It’s a one-time opportunity – not a reallocation of your current base,” Neiffer says. “Let’s say you have corn and soybeans, but the last five years you only planted corn. This base acre update will be based on what you planted. So, if you only planted corn, you’ll get an increase in corn base acres.”

In addition, non-covered commodities, such as potatoes or onions, can now be used on up to 15% of total farm acres.

The House proposal does not restrict who qualifies for the program.

Agriculture Risk Coverage Program
Like reference prices, the Agriculture Risk Coverage program (ARC) also sees an increase in this proposal.

The guarantee of benchmark revenue jumps from 86% to 90% and the maximum payment also rises from 10% of benchmark revenue to 12.5%.

Marketing Loans
Neiffer says that while some may go up slightly more than others, almost all marketing loans increase by about 10%.

“There are a couple of situations where that helps. If you want to get a loan, you can get more of a loan,” he says. “But it could also hurt you in a way.”

He goes on to explain price loss coverage (PLC) payments are calculated as the difference between the effective reference price and market year average (MYA) price and the MYA price cannot drop below the loan rate. So, with the increase in the market loan rate, PLC payments could be smaller.

Livestock Programs
On the animal side, changes have been made to the dairy margin program and livestock indemnity payments.
“The big one [for the dairy margin program] is the tier one coverage gets more of a subsidy from 5 million lb. up to 6 million lb. That’s a 20% increase,” Neiffer says.

The payment rate for livestock indemnity payments is also increased to up to 100%. Neiffer says that increase is for animals that have been killed by a federally protected species, such as wolves.

He adds if a pregnant animal is killed in this situation, the owner could be paid up to 85% of the unborn animal’s lowest weight class.

Partnership Tax Payments
Another payment change to watch involves how operations are classified. In the past, Neiffer says, operations taxed as partnerships – such as an LLC or S corporation – were limited to one payment. The new proposal does not have a payment limit for qualified pass-through entities, which could be any LLC not electing to be a C corporation, any S corporation or any general partnership or joint venture. The one-payment limit would still apply to C corporations.

“I don’t know if this will happen,” Neiffer says. “The 2018 Farm Bill had certain provisions similar to this in the House bill but didn’t happen.”

Farm Income Definition
The House proposal also broadens the definition of what counts as farm income.

“Under the current definition of farming, gains from trading in farm equipment typically is not considered to be farm income. This farm bill specifically states that is farming, as well as agritourism and direct-to-consumer marketing,” Neiffer says. “That’s good news.”

Conservation Reserve Program
The maximum Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) payment more than doubles in this draft – jumping from $50,000 to $125,000.

“For farmers who maybe have acres that really shouldn’t be farmed, this is allowing more of those acres to get enrolled,” Neiffer says.

Crop Insurance
The final area Neiffer highlights with notable changes is supplemental crop insurance.

He shares the 85% cap on revenue protection policies is increased to 90% for individual yield or revenue coverage, but it’s aggregated across multiple commodities. The supplemental coverage option (SCO) is also increased from 86% to 90%.

“This is really welcome news for farmers in North Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma or southern Missouri where the cost of crop insurance is so high,” Neiffer says. “By increasing the subsidy, this is probably going to allow a lot of those farmers to buy revenue protection at 60% or 65% and then use SCO to go up to 90%.”

There’s also a 10-percentage point subsidy increase for those who qualify as beginning or veteran farmers. This has been expanded from five years to 10 years as well.

Will Congress Pass a New Farm Bill in 2024?

Mon, 03 Jun 2024 18:25:19 GMT

The farm bill finally saw some movement in Washington last month, but the majority of agricultural economists still don’t think a farm bill will be passed until 2025, with some even saying it could be 2026.

The May Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor , a survey of nearly 70 agricultural economists from across the U.S., asked economists when they believe Congress will pass a new farm bill. Sixty-eight percent of the economists replied they expect it to be passed in 2025.

Nineteen percent said it could be in 2024, which is an increase from the April survey when zero ag economists said 2024.

However, some ag economists think the farm bill will be passed in 2026. Thirteen percent responded 2026 in the latest survey, which is in line with the results from last month’s survey.

“If a bill is not completed in 2024, the dynamics could be very different in 2025. Regardless of the election results, the upcoming expiration of various tax provisions is likely to put pressure on Congress to reduce, or at least not increase, spending elsewhere,” said one economist in the anonymous survey. “Unless the filibuster is eliminated, even a Republican Congress could find it hard to finance increases in spending on farm programs by limiting spending on SNAP. Thus, I expect smaller farm program changes than are currently being discussed.”

The latest survey also asked economists what are the most important changes for producers in the next farm bill, and what potential changes in farm policy are being overlooked. Economists shared nine potential changes:

Higher subsidy levels for area-based products.
The wild card is milk pricing system.
Ongoing trends toward more environmental regulation from USDA agencies, supported by progressive elements in Congress.
The focus has been on changes to reference prices, and potential additional funding for export markets could be an important change.
Expect increases in crop insurance premium support (subsidy) levels for higher coverage levels and for area products.
Commodity program changes will ultimately be modest, but will favor cotton, rice and peanuts. Despite that, the safety net will be more significant across the board in the next few years because of the recent price history and the moving average calculations.
Constraints on the Secretary’s CCC spending will affect administrative programs and proposals going forward.
Based on what has been released so far, it seems like reference price changes are going to be the big change that impacts producers. A potential change in farm policy that is being overlooked is the need for a base acre overhaul (not just voluntary).
Reference price increases will be the most important change.

What’s Next for the Farm Bill?

As Farm Journal Washington Correspondent Jim Wiesemeyer reported two weeks ago , the House version of the farm bill made it out of committee just before Congress broke for a week-long recess. The contentious House Ag Committee markup of a new $1.51 trillion farm bill began on Thursday, May 23, and went into early Friday morning with four Democrats joining all 29 panel Republicans in voting for the measure, bringing the final tally to 33-21.

There a couple different paths to move the bill forward, but nothing has been set. House Speaker Mike Johnson could bring it to the House floor once he’s certain there are enough votes.

House Ag Committee Chairman GT Thompson recently stated that of the 435 members of Congress, more than half have never debated or voted on a farm bill before. He called it a unique challenge that requires a lot of education to bring people up to speed.

However, Wiesemeyer also says it could go to the House Rules Committee first, and there, the bill faces a couple of roadblocks for passage, including not only getting enough Democrats to support the bill, but also finding the support of hard-right Republicans.

The Senate version is a different story, as the the Senate Ag Committee hasn’t released the complete bill, only a preview of what is in it. What are the key differences in both the House and Senate versions of the farm bill? Wiesemeyer broke it all down here .

As Farmers Look to Cut Costs for 2025, Machinery and Technology Could Take the Biggest Hit

A Margin Squeeze is Setting in Across Row-Crop Farms, and 80% of Ag Economists Are Now Concerned It’ll Accelerate Consolidation

A Contentious House Ag Committee Markup of a New $1.51 Trillion Farm Bill Passes Out of Committee

What You Need to Know About the Key Differences Between the House and Senate Versions of the Farm Bill

House Agriculture Committee Set to Mark Up 942-Page Farm Bill Draft

A Contentious House Ag Committee Markup of a New $1.51 Trillion Farm Bill Passes Out of Committee

Sun, 26 May 2024 20:14:07 GMT

A contentious House Ag Committee markup of a new $1.51 trillion farm bill began on Thursday (May 23) but ended early Friday (May 24) with four Democrats joining all 29 panel Republicans in voting for the measure, bringing the final tally to 33-21.

The four Democrats voting for the farmer-friendly measure were Don Davis of North Carolina, Yadira Caraveo of Colorado, Eric Sorensen of Illinois and Sanford Bishop of Georgia. Remember when many lawmakers and former lawmakers said there would be no House Dem vote for the measure during the markup vote? They were wrong.

After the markup cleared Committee, Chairman Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson (PA-15) issued the following statement:

“Critics have wasted a lot of breath telling me what can’t be done, and last night the House Committee on Agriculture proved them wrong. I want to commend Reps. Caraveo, Davis, Sorenson, and Bishop for their willingness to see through the hyperbolic partisan rhetoric and help advance the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.

I heard my Democratic colleagues loud and clear at markup, that there is a whole lot of common ground, and a few sticking points that can be resolved through conversation and negotiation. Great things can be accomplished when you don’t surround yourself with redlines, and I am eager to continue our work with whomever wants to come to the table.

I implore Senator Stabenow to invite Ranking Member Boozman and Senate Republicans to the table, just as I have consistently done with House Democrats. The House Committee on Agriculture has proven there is a path to a bipartisan compromise that addresses the needs of rural America, enhances the farm safety net, and does right by our neighbors in need.

A farm bill is too important to let slip any further, including into next year. Farm and ranch families cannot wait.”

Key Questions Moving Forward

Key questions now include:

What will be the House floor strategy?
How many total Dems will vote for the bill if and when it gets a House floor vote?
How many Republicans will vote against the measure on the House floor?
Will the House Rules Committee be a problem in clearing the bill?
How many and which amendments will be ruled in order in House floor action?
Will this help push Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) to officially release text of her bill, seen as wanting in key Title I farmer safety-net programs compared with the House measure. After the House vote, Stabenow said: ““Despite areas of common ground, it is now clear that key parts of the House bill split the farm bill coalition in a way that makes it impossible to achieve the votes to become law. And it is also clear that we do not have time to waste on proposals that cannot meet that goal.”
What will ranking Senate Ag member John Boozman’s (R-Ark.) alternative farm bill contain when released likely in June?

The panel approved 19 amendments to the bill, en bloc, by a voice vote. Link /pdf.

Ag Committee Republicans blocked attempts by Democrats to amend the bill. In votes along party lines of 25-29, the GOP-led committee rejected:

A push to restore requirements that conservation money from the Inflation Reduction Act focus on climate-smart practices.
Language keeping USDA secretary’s authority over the Commodity Credit Corporation.
Restoring $27 billion in funding over 10 years to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Ensuring meatpackers with USDA contracts follow child-labor laws.

Southern Ag Today has compiled a side-by-side comparison of the major farm safety net features of the House Ag Committee-passed bill and the Senate majority proposal — the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024. On May 1, 2024, Rep. GT Thompson, Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, released summaries of their respective farm bill proposals (see here and here ).

On May 17, 2024, Chairman Thompson released text of his bill.

Southern Ag Today notes: “Importantly, no bill text has been released for the Senate proposal, so the comparison is compiled from the summary materials linked above. Further, while Table 1 compares the proposals currently on the table, we leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about which approach they prefer. It is also important to note that Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), Ranking Member of the Senate Ag Committee, announced earlier this morning that he will weigh in with his own framework “’n the coming weeks’ but highlighted that the House Ag Committee-passed bill ‘mirrors much of what Senate Republicans are seeking to accomplish with our framework.’”

Key Features	House Ag Committee-Passed Bill	Senate Majority Proposal
*Title 1 Provisions*
Statutory Reference Prices (SRPs)	Increases ranging from 10-20%... Corn: $3.70/bu to $4.10/bu Sorghum: $3.95/bu to $4.40/bu Barley: $4.95/bu to $5.45/bu Oats: $2.40/bu to $2.65/bu Soybeans: $8.40/bu to $10.00/bu Wheat: $5.50/bu to $6.35/bu Seed Cotton: $0.367/lb to $0.42/lb Rice: $14.00/cwt to $16.90/cwt Peanuts: $535/ton to $630/ton Other Oilseeds: $20.15/cwt to $23.75/cwt Dry Peas: $11.00/cwt to $13.10/cwt Lentils: $19.97/cwt to $23.75/cwt Small Chickpeas: $19.04/cwt to $22.65/cwt Large Chickpeas: $21.54/cwt to $25.65/cwt	5% increase “for commodities such as seed cotton, rice, and peanuts”… Corn: unchanged at $3.70/bu Sorghum: unchanged at $3.95/bu Barley: unchanged at $4.95/bu Oats: unchanged at $2.40/bu Soybeans: unchanged at $8.40/bu Wheat: unchanged at $5.50/bu Seed Cotton: from $0.367/lb to $0.385/lb Rice: $14.00/cwt to $14.70/cwt Peanuts: $535/ton to $562/ton Other Oilseeds: unchanged at $20.15/cwt Dry Peas: unchanged at $11.00/cwt Lentils: unchanged at $19.97/cwt Small Chickpeas: unchanged at $19.04/cwt Large Chickpeas: unchanged at $21.54/cwt
Effective Reference Prices (ERPs)	No change from current law.	“Changes the definition” of ERPs by “updating the formula…” Details TBD.
Maximum PLC Payment NOTE: these estimates illustrate the maximum possible PLC payment (assuming the ERP is at 115% of the SRP).	Except for seed cotton and corn, the maximum possible PLC payment is the difference between the Effective Reference Price and the Loan Rate: —Corn: $1.42/bu —Sorghum: $2.64/bu —Barley: $3.52/bu —Oats: $0.85/bu —Soybeans: $4.68/bu —Wheat: $3.58/bu —Seed Cotton: $0.183/lb —Rice: $11.74/cwt —Peanuts: $335/ton —Other Oilseeds: $16.21/cwt —Dry Peas: $8.20/cwt —Lentils: $13.01/cwt —Small Chickpeas: $15.05/cwt —Large Chickpeas: $14.10/cwt	The maximum possible PLC payment is equal to 20% of the Effective Reference Price. —Corn: $0.85/bu —Sorghum: $0.91/bu —Barley: $1.14/bu —Oats: $0.55/bu —Soybeans: $1.93/bu —Wheat: $1.27/bu —Seed Cotton: $0.089/lb —Rice: $3.38/cwt —Peanuts: $129/ton —Other Oilseeds: $4.63/cwt —Dry Peas: $2.53/cwt —Lentils: $4.59/cwt —Small Chickpeas: $4.38/cwt —Large Chickpeas: $4.95/cwt
Loan Rates	Cotton: 0.45-$0.52/lb to $0.55/lb Dry Peas: $6.15/cwt to $6.87/cwt ELS Cotton: $0.95/lb to $1.00/lb Graded Wool: $1.15/lb to $1.60/lb Non-Graded Wool: $0.40/lb to $0.55/lb Mohair: $4.20/lb to $5.00/lb Honey: $0.69/lb to $1.50/lb Corn: $2.20/bu to $2.42/bu Sorghum: $2.20/bu to $2.42/bu Barley: $2.50/bu to $2.75/bu Oats: $2.00/bu to $2.20/bu Soybeans: $6.20/bu to $6.82/bu Wheat: $3.38/bu to $3.72/bu Rice: $7.00/cwt to $7.70/cwt Peanuts: $355/ton to $390/ton Other Oilseeds: $10.09/cwt to $11.10/cwt Lentils: $13.00/cwt to $14.30/cwt Small Chickpeas: $10/cwt to $11/cwt Large Chickpeas: $14/cwt to $15.40/cwt Sugar (Raw): $0.1975/lb to $0.24/lb	No change to statutory Loan Rates from current law but potential to increase (up to 10%) if estimated cost of production in a given year (from 2025 to 2029) is higher than the 5-year average cost of production from USDA’s Economic Research Service. For sugar producers, “increases sugar loan rates and adjusts the relationship between raw sugar and refined sugar to reflect more recent production and transportation costs.”
ARC Guarantee	Increase from 86% to 90%.	Increase from 86% to 88%.
Maximum ARC Payment	Increase from 10% to 12.5%, raising the maximum possible payment by 25%.	No change from current law of 10%.
Base Acres	Adds up to an additional 30 million acres for farms where planted acres exceed base acres on the farm.	“Limited opportunity” to update base for “underserved producers” only.
Payment Limit Amounts	Increase from $125,000 to $155,000 for producers with >75% of income from farming/ranching/silviculture.	No change from current law.
Payment Limit Indexing	For producers with >75% of income from farming/ranching/silviculture, payment limits indexed for inflation (CPI-U) going forward.	No comparable provision.
Legal Entities	Eliminates the LLC penalty. Pass-thru LLCs would join General Partnerships and Joint Ventures in having the number of payment limits parallel the number of stakeholders in the entity.	No comparable provision.
Means Testing	No change from current law of $900,000, except that means testing would not apply to disaster programs in Title 1 and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) for producers with >75% of income from farming/ranching/silviculture. NOTE: this is consistent with the original means testing requirements from the 2002 Farm Bill.	Reduces AGI threshold from $900,000 to $700,000 for row-crop producers and makes tenants ineligible if landowners do not meet AGI threshold. Increases allowable AGI from $900,000 to $1,500,000 for specialty crop and “high-value” crop producers.
*Title 11 Provisions*
Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) Trigger	Increase from 86% to 90%	Increase from 86% to 88%
SCO Premium Support	Increase from 65% to 80%	Increase from 65% to 80%

One word describes the contentious and partisan marathon House farm bill markup session: accused. Republicans accused Democrats of rejecting their offers to work together. Democrats accused Republicans of refusing to address their concerns related to SNAP/food stamps, conservation/ environmental guardrails and restrictions on use of CCC funds. Both sides blamed each other for making the farm bill overtly political.

Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) apologized to Ag Committee Chair GT Thompson (R-Pa.) for what he said was Democrats’ unwillingness to work with him. “I’m sorry that the other side has chosen to reject your offers,” Scott said.

Ranking Member David Scott (D-Ga.) voice clear disdain for the House bill. “I cannot, and I will not support this bill,” he said. “I will vote no, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose it as well.” In response, Thompson detailed that more than 90% of the text was negotiated with the Ranking Member over the past 10 months. “This farm bill has been estimated to cost $1.51 trillion over 10 years, over $1.1 trillion of that is in the Nutrition Title,” Thompson said.

Lawmakers are divided over the Republican-led effort to freeze changes to SNAP as part of the proposed USDA food aid program bill. Republicans argue that the freeze combats waste and fraud without cutting benefits, while Democrats contend that redirecting savings constitutes a reduction in aid to needy families. The proposed legislation would maintain current SNAP levels but limit future expansions, reallocating savings to subsidize certain commodity farmers.

Background: The bill would maintain current SNAP levels but freeze the list of covered products and their purchasing values, though these would still adjust for inflation. This freeze would limit the USDA’s ability to add new items or expand support, as the Biden administration did in 2021 to increase access to fruits and vegetables.

David Scott cautioned that proposed changes to benefits calculations would take “food away from families.” Thompson accused Democrats of stymying negotiations. “SNAP benefits will continue to rise and respond to inflation,” Thompson said. “Unfortunately, I’ve learned my Democratic colleagues were led to believe otherwise… The farm bill has long been an example of consensus where both sides will take a step off the soapbox and have tough conversations. I do not draw red lines, I do not close the door to conversation,” he said.

Veteran GOP attacker Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) countered: “My friends on the other side live in a privileged, privileged bubble, and they wrote a farm bill that reflects that. We have Republican staffers apparently telling reporters that my colleagues and I are ‘hunger weirdos.’ What the hell is wrong with you guys?” McGovern later called the GOP members “looney tunes” Republicans.

A Republican hits back. “I served for 26 years in the United States military, oftentimes below the poverty level and using these programs,” Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) said. “So, I will not be lectured to by people who are saying that I’m trying to cut these benefits. It’s not true and it’s disingenuous.” But, he added, “speaking about the waste, fraud, abuse that absolutely exists in these programs - every single dollar that goes to waste, fraud, abuse for these SNAP programs is a dollar that cannot go to feed a hungry child.”

Rep. Jahana Hayes (D-Ct.) said she has not seen a bipartisan effort in the process. “I think any one of us would have loved to have the opportunity to at least get one or two of our priorities in, and that’s what we are asking for and that is what we are working for because I too had a field hearing in my district and many of the things that my constituents talked about are not included in here,” she said. Thompson countered the legislation contains more than 40 Democrat-only marker bills, along with nearly 80 bipartisan bills. “If Democrat member’s priority is not within this bill, I would urge them to ask the Ranking Member and their staff why or raise an amendment, that’s what the amendment process is for,” he said.

Republicans argued it was Democrats who had refused to play ball and get the bill passed last year, despite Republican concessions. Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) pointed to “over 40 initiatives that were specific asks from Democratic members.” “The very same members who are claiming that this bill is a wholly partisan undertaking say that this is not a bipartisan bill, when you know full well that this bill includes your requested priorities.” “Well back home we call those chickens,” Cammack added.

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) argued that agribusiness, not SNAP, was the main source of misallocated funds in the farm bill. “When folks have been talking about waste, fraud or abuse and are talking about people who are just trying to get by and on food stamps, I would actually point to the waste, fraud and abuse of corporate America, who are overwhelmingly starting to dominate our food systems and jacking up prices as well as underpaying their workers,” Casar said. “Just take a look at the beef market, where we have four packing companies that now control 85% of the market.” The farm bill, he said, “is such an important opportunity to reduce the power of those corporate price gougers, but instead, this Republican bill before us, rewards them.”

SNAP amendment defeated. House Ag Republicans defeated an amendment that would strike a provision preventing noninflationary increases to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in the proposed farm bill. Introduced by Rep. Hayes, ranking member of the House Agriculture Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture Subcommittee, the amendment was defeated in a 29 to 25 vote along party lines. The Biden administration’s re-evaluation led to a significant increase in SNAP costs, which Republicans argue was excessive at over $250 billion.

Senate Ag Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) says she will not advance a farm bill with the SNAP cuts proposed by House Republicans.

The GOP farm bill “robs Peter to pay Paul,” said Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.). The Ag Committee defeated by a vote of 29 to 25 an amendment by Bishop to strike Thompson’s provision to suspend the USDA secretary’s authority to use Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act. The vote was along party lines. Bishop said, “Let’s call it what it is. It’s a budget gimmick and we know that restricting the Secretary’s authority won’t get us anywhere near enough money to pay for the program changes in commodities or crop insurance.” Thompson said the Biden and Trump administrations have used the CCC for an average of $10.7 billion a year, which allows the justification to spend $50 billion over 10 years. Thompson argued the farm bill provision returns to Congress the authority to fund programs. He recalled that Congress had blocked Vilsack from using the fund under the Obama administration and that did not create any crisis in funding. “This restriction does not restrict the secretary from generating ideas that help rural America,” Thompson said. He added. “We cannot continue to abdicate our responsibility over the power of the purse and let unelected bureaucrats of either party spend billions of taxpayer dollars with zero accountability.”

Of note:

If the farm bill progresses to the House floor and CBO doesn’t significantly alter its CCC savings estimate, aides say Thompson will need to secure a directed-scorekeeping deal with Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Tex). The CBO typically provides comprehensive official scoring for a bill once it is approved out of committee. CBO spokesperson Caroline Jordan declined to comment on the funding proposal and internal agency email.

Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) said the bill contains many good provisions, but “this bill has no path forward across the House floor with this funding mechanism.” Thompson said that Democratic members had not offered any alternative “payfors” — provisions to pay for the provisions in the bill — even though they complain about the provisions that the Republicans have proposed using.

Conservation funding amendment defeated. The Ag panel rejected (29-25) an amendment by Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) that would have earmarked conservation funds from the Inflation Reduction Act for climate-smart agricultural practices. The vote fell along party lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the measure. The amendment aimed to ensure that a portion of the funding would be used to improve soil carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it failed to pass.

Hemp, hemp away… Included in the bill is language regarding hemp and hemp production. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp by authorizing the production of hemp and removing hemp and hemp seeds from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Since then, the proliferation of hemp derived products containing various cannabinoids (CBD, Delta-8, THC-A, etc.) has become commonplace. The increase of intoxicating products derived from hemp has concerned many — including those in Congress. During the Committee markup, an amendment was offered by Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill) that would federally ban all ingestible hemp products with any level of THC. The amendment passed via voice vote.

The Reality: With Election Day less than six months away, neither side was in the mood for compromise.

Of note: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) left the door open for his members to make their own decision on the bill after the markup. “We always encourage members to evaluate the legislation both as it had initially been presented, and in the context of a markup, what is the final product for consideration,” Jeffries said at his weekly news conference.

Will the farm bill make it to the House floor? Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), a former Ag Committee chairman who saw his initial farm bill go down to defeat among Democratic no votes, said the bill represents “the first step in a long journey.” Lucas said the “real struggle” is not getting the bill out of committee, but passing the bill on the House floor. But before the farm bill gets a chance on the House floor, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) must decide he wants a vote. That depends on 1) if he thinks he can get an unreliable Rules Committee to sign off on it and 2) if there are enough Democratic member votes for the legislation to offset an expected number of Republicans voting against it. That decision could be months away as congressional contacts signal any move to hold a House floor farm bill vote may wait until September following House focus on fiscal year 2025 appropriations measures.

Another farm bill extension? With such a wide disparity on farm bill views between the political parties in both chambers, odds are rising for another farm bill extension. Link to a CRS report on this topic.

What You Need to Know About the Key Differences Between the House and Senate Versions of the Farm Bill

Tue, 21 May 2024 22:22:21 GMT

The House bill favors production ag while the Senate bill puts lid on food stamp/TFP, conservation and CCC program changes.

The House on Friday released text and other information regarding its 942-page farm bill, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024. (Here’s a link to text of the bill, the updated title-by-title summary can be found at this link and here’s a l ink to our Special Report on the measure.)

The Senate has not released text of its measure, only some summary details of what some charge is a “hodge-podge” of some 100 different bills from farm-state lawmakers.

Of note: We keep stressing that one of the keys in this debate will be official scoring of different aspects of the two bills. Those will show the House approach maintains the $1.51 trillion ten-year farm bill baseline, while the Senate appears to go over it by at least $5 billion and perhaps around $20 billion or more. So, the House approach is budget neutral, and the Senate is not. The official scoring will also show how the two chambers got to their total spending levels and how much funding is being made for various titles. That will answer the equity questions Democrats usually like to talk about on other issues, but not the farm bill.

The House Ag Committee on Thursday (May 23) will mark up the House farm bill. House Ag Chair GT Thompson (R-Pa.) told Agri-Talk on Friday that his panel will have the votes to clear the panel, but he has yet to receive any firm Democratic member commitments to vote for the House approach. But Thompson said those voting against it “do so at their own peril,” with many hailing from rural districts where a no vote could prove a political liability this fall.

House floor debate strategy, Thompson said, depends on what occurs during this Thursday’s markup session. Thompson said a panel vote along party lines would be “unfortunate,” but added, “we’ll still find a pathway to the floor.”

The real reason Thompson wants to get a markup session vote this week is that come June, new farm bill scoring forecasts will come from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and a new baseline would take additional time to work through, with likely different forecasts and implications for farm bill spending.

Democratic complaints in the House and Senate are unified and deal with House GOP efforts to reform the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), but not take any existing funding from the program, nor for the SNAP/food stamp program. Thompson’s bill would restrict what factors can be considered in future updates of the TFP, which is used to set benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). A 2021 update conducted by the Biden administration resulted in a more than a 20% benefit (over $250 billion) increase, drawing criticism from Republicans over the methodology used and the result.

TFP changes would net $27 billion, House aides said. Some $12 billion to $16 billion would be “reinvested” in nutrition programs, while the balance would be shifted to other programs under the purview of the House Ag Sub./committee on Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture, including the Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development (FMD) programs that are set to see funding doubled.

Aides say the money freed up from the TFP should not be viewed as a cut or as savings given the CBO projections assume future updates to TFP along the lines of the exceptionally large changes brought by the 2021 revamp. They also said the changes would lock in current nutrition program benefit levels set by TFP, preventing a future administration from conducting an update that results in lower ones.

Democrats are also in ideological lockstep against taking off any guardrails they insist on relative to conservation program spending — the House farm bill would remove climate guardrails from $13 billion in Inflation Reduction Act (IRA/Climate Bill) conservation funding. House Republicans note the bill removes the IRA’s climate sideboards to restore the locally led nature of conservation programs and provide flexibility for States — even if the conservation practices involved are not deemed “climate-smart.” Senate Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has proposed keeping the funds focused on climate and within the four programs originally defined under the IRA: the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), and Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Republican aides said Thompson wants “to make sure that these programs remain flexible and can answer whatever natural resource problems are occurring.” They said casting a wider net with the funds will put more focus on the quality of projects — climate-smart or otherwise — rather than using incentives to boost the volume of projects using the more limited set of climate-smart practices. House aides emphasized that shifting the IRA funds into the bill would result in a permanently higher conservation funding baseline. “This is a long-term investment that increases conservation spending in Title II (Conservation) by about 25% in perpetuity,” they said.

CCC issue. Dems are also opposed to the House GOP push to suspend USDA’s Section 5 spending authority under the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), a $30 billion borrowing authority fund (that Congress replenishes each year) that was used to pay for farmer aid during the Trump trade war with China, and billions of dollars USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack tapped out of CCC for various spending, including over $3 billion for “climate-smart” ag funding.

Some media say the House Ag bill has a significant funding gap, but sources say that is not the case. The issue: The CBO estimates that the suspension of Section 5 authority would save $8 billion over 10 years, but that is considerably less than the $53 billion needed to cover the cost of changes to commodity programs and even more for changes to crop insurance. Efforts to get CBO to alter their low-ball forecast led to Thompson asking and getting help from House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) who directly called CBO leadership about the matter. Says one farm bill contact: “Arrington has the power to do directive scorekeeping. Some farm bill analysts apparently do not understand this. I know that Arrington and staff are sure that everything is defensible. After Trump and Biden, does anyone believe that the Ag secretary will only use his discretion to spend less than $1 billion per year of CCC funds? If so, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.”

House aides said they expect the cost of the Title I moves to be scored at between $50 billion and $53 billion, and when combined with crop insurance updates in Title II, the price tag rises to around $90 billion.

Democratic leadership in meetings have been lobbying against House farm bill proposals. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Stabenow reportedly have urged House Ag Democrats to vote against the farm bill during this Thursday’s markup session.

Stabenow made her views known about the House farm bill in a statement, offering some hope but also listing major differences:

“I’ve had several conversations with Chairman Thompson encouraging him to get his ideas on paper so that we can move this process forward. I’m glad his Committee released the Food, Farm, and National Security Act, and it appears that our visions for the 2024 Farm Bill have a lot in common.

“I remain deeply concerned that his proposal will split the broad, bipartisan coalition that has always been the foundation of a successful Farm Bill. It makes significant cuts to the family safety net that millions of Americans rely on, and it blocks USDA’s ability to provide real time assistance to farmers through the CCC to address emerging challenges. Even with these shortsighted cuts, it is unclear to me how they will pay for their proposal.

“Democrats have made clear from the beginning that we will not walk away from our commitment to the most vulnerable among us or from our farmers battling the effects of the climate crisis every day. The Food, Farm, and National Security Act clearly crosses those bright red lines and turns back the clock on decades of progress for farmers and families.

“The only path forward is holding together our broad coalition of farmers, hunger and nutrition advocates, rural communities, conservationists, and the climate community. That has always been how we ensure that our country’s farmers, families, workers, and rural communities have the certainty of a bipartisan, five-year farm bill.”

House Ag ranking member hammers House farm bill approach. “The discussion draft released by Chairman Thompson confirms my worst fears: House Republicans plan to pay for the farm bill by taking food out of the mouths of America’s hungry children, restricting farmers from receiving the climate-smart conservation funding they so desperately need, and barring the USDA from providing financial assistance to farmers in times of crisis,” said House Ag Ranking Member David Scott (D-Ga.). “The funding proposal that the Chairman has put forward does a disservice to American agriculture because it doesn’t provide a path forward to getting a bill passed on the House Floor,” Scott concluded.

Of note: Scott’s comments regarding a floor vote seems to acknowledge the measure will clear the Ag Committee, but a warning that a failure to secure Democratic support could be insurmountable on the House floor.

We will have more analysis of the Thursday House Ag markup vote later this week.

COMPARING THE TWO FARM BILLS. The following is not an exhaustive review of both House and Senate farm bills, but a digest of some key issues in various titles. Check the House and Senate Ag Committee web sites for additional information.

KEY FARM BILL SAFETY NET PROGRAMS:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Higher Reference Prices: Increases reference prices for all eligible commodities under PLC/ARC between 10% and just over 20%, enhancing the safety net for producers. Also, by increasing the statutory reference prices, the maximum effective reference price is also increased.

(Farm Journal)
Annual Election Maintained: Keeps the annual choice between PLC/ARC programs.
Increased ARC Coverage: Boosts ARC coverage from 86% to 90% of benchmark revenue and raises the payment band from 10% to 12.5%.

(Farm Journal)

Source: Combest-Sell Associates

(Farm Journal)

Source: Combest-Sell Associates
Expanded Base Acres: Provides an opportunity to add new base acres to farms that have no base, or that have been planting in excess of existing base acres. This provision does not modify or impact existing base acres. Expands base acres based on 2019-2023 plantings exceeding current base, including non-covered crops up to 15% of total acres. Includes provisions to establish payment yields on the additional base acres.
Higher Pay Limits: 1) Ends the disparate treatment of pass-through entities and 2) Raises pay limits for producers that get 75% or more of their income from farming and eligible for a payment limit of $155,000 (up from $125,000) that is indexed to inflation, and including LLCs and other farm structures.
Increased Loan Rates: Increases loan rates with more flexible repayment options and allows redemptions during government shutdowns. Provides for a more substantial increase in loan rates for commodities that did not receive an increase in the 2018 Farm Bill.

(Farm Journal)
Textile Mill Assistance: Enhances Economic Adjustment Assistance for Textile Mills. To account for persistent inflation and support the domestic textile industry, increases the payment rate from 3 cents to 5 cents under the program.
Sugar Policy Improvements: Increases loan rates for sugar beets and cane, and makes other policy improvements. The House farm bill would increase the national average loan rate to 24.00 cents for raw cane sugar; sugar beets: 136.55% of the loan rate per pound of raw cane sugar. The 2018 Farm Bill increased the national average loan rate to 19.75 cents per pound for raw cane sugar and 25.38 cents per pound for refined beet sugar. These rates are adjusted regionally to reflect marketing cost differentials.
Makes improvements in U.S. dairy policy: Including restoration of the “higher-of” formula in calculating Class I fluid milk price and forward pricing authority. Increases cap on Tier I for Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program to 6 million pounds. Provides opportunity to update production history for DMC. Provides a 25% discount on DMC premiums for operations that enroll in coverage for the life of the 2024 Farm Bill. Mandates biennial cost surveys to ensure make allowances accurately reflect the cost of manufacturing dairy products. Ensures the Dairy Forward Pricing Program does not expire.
Enhances standing disaster programs: Including the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), the Tree Assistance Program (TAP), and authorizes any future ad hoc assistance to be delivered via block grants to states. Increases payment rate of LIP to 100% of fair market value of the animal if the loss is caused by an attack by a federally protected species. Allows for a supplemental indemnity payment for the loss of unborn livestock if the loss of the gestating animal qualifies for assistance. Ensures farming operations are eligible for assistance under LIP, ELAP, TAP, Livestock Forage Production Program (LFP), and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) if the operation derives 75% or more of its income from farming, ranching, or forestry.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Reference Price Increase: 5% increase in reference prices for crops not benefiting from the 2018 Farm Bill escalator, including rice, peanuts, and seed cotton.
Base Acres for Underserved Producers: Opportunity to establish new or additional base acres if recent planting exceeded base for underserved producers.
Prohibition on Payments: No commodity payments on land owned by persons/entities with an AGI of $700,000 or greater, affecting tenants who cash rent or sharecrop the land; lowers AGI eligibility for commodity programs from $900,000 to $700,000.
ARC/PLC Election: Maintenance of the annual election between ARC/PLC.
PLC Payment Band: Introduction of a 20% payment band on PLC, similar to the 10% payment band on ARC, which is maintained.
ARC Coverage Increase: Increase in ARC coverage from 86% to 88%.
Marketing Loan Rates: Authorization to increase marketing loan rates by up to 110% of their current levels based on production costs.
Textile Mill Assistance: Increases in Economic Adjustment Assistance for Textile Mills.
Sugar Policy Improvements: Undisclosed increase to sugar loan rates and other policy improvements.
Dairy Pricing Authority: Extension of forward pricing authority for dairy.
Livestock Disaster Programs: Improvements to livestock disaster programs (LIP, TAP, ELAP) and authorization for a standing disaster program, pending appropriations.
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance: Modifications including eliminating AGI testing and increasing pay limits.

CROP INSURANCE:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Increases premium support under crop insurance for beginning producers and veteran producers for a 10-year period.
Encourages R&D on improved risk management tools for specialty crops.
Increases SCO and WFRP coverage to 90%, with 80% premium support under SCO.
Requires development of certain new policies to meet the risk management needs of producers.
Addresses private sector delivery concerns by re-establishing an annual inflation adjustment for A&O, eliminating the current flaw that harms specialty crop A&O, and by ensuring states with high losses the A&O necessary to accurately adjust the higher volume of claims in a timely fashion.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Increases premium support for beginning producers and veteran producers akin to the House farm bill.
Increases premium support for SCO at 80% and increases coverage level to 88%.
Includes performance-based discounts for climate and other environmental practices.
Expands native sod regulations from Prairie Pothole Region to the entire country.
Increases support for Whole Farm and Micro Farm insurance policies to serve small and underserved producers. Provides frequent review of rating and actuarial soundness of policies.
Prioritizes underserved producers and crops for new policy development.
Codifies the cease-and-desist order of RMA relative to cancelation of policies, etc.
Allows FCIC to bypass private sector delivery to deliver certain crop insurance policies.
Overhauls A&O, including providing a total A&O on all A&O, and
Provides for a seat at the table for agent groups in any new SRA renegotiation.

CONSERVATION:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Summary: Maintains and extends the new investment in the Conservation Title made under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act (IRA/Climate Bill) by making the new funding baseline permanent rather than subject to a Sept. 30, 2031, expiration as is currently the case. The funds may also be used for all conservation purposes rather than just climate initiatives, so the funds are available to all producers and program efforts are locally led.
CRP: 1) Maintains current 27-million-acre CRP acreage cap and requires state allocations be based on historical allocations. 2) Incentivizes enrollment of marginal lands by basing rental rates on land capability classification and paying high rental rates for land capability classes III through VII than other eligible lands. Class I and II soils would receive up to 85% of the county’s average rental rate, while class III soils would receive 100% of the county’s average rental rate. Classes IV through VII would go up to 155%. 3) Increases payment limitation from $50,000 to $125,000 per year.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Summary: (1) Maintains IRA dollars in permanent budget baseline; (2) permanently authorizes conservation programs (i.e., the programs would not require a farm bill to continue but would be treated effectively akin to SNAP); the Commodity Title would be the only farm bill title with significant mandatory funding that would require reauthorization every 5 years or so in a farm bill; (3) continues IRA-mandated climate strictures on funding and reorients RCCP, EQIP, and CSP to focus more on climate; (4) new mandatory spending —some believe about $13 billion above and beyond IRA funding — would occur with regard to CRP, ACEP, and CSP, and the bill also proposes to codify the $5 cover crop program where there is a state match.
CRP: Gradually increases CRP acreage cap from current 27 million acres to 29 million acres.

TRADE PROMOTION & FOOD AID:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Trade promotion: Doubles funding for the Foreign Market Development and Market Access Program.
U.S. Food Aid Prioritization:
* Emphasizes U.S. food donations over cash in international food aid programs.
* Requires at least 50% of aid to be actual U.S. food.
* Enhances USDA’s role in delivering U.S. food aid programs.
* Streamlines the procurement process for U.S. food to address immediate crises, ensuring effectiveness of U.S. food aid.

SENATE FARM BILL:

(1) Preserves current funding levels for MAP and FMD, (2) Preserves U.S. commodity donations as an option under U.S. food aid programs, generally at current levels.

FOOD STAMPS/SNAP, TFP AND DIETARY GUIDELINES:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Maintains current nutrition title programs, increasing benefits in certain cases.
Reforms the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) update such that the provision may not be used by the Ag Secretary in the future to increase SNAP benefits in the manner that it was done in August of 2021 (i.e., an increase of more than $250 billion) but also prevents the provision from being used to decrease benefits of that magnitude. Apart from removing the possibility of huge increases or huge cuts in the future, as well as a few instances where there are increase, SNAP benefits remain unchanged.
Reforms Dietary Guidelines for Americans process to remove the politics and emphasize good science and transparency.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Maintains current TFP process; and

Increases funding of an estimated nearly $8 billion for SNAP, TEFAP, Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program, Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, Healthy Food Financing Initiative, and Community Food Projects.

ANIMAL DISEASE PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE EFFORTS, MODIFIES EFFORTS SUCH AS CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION 12:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Invests new funds in programs designed to protect livestock and poultry from catastrophic animal diseases.
Clarifies that states and local governments cannot impose, directly or indirectly, as a condition for sale or consumption, a condition or standard on the production of covered livestock unless the livestock is physically located within such state or local government.

* Provides clarity to national markets by ensuring producers must only comply with applicable production standards imposed by their own state or local government.
* Protects producers from having to comply with a patchwork of state-by-state regulations.
* Protects the rights of states and local governments to establish standards as they deem necessary, but only for those raising covered livestock within their own borders.
* Only covers production (excluding domestic animals raised for the primary purpose of egg production), and does not include the movement, harvesting, or further processing of covered livestock.
Requires USDA to report on its preparedness to support livestock producers and poultry growers facing economic losses due to animal disaster outbreaks.

SENATE FARM BILL:

New mandatory funding for historically underserved producers
New funding for local and regional food systems
New funding for programs that address animal diseases
Authorizes additional climate initiatives, including climate hubs
Creates a USDA Special Investigator for Competition
No comparable language regarding Prop 12, etc., that is in House farm bill

OWNERSHIP AND OPERATING LOANS:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Updates and increases limits under guaranteed and direct operating and ownership loans to reflect the modern costs of planting, growing, and harvesting a crop and raising livestock.
Includes provisions to ease securing credit for beginning producers.
Increases loan limits for the Farm Service Agency

* Guaranteed farm ownership loan limits would increase from $2.24 million to $3.5 million
* Guaranteed operating loan limits would increase to $3 million
* FSA direct ownership would go from $600,000 to $850,000
* FDA direct operating loans would go from $400,000 to $750,000
* Eligibility requirements for FSA direct real estate loans would be lowered to one year of experience

SENATE FARM BILL:

Updates guaranteed and direct operating and ownership loans on par with the House proposal except guaranteed operating loans are lower under the Senate version.
Seeks to ease securing credit for beginning producers.

BROADBAND:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Strengthens rural broadband by working to connect those areas still without service while improving those areas with service that is poor by requiring higher standards of providers in exchange for financial assistance.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Strengthens rural broadband and increases funding for the Rural Partnerships and Prosperity and Investments in Rural Infrastructure programs.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Invests mandatory funding in agricultural research facilities and other research title initiatives.
Invests mandatory funding in specialty crop research initiatives.
Invests mandatory funding in 1890s land grants.
Establishes a commission to improve the accuracy and efficiency of NASS data collection and reporting.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Increases funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, 1890s land grants, agricultural research facilities, and Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research.

RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Renews and makes improvements to renewable energy programs, including the Rural Energy for America Program.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Includes extensions and modifications of the suite of energy title programs but the Senate summary does not provide great detail. The Senate bill does increase funding for the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical and Biobased Product Assistance Program, Biobased Markets, and the Bio Preferred Program.

HORTICULTURE:

HOUSE FARM BILL:

Renews and makes improvements to horticulture programs, including new investment in the Specialty Crop Block Grant program, the Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention Program, Organics, etc.

SENATE FARM BILL:

Includes renewal of programs but also funding increases for Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program, Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, Organics, etc.

House Agriculture Committee Set to Mark Up 942-Page Farm Bill Draft

Mon, 20 May 2024 21:52:56 GMT

There is finally some movement on the 942-page farm bill draft. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA) released the House farm bill draft last Friday.

Now, the House Agriculture Committee is expected to mark up the bill on Thursday. The bill – renamed the Farm, Food, and National Security Act – is expected to cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

The current farm bill, which was extended once already, expires Sept. 30.

“If we’re going to move the farm bill forward, it’s certainly important that we take this first step. I think while it’s anybody’s guess at this point, most likely it will pass out of the committee in a partisan way on Thursday,” Mary Kay Thatcher, Manager, Federal Government and Industry Relations at Syngenta, said on AgriTalk on Monday.

The bill is likely to face considerable opposition in the Senate, which the Democrats control, because of disagreements over federal nutrition-assistance programs (SNAP) and climate-smart policy requirements.

In addition, Thatcher says the GOP-proposed farm bill looks to counteract Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, in California and also stop the Secretary of Agriculture from having so much flexibility to direct the use of Commodity Credit Corporation funds.

A Lack Of Unity

Last Friday, in a joint statement, David Scott, House Agriculture Ranking Member, and Debbie Stabenow, Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Chairwoman, referenced the requirement for bipartisan support and pushed back on the current farm bill text.

“House Republicans are undermining this goal by proposing policies that split the broad, bipartisan coalition that has always been the foundation of a successful farm bill,” Stabenow and Scott said.

Thatcher said this is the most partisan start to a farm bill that she has seen. “Farm bills have often been agriculture all melding together,” she said. “That doesn’t mean you would get every Republican and every Democrat on the committee supporting it, but you certainly get two-thirds of them or three-fourths of them that say, ‘Yeah, let’s move this forward.’”

Despite the lack of unity between the two parties, Thatcher said she believes that “People are hopeful there are three or four moderate Democrats in heavy agricultural districts who will feel compelled to vote for the farm bill, even if the Democratic leadership is saying ‘No, don’t vote for a Republican drafted bill,’” she told AgriTalk guest host Michelle Rook.

Thatcher added that it’s imperative legislators continue to keep the farm bill process moving – because of how much time the Congressional Budget Office will need in order to score rural development provisions.

AgriTalk guest host, Michelle Rook, asked Thatcher if, ultimately, she anticipates the farm bill will get passed this year.

“I’m afraid not,” Thatcher said. “I hear a lot of people talking about, ‘Oh, we can do it in the lame duck Congress.’ But you know, I look at if we happen to get a Republican president or Republican Senate or a Republican House…there’s no incentive to move a farm bill,” she added. “They would wait until they got in charge in January to do something. And the same thing if you had a Democratic president. I think it’s an iffy bet.”

The complete discussion on AgriTalk can be heard here:

House GOP Farm Bill Provides Big Boost to Reference Prices; What You Need to Know

Producers Await Dairy Margin Coverage Sign up for the 2024 Calendar

Tue, 19 Dec 2023 17:51:24 GMT

As producers look to the end of the year, one trip they have not made yet is to the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) office to select a coverage level to participate in the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program in 2024. This is because no announcement has been made yet about the enrollment period for the year ahead.

Of course, dairy producers are hoping for stronger milk prices to reflect a more profitable milk check next year. However, the outlook for the first quarter milk prices doesn’t look too promising, which has producers turning to plan B which is hoping DMC payouts generate a healthy sum in the year ahead, like it did in 2023.

As noted in the October milk marketings report, DMC indemnity payments were distributed throughout the first 10 months of 2023 and have already topped $1.27 billion, averaging $74,453 per dairy operation. About 17,059 dairy operations were enrolled in the 2023 DMC program, representing about 74.5% of operations with established production history. All 2023 DMC indemnity payments are subject to a 5.7% sequestration deduction.

Katie Burgess, director of risk management with Ever.Ag, encourages producers to continue to sign up for USDA’s DMC program in the future.

“It has a strong track record of generating producer payouts when margins get squeezed,” she said during the U.S. Farm Report live taping at World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wis., earlier this month.

DMC allows producers to select a margin between the milk price and average feed cost to determine at which level they receive assistance.

The DMC program was authorized in the 2018 farm bill to offer protection to producers when the difference between the all-milk price and the average feed price falls below the producer-selected margin trigger.

FSA Administrator Zach Ducheneaux says Dairy Margin Coverage is a key risk management tool for dairy operations to financially endure the numerous, and often unpredictable uncertainties that adversely impact market prices for milk.

Sarina Sharp, an analyst with the Daily Dairy Report, says the dairy safety net has helped to sop up some—but not all—of the losses on dairy farm balance sheets.

Earlier this year, the continuing resolution was passed and signed into law that extends the current Farm Bill for one year through Sept. 30, 2024. This spells relief for the current farm bill program to stay the same into 2024. Programs like DMC will stay in place for at least another year. But for now, producers await the announcement of 2024 DMC sign-ups. Stay tuned to dairyherd.com for updates on the DMC program.

Farm Bill

House Passes 2026 Farm Bill: The Impact on U.S. Farmers

Swift Senate Action Needed

Pesticide Amendment Passes

Industry Says This Farm Bill is Needed Now

Now, Not Tomorrow

House Ag Committee Starts Farm Bill Mark Up

One Big Beautiful Bill Omits Farm Bill Titles

Farm Safety Net Needed

House Ag Committee Language Includes Prop 12 Ag Labeling Uniformity Act

Include Food for Peace Program

Senate Preparing for Farm Bill Mark Up

Will Congress Pass a Farm Bill?

Beyond An '80s Buyout: A New Voluntary Approach to Dairy Surpluses and Beef Supply

Voluntary Program to Cull Dairy Cows

A Legacy of Government Intervention

How Make America More Ground Beef Would Work

Dairy Industry Optimism and Growth

Another Temporary Fix: Stopgap Bill Includes Farm Bill Extension — Is This the New Normal for Ag Policy?

Senate Votes 60–40 to Advance the Measure

Boozman: “Critical USDA Services Resume”

Is This the New Norm?

Key Farm Bill-style Provisions in the OBBB

Opposition to the Farm Bill Extension

What's Missing in the Big Beautiful Bill When It Comes to Agriculture?

Big, Beautiful Bill: What's in it for Agriculture?

59% of Ag Economists Think Congress Won’t Pass a New Farm Bill Until 2026

Senate Overwhelmingly Confirms Brooke Rollins as 33rd Secretary of Agriculture

10 Charts to Explain What's Shaping the Ag Economy to Start 2025

Congress Approves CR, Includes $31 Billion in Farmer, Disaster Aid and Farm Bill Extension

Continuing Resolution Includes $31 Billion in Aid for Producers

Take Our Poll: Should Congress Pass Emergency Relief for Farmers?

A Farm Bill Extension Without Economic Aid for Farmers Sparks Intense Negotiations and Debate in Congress

Stabenow Finally Releases Full Text of Senate Farm Bill; Here's What It Means for Agriculture

Why John Thune's Election as Senate Majority Leader is Considered Beneficial for U.S. Agriculture

Which Presidential Candidate Is More Likely to Tame Inflation or Support Farm Policies and Biofuels?

A Possible Recession Still Hangs Over the Ag Economy, But Positive Shifts Are Starting to Surface

Time is of the Essence for the Farm Bill, Vilsack Says

Expert Shares What Could Spark Progress On The Farm Bill

CBO Estimate Shows House Ag Committee's Farm Bill Would Increase Federal Budget Deficit by $33B Over 10 Years

Is Agriculture on the Brink of a Farm Economy Cliff? The Emotional Testimonies from Capitol Hill this Week

Here Are The Notable Changes In The House Farm Bill

Will Congress Pass a New Farm Bill in 2024?

What’s Next for the Farm Bill?

Related Stories:

As Farmers Look to Cut Costs for 2025, Machinery and Technology Could Take the Biggest Hit

A Margin Squeeze is Setting in Across Row-Crop Farms, and 80% of Ag Economists Are Now Concerned It’ll Accelerate Consolidation

A Contentious House Ag Committee Markup of a New $1.51 Trillion Farm Bill Passes Out of Committee

What You Need to Know About the Key Differences Between the House and Senate Versions of the Farm Bill

House Agriculture Committee Set to Mark Up 942-Page Farm Bill Draft

A Contentious House Ag Committee Markup of a New $1.51 Trillion Farm Bill Passes Out of Committee

Key Questions Moving Forward

Of note:

What You Need to Know About the Key Differences Between the House and Senate Versions of the Farm Bill

House Agriculture Committee Set to Mark Up 942-Page Farm Bill Draft

Producers Await Dairy Margin Coverage Sign up for the 2024 Calendar