Navigate to « Main | Agricultural Policy | Crop Production | Extension Updates | Farm Business Economics | Farm Family | Livestock Production | Marketing »
September 28, 2009
Will You Have A Collision With A Motor Vehicle This Harvest Season?
Look in your tool box for your tape measure, and measure the width of most of the rural roads that you will be traveling on from field to field this fall. If they were part of the rural road building programs in the middle of the last century, they are probably 16 to 18 feet wide. Now, measure the width of your combine header and calculate how much room is left when traveling down that roadway. Oh, you are wider than the road! No wonder farmers get a lot of unusual waves from motorists.
The fall harvest season brings many problems related to safety. The stress of long days in a combine cab are bad enough, but then you have to move equipment from one field to another. Sometimes that is like trying into your old military uniform or that suit you wore on your wedding day, or putting on that favorite belt with your name stamped on the back 20 years ago. Today’s farm machinery just doesn’t fit where it needs to go.
The National Agricultural Safety Database, which is a function of Extension at USDA, points to many problems that are causing increased problems.
1) There is an increased urbanization of traditional agricultural production areas. More non-farm folks live where you farm and there are more motor vehicles on the roads where you move farm equipment.
2) There is a greater tendency for you to farm over a larger area, and not have the opportunity to move equipment from field to field without encountering other traffic.
3) With current farm economics and the need to maximize efficiency, your equipment has become larger.
Of fatal crashes, nearly 54% occur in rural areas, and nearly 43% of those occur on rural roads like the one you are moving a combine on this harvest season. Most farmers realize the problem, and a group of farmers in North Carolina who reported an increase of traffic on rural roads were surveyed and said their need to drive equipment on rural roads was their number one workplace hazard.
The owner and operator of the farm equipment have responsibilities as well, “In 23% of the cases where the farm operator was issued a citation, lighting and yield violations were noted. In at least 11% of the cases where the farm operator was cited, the crash occurred in the evening and the tractor was not utilizing adequate lighting.”
The most common type of accident is the rear end collision, where a motor vehicle will collide with the back end of a piece of farm equipment, which is traveling slower than the motor vehicle. With a 15 mile per hour tractor and a 55 mile per hour car, “it only takes five seconds to close a gap the length of a football field between the car and the tractor.” The next most frequent types of accidents occur when a motor vehicle attempts to pass farm equipment that is making a left turn; followed by collisions that occur because the farm equipment is too wide for the car to pass safely, either from the same or from the opposite direction.
So how can farmers improve the safety of operating on rural roads? 92% indicated they used signal lights and 88% had slow moving vehicle placards. But the American Society of Agricultural Engineers also found several other ideas when ASAE surveyed farmers: “A majority of respondents agreed that an effective way to reduce crashes would be to ensure that: a) all farm vehicles had blinking or flashing lights; b) road officials placed diamond-shaped caution signs showing a tractor ahead on roads with heavy farm traffic; and c) roadway shoulders were wide enough to allow farmers to drive totally on the shoulder. Finally, the study found that most farmers believed that driving their tractor on rural roads was more dangerous now than it was five years before.”
While road markers and pavement extensions are not going to be made before you head to the field for the 2009 harvest, lights, reflectors, and placards can be put on farm equipment to protect yourself and your employees from the non-farm motoring public who just does not pay much attention to slower moving equipment.
Summary:
Today’s farm equipment has likely outgrown the width of rural roads, leaving little or no room to encounter non-farm traffic. Fatalities frequently occur when there is a collision between farm equipment and motor vehicles because of the differences in speed. Rear end collisions are the primary mishap, but others are related to the width of the equipment in relation to the width of the road. Farmers can protect themselves as much as possible with the required lights, reflectors, and placards.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:58 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
September 17, 2009
Remembering Norman Borlaug
If Norman Borlaug was the only agriculturalist to win the Nobel Prize, that would be a fitting tribute to such an individual as he was. The farm gate pauses today to pay tribute to Borlaug who passed away Saturday, and was one of those individuals who left the world better than he found it.
Many will remember their first awareness of him in connection with the “Green Revolution” which brought hybrid seeds to the Asian subcontinent to feed the millions who were starving. His efforts were applauded by the Nobel Institute who awarded him its 1970 Peace Prize. Norman Borlaug was a wheat breeder and research director for CIMMYT, (Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo) more commonly known as the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. CIMMYT’s tribute to Borlaug salutes his “exemplary life dedicated to fighting hunger in developing countries.”
His high yielding wheat varieties and improved farming practices first helped Mexican farmers in the 1950’s then South Asian farmers in the following decade. Currently, his varieties are produced on 200 million acres around the world. That was made possible by the establishment of 15 international research stations which applied his technology and helped teach local farmers about production improvements.
Borlaug was most recently in the news when he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and earlier had received the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest US recognition for a civilian. But he helped establish the World Food Prize in 1986, which has become the Nobel Prize for agriculture. To date, 25 eminent researchers have received the award for their contributions to increasing the quantity, quality, and availability of world food supplies.
Borlaug was the consummate Extension agent, not only researching but teaching. He taught agronomic technology to the impoverished to better feed their families and their neighbors, and he taught elite researchers about the need for their efforts to be applied at ground level. Since his work was in more than 100 nations around the world, he is well known in many of those countries as a hunger fighter. In his Nobel acceptance speech, Norman Borlaug said, “It is true that the tide of the battle against hunger has changed for the better…but ebb tide could soon set in, if we become complacent…”
Borlaug lit a spark in millions of people around the world, not just in helping indigenous farmers feed those nearby villagers in India or Africa, but ignited the desires of many others to carry on his work in places we will never visit, nor ever hear of. Many of their comments are moving tributes to an individual they once met, but that was all it took to launch their careers toward helping feed a hungry world.
At the Norman Borlaug Institute for International Agriculture at Texas A & M University, Borlaug recently noted, "We all eat at least three times a day in privileged nations, and yet we take food for granted. There has been great progress, and food is more equitably distributed. But hunger is commonplace, and famine appears all too often."
Borlaug was an Iowa farm boy who attended the University of Minnesota and received graduate degrees in plant pathology. After World War II he became a researcher for the Cooperative Wheat Research and Production Program, which assisted Mexican farmers with better agricultural practices. That project later evolved into CIMMYT and he began training interns to work in agricultural research, who migrated around the world to carry his spark and message. As a result, Pakistan and India, despite their large populations, are self-sufficient in food.
Summary:
The passing of Norman Borlaug will leave big shoes to fill, but many of his protégés are working around the world, not only to conduct research into better grain production but also to train indigenous farmers about how to use the technology. The highly decorated, but reserved Borlaug will be remembered as the Father of the Green Revolution.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:25 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
August 18, 2009
Broadband Internet: Is It Really That Important For Rural America To Have It?
Right now you are reading a blog on the Internet. That is something that you would not have known anything about 15 years ago, may not have had access to 10 years ago, but may still have an inefficient connection that takes too much patience to appear on your computer screen. Some farmers in rural America are very efficiently connected and others have no way of getting an Internet connection. This so-called “digital divide” not only puts some farmers behind their counterparts, but also impacts entire communities, which lose out on health, education, and economic development. But as we approach the end of the decade, has rural America really achieved satisfactory broadband connectivity?
The Internet has allowed humanity to talk to itself, learn about itself, and communicate in ways that no one imagined just a few birthdays ago. You are facebooking, twittering, blogging, and texting many people, but there are many more who cannot learn about you because of the lack of cable down their lane, or because pairs of telephone wires just can’t handle the load. It may be the result of costs, which may be a bargain to some, but are exorbitantly priced for others. The issue received extensive study by USDA’s Economic Research Service which tries to measure the economic impact of Internet access on rural America.
Broadband is a term that indicates a high capacity of information flow. We probably all began with a dial-up system and many of our rural neighbors are still limited to little more than text e-mail messages. Even the colorful banner atop this page will prevent many folks from reading what you are reading. While computer modems will carry 56 kilobytes per second, the actual speed in rural areas remains at 14 kilobytes per second. The minimum broadband speed is generally defined as 200 kilobits per second in one direction, but other technologies allow faster data flow. At the last survey of households in 2007, 55% had broadband access, with 46% using DSL and 39% with a cable modem. 12% used wireless connections.
Broadband Internet business had taken many new positive turns in recent years:
• Online retail sales have grown from $31 billion in 2001 to $107 billion in 2007.
• Online wholesale trade comprised 16% of sales.
• Online wholesale trade in farm products was $5 billion in 2006 or 4% of all wholesale farm product sales.
• Crafts that were once limited to state fairs, are now marketed year round to wide audiences.
• Banks that used to be local, have been deregulated, attracting customers from wide areas, and that has hastened consolidation of the financial markets recently.
• Citizens have been able to pay taxes and fees to governments, lodge complaints, and apply for various programs.
While all of these opportunities are available to some, they are not available to all. A 2008 survey found 69% of adults who used the Internet had access at home. However, only 41% of adults in rural households had broadband access at home. The survey also details that broadband users are well ahead of dial-up users when it comes to common Internet uses, such as getting news and weather, blogging, downloading podcasts, and using social networking sites. Geography plays an important part in Internet use, which ERS indicates is less frequent in the South than in other parts of the country. Household income has little to do with Internet use, but income is a major factor in whether a household has in-home Internet access, and the USDA 2007 survey reports 84% of urban households had broadband access, while it was only available to 70% of rural households.
One of the problems created with the lack of broadband access in rural areas is the impact it has on education. Youngsters benefit from educational program availability on the Internet, but without broadband access, many rural youngsters will not have that privilege. Another problem increases in its importance in the current recessionary economy, and that is the capability of the Internet to assist in job searches and bolster home businesses.
Broadband access can be defined by zip code, according to a survey by the Federal Communications Commission. Metropolitan zip codes are smaller than rural zip codes; urban areas have more population and subsequently they have more Internet providers than rural areas by a nearly 2 to 1 ratio.
The USDA economists analyzed data from 114 pairs of rural communities, where demographic and economic data were parallel with another, and the only difference was the extent of the broadband access. The findings for the years 2002 through 2006 were:
1) Employment grew faster in counties with better broadband access.
2) Wage and salary jobs, and proprietors grew faster in counties with early broadband access.
3) Income showed a mixed result, but USDA said the survey did not account for farm earnings due to weather and market volatility.
With the ability of the Internet to provide large amounts of information over a wide area quickly, USDA says Internet use may lead to greater efficiency in agricultural and rural businesses. “They found that total nonfarm employment growth was significantly related to broadband lines per capita. The results for GDP were not statistically significant. The strongest effects of broadband Internet on employment growth were in finance and insurance, real estate, and education services.” While many rural retailers benefitted from the availability of broadband service, farm businesses had some different statistics.
Respondents to a 2007 USDA survey indicated 63% of farms had a “high-speed” Internet service and over 60% had broadband access. Successive surveys found that the greater the income and skill levels of farmers the greater the chance they would have Internet access. Additionally, the greater an individual’s educational attainment the greater the likelihood of Internet use at home or at work. Also the average age of farm operators with no Internet use in 2007 was 62%, compared with 54% for those use accessed the Internet with broadband services.
Just like rural banks finding themselves fighting for a market beyond their local community, the Internet has allowed farmers to look beyond the nearest town to define his local area of operation, particularly for the purchase of inputs.
Summary:
Broadband Internet service is something that is expected in urban areas, but it is not always available in rural areas, and that fact means differences in the communities, particularly the degree of economic development. Broadband access has aided the success of both retail and wholesale businesses, as well as increased the educational capacity of a community.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:36 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
May 18, 2009
Is The Federal Estate Tax An Issue For You?
Farmers visiting with their Congressional representatives have usually found the opportunity to call for elimination of the Estate Tax, or “Death Tax” in the current vernacular. With farm estates including millions of dollars worth of farmland and machinery, there is a fear that Uncle Sam will take so much of the value that the next generation will have insufficient assets to carry on the family farm. Although the exemption has been rising and tax rate declining, it will all change next year with a repeal of the Estate Tax, and a renewal of the tax in 2011 with a low exemption and a high rate. Is the federal Estate Tax an issue for your farming operation?
As the Estate Tax exemption climbed from $675,000 in 2001 to $3,500,000 this year, fewer farm estates were impacted by the tax. USDA economist Ron Durst, writing in the electronic newsletter Amber Waves, says “...their potential effect on farmers and other small business owners has been a major concern among policymakers. These groups are more likely than the general public to owe estate taxes,...” Durst says Congress over the years has tried to make the Estate Tax less onerous by allowing farmland to be taxed at its farm use value, rather than fair market value, in addition to an installment provision, and a deduction for family owned businesses. Other provisions will become effective next year, with the repeal of the tax. However, at the end of 2010, the situation is set to be comparable to Cinderella at midnight when her coach turned back into a pumpkin. The Estate Tax rate will jump from 45% to 55% and the exemption will revert to $1,000,000.
Economist Durst says the IRS does little Estate Tax business, but knows farmers quite well, “About 9,600 estates (0.4 percent of all estates) are expected to owe Federal estate tax in 2009. The estates of small business owners are about twice as likely as the typical estate to owe tax, and farm estates are even more likely to owe tax, primarily because of their land holdings.” He says the current year will see 2.9% of farm estate owing the tax, expected to average about $1.1 million. A commercial farm is 10 times more likely to owe Federal Estate Taxes than other farms, and 10% of farms with annual sales over $250,000 will likely owe the tax. While commercial farm estates account for only 6% of all farm estates, they pay nearly 40% of Estate Taxes.
The scheduled repeal of the tax next year and the re-establishment of the tax in 2011 create uncertainty, says Durst, “but it also raises concerns regarding the disparate treatment of similar estates depending upon the date of death. The family of a person who dies on January 1, 2011, could owe considerably more than the heirs of a person dying a few days earlier.” Durst says at the same time the tax rate and exemptions are going against a farm estate, the estate itself has gotten much larger with higher land values, and greater equity. As a result, an estimate one out of every 10 farm estates would owe the tax in 2011, which are estimated at more than two and a half billion dollars.
The meteoric rise in farmland values in the past several years will be one of the more troubling issues for heirs in farm estates under the law that takes effect in 2011. Previously, the valuation process eliminated the increased value of the land that was typically held for long periods of time. However, beginning in 2011, the amount of value appreciation to be exempted will be limited. Additionally, the change will require the determination of asset values at the time they were acquired many years before. That will be a particularly challenging compliance issue for many families of farms that may have been acquired several generations earlier.
The USDA economist says the proposed federal budget for 2010 would retain the $3.5 million exemption, along with the 45% tax rate, and retain the stepped up basis treatment for inherited assets, which would mean status quo for farm families that experience estate transfers in 2011 and beyond. While it is not the total repeal of the Estate Tax that many farm families advocate, it would reduce some of the uncertainty.
Summary:
The federal Estate Tax hits hard at many commercial farms, which are more likely to pay the tax than other farms and most other estates. The tax is scheduled for complete repeal in 2010, but re-establishment in 2011 at higher tax rates and lesser exemptions, which would capture many farm estates that have higher values from land prices and greater equity. A proposal for the next federal fiscal year would keep the current tax rate, exemptions, and most rules in place, instead of the more onerous provisions being restored in 2011.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:26 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
April 20, 2009
With Farms Dependent On Off-farm Income, What Is The Rural Job Market?
Early forecasts indicated the current recession had not crashed into agriculture, but there might be some scrapes, cuts, and bruises. Economists projected that consumers would still need food, agricultural lenders were sound, and farmers were in generally good financial position. While Cornbelt farmers may be able to weather the storm, what about the communities where they buy inputs, send their kids to school, and go to church? And particularly, since many farms depend on off-farm income, are there jobs available?
Rural America, and particularly non-metropolitan counties, are showing serious wear and tear from the recession. Those are counties, which are outside the influence of urban economies and have a population under 50,000. Those counties are depicted in a recent assessment by the Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI). RUPRI’s Center for Regional Competitiveness is directed by economist Mark Drabenstott, who says, “The rural economy is now losing jobs at a faster rate than the rest of the nation, with a particularly sharp rural slide over the past two months.” He says the strong commodity prices and good demand held off the recessionary impact on rural America for most of last year. But when the calendar changed, so did the economic winds of winter.
One of the flashpoints of the recession is manufacturing in rural areas, which Drabenstott says has worsened and caused a loss of 3.4% of jobs in non-metropolitan counties, while metropolitan counties only lost 2.8% of their jobs over the past 12 months.
Drabenstott refers to the “farm boom” which pushed net farm income to nearly $90 billion, and helped job growth in many rural counties. But he says rural counties that are dependent upon manufacturing have seen jobs “tumble,” particularly after November 2008. And he says in percentage terms, rural America has lost more manufacturing jobs than urban America, which he measures at 5% since the start of the recession, and he compares that to 2% in other parts of rural America not as dependent upon manufacturing.
During the past two recessions, Drabenstott says rural America did not suffer as much as it is in this one. He says job losses over all of rural America are about 3%, compared to 1% in the 2001 recession and even less in the 1990-91 recession. The RUPRI economist does offer a “glimmer of hope,” and says the last two recessions ended after 8 months and the prior two ended after 16 months. So he believes the end must be in sight.
Drabenstott bases his analysis on economic data offered in chart form at the RUPRI website:
1) Compared to a year ago, job loss for urban areas turned into negative territory in July of 2008, but rural job loss was not negative until September. However, rural job loss has taken a steeper downward trend and now surpasses urban job loss.
2) Comparing non-metropolitan counties, which are either dependent on farming or manufacturing, those that are manufacturing dependent have been in a slow decline since January of 2008, which farming dependent counties were actually growing in economic power last summer and fall, before turning down in September. He says the “farm boom” insulated those counties that were more dependent upon farming than on manufacturing.
3) While both urban and rural counties have lost jobs, rural counties held a positive position through mid-summer of last year, after urban job grown declined a month or two earlier. The rate of decent has increased for rural counties at this point.
4) Job losses in rural counties dependent on manufacturing reached 4.75% in January, but for counties dependent on farming, job losses were at 2.3% in January.
5) While the last two recessions showed recovery after 8 months, the current recessionary index continues downward unchecked.
Summary:
The current recession has impacted rural areas significantly, primarily in the loss of manufacturing jobs, and with a greater impact than on urban counties where industry job losses have also be considered as significant. Non-metropolitan counties where the economy is more focused on agriculture than on manufacturing have been insulated from the recession, and its impact has not been as significant.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:26 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
April 8, 2009
What Is The Emotional Health Of Your Family, Friends, And Neighbors?
Survivors of the financial and emotional stress in the early 1980’s may think this is déjà vu “all over again.” However, an increase in reported suicides on dairy farms certainly signals that it is time for neighbors to watch out for the health and welfare of their friends. The livestock industry has been awash in red ink for too long. Equity may have been depleted. And some operators may see their life insurance as the way out of debt for the surviving members of their family. If you are a member of that family, a friend, or a neighbor, it is time to take action.
In the past decade it has become popular to learn the Heimlich maneuver to help someone choking, or CPR to help someone suffering heart failure. Within the agricultural community it may be time to recognize the symptoms of financial stress and know what to do. That is the contention of Ohio State University Specialist Chris Zoller, whose contribution to the April Edition of the Ag Manager newsletter provides an overview of what a good neighbor should do. Zoller cites first hand knowledge of farm fed depression and what goes through someone’s thought process. And he says the current margins on dairy farms feed that depressed mental state. Zollar urges anyone in farm community to be on the lookout for signs of difficulty. Some of those include:
1) A change in family routine, such as no longer attending church, dropping out of any community activities, no longer engaging in social encounters, and otherwise withdrawing.
2) If the family or farmer has livestock, depression can manifest itself in a neglect of the animals.
3) Depression can also foster more illness, aches, pains, and cases of flu.
4) The incidence of accidents also increases as fatigue sets in or minds wander when they should be paying attention to the task at hand. Small children in the family may become victims with lack of adequate care.
5) Farmsteads begin to look junky, as buildings and fences decline from lack of pride in the way the home looks.
6) Parental depression can easily be reflected in children, who suffer resulting behavior problems and begin to fail in school.
A prolonged period of financial difficulty can result in a prolonged period of emotional stress. Zoller says when that happens the individual or the family will have physical problems that include pains and lack of sleep. Emotional issues involve depressed feelings, anger, or anxiety. Irritability and withdrawal are types of behavioral issues. Another symptom includes memory loss, lack of concentration, and indecision. Self-esteem has declined when the individual starts blaming himself for problems.
Indicators of potential suicide include anxiety, becoming withdrawn, feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, abuse of drugs or alcohol, making a suicidal plan, and cries for help.
Those signs along with indicators of depression should be the launching pad for action by friends, neighbors or other family members. A positive response begins with a knowledge of what services are available in a community to help with depression and potential suicide, and be prepared to recommend an appropriate service. A potential victim may have many problems that only specialists can help solve, such as financial or legal issues, and may be in need of professional counseling. A visit with the individual or family and sharing your observation that something may be troubling, is the place to start, followed by a recommendation for a person or agency that might help with the issue.
A critical determination is whether the person is a threat to himself, herself, or others, and if so, then the initiative needs to be taken to call an appropriate agency for help and seek their immediate advice. Zoller says, “Many people are reluctant to get involved in these family situations because they are very personal issues. However, it is better to be proactive in getting help for the person/family than watching something tragic happen and wishing you had done something.” He recommends more information found here.
Summary:
The time is ripe for financial stress on many farms that can quickly deteriorate into states of depression and potential suicide. There are numerous signs that emotional challenges have gotten the best of someone and they are in a declining state of physical and mental health. Friends, neighbors, and other family members need to be aware of the dynamics involved and familiar with professional services that can be called up for help, particularly if the situation is deteriorating toward a life threatening crisis.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:02 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
February 5, 2009
The Ag Census Is Out, And You Are In It!
Two years ago every farmer either had to fill out a questionnaire, or was called by an Agriculture Census taker, or was paid a personal visit. Despite the fact that most folks do not like the intrusions on their privacy, the statistics collected have been compiled and now the US government can begin to formulate responses to problems that were identified in the Ag Census data. But what does that data really show?
Hundreds of numbers were collected from every farm and farm family, and when aggregated with your neighbors, with other farmers producing the same commodities, and with other farmers in the same demographic group, those numbers will identify trends when compared with past Ag Census data. Rural sociologists, ag economists, and others will be analyzing the numbers for years to come, so a comprehensive report is beyond our scope today. Let’s look at some of the early information on the Cornbelt farmer, but don’t worry, there is no way to identify your individual farm.
USDA’s Ag Census data is available in numerous reports. The Farm Numbers report indicates 2,204,792 farms in the US, up 4% from 2002, reversing a trend that began in the late 1940’s. The definition of farm requires the sale of $1,000 or more agricultural products. 39 states recorded increases, while 11 states recorded decreases in numbers, including SD, NE, and OH. Other Cornbelt states were in the growth sector.
Operations that declined included: beef enterprises, grain and oilseed farms, dairy farms, nursery and greenhouses, swine operations, cotton farms and tobacco farms. Operations that grew in number compared to 2002 included: hay and other crop farms, aquaculture, fruits and nuts farms, sheep and goat farms, poultry and egg farms, and vegetable operations.
Farms that recorded sales between $1,000 and $250,000 declined in number. Farms with sales under $1,000 and over $250,000 all increased in number. Since the 2002 Ag Census, 291, 329 new farms began operations. They were generally smaller than the average farm, which had 418 acres and $135,000 in commodity sales. Only 45% of operators list farming as their primary occupation. Farms which had sales over $250,000, which were identified as family farms, made up only 9% of the total, but produced over 63% of all ag products sold.
In the demographics section of the Ag Census, USDA says, “One of the most significant changes in the 2007 Census of Agriculture is the increase in female farm operators, both in terms of the absolute number and the percentage of all principal operators. There were 306,209 female principal operators counted in 2007, up from 237,819 in 2002 – an increase of almost 30 percent.”
Farmers are also growing older. The average age is 57.1 years, up from 55.3 in 2002 and 50.5 in 1978. In the past 5 years there was a 20% increase in the number of farmers over 75 years old, and a 30% decrease in the number of farmers under 25.
The economics portion of the Ag Census indicates a 48% increase in the market value of products sold, and a 43% increase in the average per farm, since 2002. Production expenses rose in that 5 years by 39% nationally and 34% per farm. Net cash income climbed 84% nationally and 78% per farm to $33,827.
Contract production expanded by 55% since the 2002 Ag Census, but only 2% of farms were engaged in contract production. They produced 16% of the total value of all ag products sold.
Nine states produce 50% of the total value of ag products, including the Cornbelt states of IA, NE, KS, IL, MN, and WI. California and Texas are at the top of the list and North Carolina is in 8th position.
Summary:
There was no surprise in the 2007 Ag Census that US agriculture has grown since the last count was made in 2002. But a major surprise was the fact that the number of farms has increased, reversing a 60 year trend. The typical farmer is growing older, but has more sales. The commodity farms that produce corn, beans, cattle and hogs have declined in number to make way for farms producing vegetables, fruits, aquaculture, and specialty animals.
(Take a look at some of the data, and share your observations, whether you are surprised, concerned, or whether you had predicted the trends.)
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:23 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
January 6, 2009
Have You Adopted The Skills Of Successful Farm Operators?
Faced with lower crop prices than a year ago and higher input costs than a year ago—with the potential for profitability in doubt for many farmers, what expertise do you have that will contribute the most to your success? Is it machinery management? Is it the ability to select the right corn hybrid and get it in the ground on the perfect date? A recent survey identified those skills, so let’s see if you agree with some of more successful farmers in the Cornbelt.
Chief Executive Officer. That is the name plate on your desk and your office door. And Purdue’s Mike Boehlje says farmers need to become more like corporate CEO’s to successfully compete in today’s environment. He says that includes leadership, relationship management, and strategic thinking. Boehlje assembled the survey taken by the organizers of Purdue’s Top Farmer program, and in their December newsletter Jason Oliver and Bruce Erickson said farmers rated financial management skills and risk management skills as most important to their success, but when those were analyzed, success in financial management was dependent upon production management and personnel management.
As a result, Boehlje says, “While those CEO-type skills are likely important going into the future, the survey indicated that for farmers in business today, their success appears to be more built on the basics of producing their crops, tending to their livestock, and managing their work force.” What are those skills? They include:
• Production management
• Procurement and selling
• Financial management
• Personnel management
• Strategic positioning
• Relationship management
• Risk management
Those seven characteristics or skills were offered to several hundred farmers in survey to find out what they believed were the most important to have to be successful, and if they had actually adopted those skills. The scores indicated the respondents in the survey were short of adopting the important skills by 8%-15% for six of the seven. Personnel management was only rated 51% as an important skill, compared to the 81% given to financial management. At the same time, only 31% of the farmers indicated they put personnel management skills into practice on their farm.
The farmers who completed the survey were also asked a number of other questions that revealed information about their financial success, and when that characteristic was crossed with the importance placed on the skills, it was obvious that the more successful a farmer was, the more emphasis was placed on implementation of that given skill. For each of the seven, the greater the profit, the higher the adoption of each of the seven characteristics. While there was only a 9 point spread in the adoption of risk management skills from the under $50,000 profit to the more than $200,000 profit farms, there was a 21 point spread on personnel management and an 18 point spread on production management.
The Purdue researchers say prior studies have shown that farm profitability increased until the operator reached the age of 50; and that younger farmers who take on more debt are willing to adapt more skills to grow their business.
Summary:
Management capabilities are critical for success, and farm operators should look at their skills to determine which they have adopted and where improvements could be made. Financial and risk management often seem to receive the most attention, a subset of production management issues can easily bolster the potential for financial management success.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:40 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
December 16, 2008
In The Last Election: Did You Vote The Same Way, Or Did You Change Your Voting Preference?
So, how did you vote for President in the November 4th election? But just as important as for whom you voted, did your preference for a political party change from the 2004 election? Interestingly, Senator Obama’s agricultural campaign policies were closer to a Republican platform of the past; and ironically, Senator McCain’s farm policies were closer to a Democratic platform of the past. Did your party allegiance switch with the issues? The votes have been counted, and there were quite a few political shifts in rural America.
The differences between Senator McCain and now President-elect Obama on agricultural issues were significant and may have caused many rural voters to focus on those differences as they decided whom to support in the election. The Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI) analyzed the shifts and trends in the non-metropolitan counties of the US.
Red and blue states have been the keystone for political strategy, in an attempt to gain electoral votes, which were cast yesterday around the nation. But many times the diversity of rural America is hard to quantify, and the campaign planners focus on metropolitan areas. RUPRI looked at 691 micropolitan counties, which have an urban population of 10,000 to 50,000 and 1,333 non-core counties, which have a smaller population.
RUPRI tallies 691 micropolitan counties, 175 of which were won by Obama, compared to 119 won by Senator Kerry in 2004. Of the 1333 non-core counties, Obama won 279, compared to 192 won by Senator Kerry in 2004. Of course, the gains made by Obama in 2008 were at the expense of Senator McCain, whose collection of micropolitan and non-core counties was a majority, but the number diminished compared to the 2004 election.
For the record:
1) 54.7% of metropolitan voters voted for Obama and 44.1% for McCain. However, McCain captured 675 metropolitan counties, compared to 414 for Obama.
2) 43.3% of micropolitan voters voted for Obama and 55.2% for McCain. McCain took 516 micropolitan counties, compared to 175 for Obama.
3) 41.3% of non-core county voters voted for Obama, compared to 57.1% for McCain, and McCain captured 1054 of those counties, compared to 279 for Obama.
RUPRI says the noteworthy issue is the shift between the 2004 and 2008 election.
• 44 counties shifted from Democrat in 2004 to Republican in 2008, and 34 of those were either micropolitan or non-core counties.
• 329 counties shifted from Republican in 2004 to Democrat in 2008, and 177 of those were either micropolitan or non-core counties.
• Of the 2,245 counties that voted Republican in the 2008 Presidential election, the percentage of Democrat votes increased in 1,559 counties and decreased in 686 counties.
• Of the 868 counties that voted Democrat in 2008, the percentage of Republican votes increased in 31 counties, and decreased in 837 counties.
RUPRI says the shifts from 2004 to 2008 do not indicate any long term trend, but some old political axioms are being challenged. The researchers say:
1) First, these maps show continuing Republican control in their historic rural strongholds, although these appear to be consolidating into a regional configuration across parts of Appalachia and the South.
2) Secondly, they also show increased Democratic strength in the rural areas of the Midwest, particularly in micropolitan regions.
3) Finally, the significant Democratic “trending,” whether a one-time anomaly or a developing reality in other historic Republican counties, indicates the rural vote will clearly be in play in the next mid-term and Presidential races.
Summary:
A political demographic of growing importance is rural America, based on the dynamics of the November Presidential election. Although President-elect Obama received a substantial number of his majority of votes from metropolitan areas, over five times as many counties shifted from Republican in 2004 to Democrat in 2008 compared to the opposite of Democrat in 2004 switching to Republican in 2008. While traditional strongholds will continue to support their party and their candidate, there is a growing importance in rural counties will small urban populations to have a significant impact on the outcome of an election.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:02 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
December 11, 2008
Has Broadband Reached Your Neighborhood Yet?
Are you reading this via a dial-up connection, cable, DSL, wireless, or satellite (which is how it was written)? If you are in a rural location, you are well aware the “digital divide” has kept you in the standing room only section of the broadband ballpark. Is any progress being made for you to manage your farm, for your kids to do their homework, or for telemedicine to come to your rural hospital?
In the past month, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allocated additional space on the electromagnetic spectrum for wireless broadband. The new locations were the frequencies between the various television channels and was a significant step toward improvement of Internet service to rural America, says a new report from the Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI).
Broadband is the lingo for high speed Internet service, most of which is delivered to urban households over digital subscriber lines (DSL) or by the same coaxial cable that delivers cable television service. Most rural households are far from the end of the wire, just those last homes that were hooked up to electricity in 1949 by the REA. Basic broadband will deliver 768 kilobytes per second to a home, and send 200 kilobytes per second away from a home. Watching You Tube will require higher speeds to download and upload, but e-mail applications are well served by the basic broadband speeds.
Advocates for a nation saturated with high speed broadband service say it is necessary for economic development and many essential government, education, and health care services. RUPRI says rural consumers benefit from the service because it may be their only link to products and services that cannot be found in any nearby community or city. Even employment depends on high speed broadband service say researchers; and conversely, communities without the service have trouble attracting new business.
1. Broadband technology is providing better healthcare service to rural areas that saves on costs and expands opportunities for better services. RUPRI says 25 states are now using telemedicine or telehealth networks to supplement services, and a “review of research on cost savings associated with telemedicine for the treatment of heart failure found savings in all ten studies, including, in one case, savings of up to 68 percent.”
2. In education, a 2005 federal study found 94% of schools with Internet access and 97% of them had high speed broadband access. Rural residents with access to broadband service have greater access to college-level distance learning classes.
3. E-government services and public safety are enhanced with broadband service which allows them to streamline management and cut costs. It reduces the time citizens are waiting in governmental offices and cuts response time for fire and law enforcement officers.
RUPRI says 70% of Americans use the Internet at home or work and while providers increased broadband availability five fold from 2001 to 2006, they have not wanted to provide the same service to rural areas, and one-third of US households cannot get broadband Internet at any price. RUPRI reports the FCC’s measurement of success, of one provider per zip code, in spreading broadband across the nation leaves something to be desired. A national survey funded by the Pew Foundation found that 24% of Americans do not have broadband service because it is not available.
1. A California study found 1.4 million citizens were unable to subscribe.
2. A Kentucky study found more than half the residents of 7 counties did not have access to broadband service.
3. A national study found 38% of rural households and 58% of urban households subscribed to broadband service.
To spread broadband more thoroughly, federal policy requires the FCC to provide financial support in areas of high costs of extending the service, assist rural schools and libraries with better connection, provide funds for low income citizens, and bolster the rural health care initiatives dependent upon the Internet. However the Government Accounting Office has been critical of the lack of success of the FCC in meeting its own goals. RUPRI says the FCC’s allocation of the newly available frequencies is a significant development that will benefit rural America. This will happen in February when television stations must switch to digital broadcasts, and reducing their use of the broadcast spectrum. However, it may be 2010 before much use of the new space is made. Helping Internet providers spread the service will be USDA grants and loans, and RUPRI says its policies will be applied to encourage success.
Summary:
When television stations switch to digital technology in February, a new series of segments of the electromagnetic broadcast spectrum will open up and the government has allocated it for use in spreading broadband Internet service to more areas of rural America. Federal policies report the current shortage of service, but acknowledge how it can benefit education, government, and healthcare.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:18 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
October 28, 2008
Dividing Up The Family Farm: Can Everyone Be Treated Equally?
Maybe it is just the folks you visit with more frequently, but it seems more than a usual number of farmers have decided they have had as much fun as they can stand, and are planning to depart active farming in the near future. For some that means a farm sale followed by a job selling equipment, seed, or farmland. For others that means turning over the family business to one of the kids who stayed home to work on the farm. But that becomes an issue when other children should share in the assets. What is the way out of the dilemma?
Frequently, farm families face the problems of transition. Either the farm is divided into a myriad of pieces that will not allow anyone to make a living; or a child who wants to farm has to buy his siblings’ land long before he can afford it. Farm transition specialist Dave Goeller at the University of Nebraska offers his idea in the Cornhusker Economics newsletter.
Goeller depicts a family with three children, one of whom came home to farm and became part of the family business. Prior to that time, it had been the plan of the parents to divide the farm equally among their three children. However, over time the contributions of the son who joined in the operation became significant. Additional land was rented. An additional enterprise was added. Machinery was purchased jointly. And the farming son had contributed a significant amount of “sweat equity” over time.
When it came retirement time for the senior generation, they faced the dilemma of how to treat each of their children fairly. If each of the three received an equal share, the son on the farm would not be rewarded for his contributions that enlarged the operation. And Goeller said a significant problem also results from the rapidly increasing land values that make intra-family purchases troublesome at best.
In this case, which would be applicable to thousands of farm families, the issue of “sweat equity” was converted from a problem to an answer. The parents developed a blended evaluation of the operation to allow all three of their children to share, with an additional element to acknowledge the contributions the “sweat equity” had made to the operation. The solution was achieved by comparing the size of the operation at the time their son joined the operation, to the size of the current operation. The difference was $900,000 and the son was credited with 50% of the growth of the operation or $450,000.
Since the initial value of the operation was $600,000, each of the children would receive one-third of the value, or $200,000. Additionally, each of the children would receive one-third of the value of the parents’ $450,000 contribution to the expanded operation, or $150,000 each. In this case, each of the three children received one-third of the parents’ assets, but the son who contributed the sweat equity was able to retain the full value of his contributions.
Goeller says one of the main issues is that everyone understands how the divisions are made, and that contributions equal compensation. He says since the family farm is larger and generates more revenue than it did when the son joined the operation, that son is rewarded for his “sweat equity.”
Is this example applicable in all situations? Goeller says no, because percentages will change, particularly in the sweat equity contributions, which could be substantially more or less. He says, “Treating unequals equally may be the most unfair thing you can do.”
Summary:
As challenges to farming increase, there will undoubtedly be increased turnover in farm ownership and management. A perennial challenge for many farm families is a fair division of the farm among children, some of whom are fully engaged in the operation and others who are totally disengaged. There are formulas that can be developed that will not only allow equals to share in the assets, but also allow unequals to be rewarded for their individual contributions.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:22 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
April 21, 2008
Retirement? Now? Really, I Never Gave It A Thought. But, Hmmm?
Michael Jordan retired at the top of his game. A good friend in his 50’s also says it may be that time. More revenue has been earned than ever before. All debts have been repaid. Land values are quite high. Some farmers may think the fun is just starting. Others may think this is a good time to hang it up before something goes terribly wrong. If you are in that latter category, transition planning is your next step.
Always looking out for the Cornbelt farmer, the farm gate blog fell into a wealth of material about farm organizational planning, farm business development resources, and farm transition planning all neatly packaged by the Ohio State Ag Manager. Let’s focus on the issue at hand, and that is to think about the questions that need answers if you are at the departure gate waiting for the next flight to retirement.
If your retirement shifts the operational responsibilities to the next generation, then you probably need to have a family meeting. But what does that entail? It is not to discuss seed, machinery, or the next family picnic, but to determine long term plans for operation and management of the business. “Son, your mother and I plan to retire at the end of the year, and I know this will come as no surprise to you since we have discussed this timetable twice a year for the past 5 years.” With that regular item on the agenda, there should be few unanswered questions. Family meetings need to be honest, open, and involving everyone so even youngsters can see how strong the family business is planned.
Estate planning is one of those things that is difficult to start, but never too late to start. On the other hand, it is never too early to start, and can become a typical conversation element once everyone is comfortable discussing “the inevitable.” Estate planning is different for every family, but the main elements are the same for all, and they include wills, life insurance, disposal of property, and even such significant matters as nursing home expense, and possibly trusts.
If retirement is looming, and you are uncertain about your readiness, a retirement estimator for farm families will help gauge expenses and your overall preparedness. Of course, in retirement your needs in certain areas may be less (work clothes, tools, equipment), but your needs may be more (medical costs) after retirement. Farm families which may be far from retirement should always begin planning for that day, such as saving more for retirement. Planning guides are always helpful.
Summary:
Retirement is a big step in life, and can either be as fun or traumatic as going to first grade. But it is a step that requires a significant amount of homework, and probably the type of homework that involves a committee of your family, and those who will be taking over the farming operation. Current economic factors in agriculture can either push farmers into planning to stay in farming longer, or transitioning out faster than they once thought. However, retirement planning is necessary, regardless of your current age, family situation, financial affairs, or lifelong intentions.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:27 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
January 22, 2008
Find A Danger On Your Farm And Fix It.
Are you aware that agriculture is the most dangerous of occupations, usually alternating with mining in taking the most lives and limbs? Your answer is probably yes, and because of that awareness your safety practices have increased over time. Or it could have been spousal pressure that forced you to farm safer. Either way statistics collected by USDA in 2006 are quite telling in the dangers that still exist on today’s farms.
25,000 farm operations were surveyed by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/FarmSafe/FarmSafe-01-17-2008.pdf about safety and health issues, including the use of safety practices around farm implements. For example, US farmers have an estimated 4.236 million tractors, but only 59% had roll-over protective systems (ROPS). Regional variations ranged from 51% in the Northeast to 65% in the South. Of course, that is not an option on some of the larger tractors used in the Midwest, were 44% did not have them. In the year prior to the survey, 6,700 tractors rolled over, and the majority did not have a ROPS system.
An estimated 1,236,000 all-terrain vehicles are on 900,000 farms and 1.1 million are used in the farming operation. 958,000 are on Midwestern and Southern farms.
How about driveline shields on your power take-off equipment? The survey found they were absent on 7% of balers, 14% of brush-cutting mowers, and 16% of sickle bar-type mowers.
Among hog confinement operations, there were 57,000 manure pits on 40,000 operations. Since they sometimes need hands-on maintenance, they can become deadly. The survey found 63% of operators had not entered the pit in the prior 12 months, and 37% had entered the pit at least once and possibly more than 6 times. 60% of the pits were covered with guards, but only 35% had any powered ventilation equipment.
About 1.5 million silos are spread over 430,000 farms, and 90,000 have the capacity to limit the amount of oxygen that reaches the feed. 75% of all silos had external ladders, and only 1/3 could restrict access to the top of the silo.
Underground power lines cross beneath 980,000 farms, with 33% having all of their lines buried, and 37% having less than half buried. The aerial power lines are problems for the 420,000 grain augers on 270,000 farms. Their average height is 41 feet, but some were up to 120 feet in the air. NASS statisticians counted the augers that were PTO-driven, and found 8% were missing the intake chute guard and 8% were missing the PTO shaft driveline guard.
Within the year prior to the survey, only 37% of the operators reported using a dust mask or respirator during their work. Those who did use a dust mask reported dusty environments as the reason. However, of the 66% of farmers who indicated they worked around loud noises, 64% were inclined to use ear plugs or other protective equipment some of the time.
Summary:
The USDA safety and health study used statistics from 25,000 farms to help other units of government develop safety and health policies. While comparison statistics were not available for prior years, the 2006 survey indicated substantial room for improvement of safety and health practices among farmers. Undoubtedly, great strides have been made, in such areas as using dust masks and ear protection, as well as keeping safety shields and guards in place on PTO drives.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 12:24 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
December 31, 2006
A New Year's Resolution To Post On The Shop Door
Happy New Year! And with that greeting we quickly move to the issue of New Year Resolutions, and knowing you probably resolved to lose weight, let’s go a bit further. For the men reading this, just click on “continue reading” now. For the women reading this, take a good look at the recommendations included here, post them on the refrigerator, the shop door, the machine shed door, and make extra copies for his bedside reading. There is a lot here, more embedded in the link, but it may pay off in the long run.
“Enjoy life more. Enhance your role as a productive employee and family member. Maintain your mental and physical function and independence. Even improve your life expectancy. Feel better today and tomorrow.” If that is your goal, make your New Year Resolution one of practicing better health. Kansas State nutrition specialists Mary Meck Higgins and Kimberly Shafter say that is the promise of good health in their guide: Men's Health: A Guide to Living Long, Strong and Well.
Answer these to yourself and be honest now:
1. Do you view your health differently from that of a woman?
2. Are you less likely to focus on your overall health, wear and tear on your body, or on disease symptoms?
3. Are you more reluctant to visit a health care provider?
Higgins and Shafter focus on six common health issues in men, most of which are never discussed at home, nor to anyone, for that matter. Since you are reading this on the privacy of your computer screen, or a printed copy in your shop (thanks to someone who cares about you), take a long hard look at these potential problems in your life. They can be fixed, just like a broken cultivator shovel, but you’ll need the help of someone who has the right tools.
Osteoporosis. You’ve seen the elderly women at church who are growing shorter and walking a bit more stooped than last year, or may have broken a bone too easily, all because of osteoporosis. Higgins and Shafter say two million men in the US have osteoporosis and twelve million more might potentially have it. “Male risk factors for osteoporosis include older age; heredity; Caucasian ethnicity (white males are at greater risk); prolonged use of medications such as steroids and aluminum-containing antacids (look at the ingredients label to find out if the product has aluminum); smoking; excessive alcohol use; lack of dietary calcium or physical activity; and chronic diseases of the kidneys, lungs, stomach and intestines.”
Here’s how to work on the problem:
1) Regularly do weight-bearing physical activities.
2) Get vitamin D, either by spending 10-15 minutes a day outside in the sunshine or through vitamins.
3) Get enough calcium, with the help of milk, cheese, or yogurt. (There are healthier ways than a dose of ice cream.)
4) Improve other lifestyle behaviors to reduce bone loss, such as quit smoking and don’t use alcohol to excess.
Cardiovascular disease (heart and stroke). Males have a better than 25% chance of dying from a cardiovascular problem. You know this, but it is good to review it. Higgins and Shafter say, “A man’s chances for getting heart disease and stroke increase if he has high blood pressure or high cholesterol, is physically inactive or overweight, and if he smokes. Healthy eating and physical activity are important for preventing and treating heart disease and stroke.” Briefly, diet and exercise are the issues here.
Here’s how to work on the problem:
1) Eat 4-6 cups of colorful fruits and vegetables per day; 3+ ounces of whole grains, only 5-7 ounces of lean meat, avoid fried foods or those with added fats, read nutrition labels to avoid saturated fats and trans fats, switch to lower fat dairy products, limit your sodium (salt) intake.
2) If you are a smoker, give it up.
3) Get moderate physical exercise
4) If you are overweight, lose some of it.
Prostate cancer. This is the second most common cancer that affects men, behind skin cancer. Higgins and Shafter say, “What factors increase the chances for prostate cancer? They include: older age, having a father or brother who had the disease, being African American, eating a diet high in animal fat (found in meats and high-fat dairy products), eating few fruits and vegetables, being overweight and getting little physical activity.” (Yes, you can cure a couple potential problems with the same tools.)
Here’s how to work on the problem:
1) Eat more fruits and vegetables.
2) Eat foods that are red or pink which contain lycopene.
3) Eat strong flavored foods such as onions or garlic that contain allium
4) Eat cooked dry beans which contain isoflavones
Colon cancer and large bowel problems. This is the fourth most common cancer in men, but one in three deaths from colon cancer could be avoided with a regular screening test. What increases men’s chances of getting colon cancer? 90% are 50 or older, family history of colon cancer, personal history of bowel problems, diet low in fruits a vegetables but high in animal fats, insufficient physical activity, obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, and diabetes.
Here’s how to work on the problem:
1) Eat 3+ cups of a variety of fruits and vegetables every day; eat 3+ cups of cooked dried beans per week; chose whole grains, limit sugar intake; eat fish frequently; limit consumption of red or cured meats.
2) Get 30+ minutes of daily physical activity at least 5 days per week.
3) Take a daily multivitamin with folate and a supplement with calcium and vitamin D.
Depression. Six million men have depression, but only 10% of diagnosed cases are men, leading authorities to believe there are millions of undiagnosed cases. Depression can be treated successfully to restore productivity and enjoyment of life. Higgins and Shafter say, “Although many men have depression, it’s often not recognized. Some men deny having problems with depression because they believe that they should be strong and not express emotions. Depression leads some men to withdraw from socializing with friends and family, or to use alcohol excessively. Men suffering from depression may lack sexual desire. They are likely to describe their symptoms as being physical, such as feeling tired, experiencing headaches or not sleeping well. Other signs of depression are difficulty concentrating or remembering, or feeling irritable, pessimistic, anxious, or sad most of the time.”
Here’s how to work on the problem:
1) Consume folate, Omega-3 fats, and vitamins B6 and B12 either through foods that contain them or with vitamin supplements.
2) Increase your physical activity
3) Talk to a health care provider about other options
Arthritis and joint problems. Only heart disease causes more work loss than arthritis. 17 million men have arthritis that has been properly diagnosed, but there are more than 100 different kinds of arthritis. Higgins and Shafter say, “Men who have had a sports injury (such as to their knee or hip), those ages 40 years and older, and men who are ten or more pounds overweight are at increased risk for osteoarthritis. Doing moderate physical activity, such as walking at least three times a week, can reduce the risk by almost half for knee osteoarthritis-related work disability. Losing 10 to 11 pounds of excess body weight also reduces the risk.”
Here’s how to work on the problem:
1) By losing 1 pound of weight, you will take a four pound reduction in the load exerted on your knee per step you take.
2) Consume the recommended amounts of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains recommended for other health issues in this guide.
3) Avoid foods that adversely interact with your other medications
4) Any sugar, salt, saturated fats, and alcohol consumed should be in only moderate amounts.
5) If your problem has been diagnosed as gout, drink plenty of water; reduce fat intake, lose weight gradually, and limit your consumption of purines which are found in meat extracts and alcohol.
6) If your problem has been diagnosed as rheumatoid arthritis, consume sufficient amounts of citrus fruits and cruciferous vegetables, along with omega-3 fats, and dietary sources of zinc and selenium.
Lastly, get a physical examination annually if you are more than 50 years of age.
Summary:
Acknowledge it or not, men can suffer ill health from time to time, and some of it can be rather serious, even fatal if not treated properly. There are measures that can be taken for disease prevention, but if that is too late, begin with measures to address the disease. Many of those issues can be addressed with a healthy diet and good exercise.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 6:18 PM | Comments (3) | Permalink
September 14, 2006
How Vulnerable Is The Health And Safety Of Your Farm Family?
For some reason, maybe you can guess, the week beginning September 17 is designated as Farm Safety Week. Could it be that harvest is getting underway and many farm injuries and deaths occur around harvesting equipment? Could it be that slow farm equipment is on roadways more frequently at harvest, and inattentive motorists cause death and injury to themselves and farm equipment operators? Could it be something totally different that the National Safety Council wants everyone to know that agriculture takes turns with mining as being the industry that claims the most lives and limbs? As we approach Farm Safety Week, you have a choice of reading this, or we can have your spouse make you read this!
President Franklin Roosevelt first proclaimed National Farm Safety Week in 1944 and it has been well cultivated and fertilized by the National Safety Council and more Extension agents, farm broadcasters, Farm Bureau managers, bank loan officers, and other folks than you could ever imagine. They have one thing in common: if you are not around, they have one less friend and client, and the community has a vacancy it did not want. That is the whole concept behind the fancy words that go along with Farm Safety Week.
There are a lot of risks that you have taken on the farm. Been there. Done those. I know. You are in a position to control your future health and safety, as well as the health and safety of your other farm family members, such as senior partners and junior helpers. There are too many resources available to list them all, but just type “farm safety” into an Internet search and you’ll do fine. However, there are some offered here to get you started.
We start with “A,” for arthritis. Purdue University’s farm safety website says “Arthritis is one of America's most common chronic disease conditions, affecting one in every three individuals. Because of the physical nature of agricultural work, arthritis can have an especially disabling effect on farmers and ranchers.” Navigate on the Internet to: Arthritis and Agriculture: A guide to Understanding and Living with Arthritis
A 23-page brochure focused on agricultural workers that discusses such topics as: common types of arthritis, managing arthritis, unproven arthritis remedies, and sources of assistance. Since this publication is designed specifically for agricultural workers, it gives advice on methods of modifying farm and ranch tasks to provide added protection to joints. The publication also emphasizes proper diagnosis, exercise, medication, stress management, and working with a team of professionals to cope with arthritis. A variety of organizations are listed for those wanting further assistance with arthritis or disability-related issues.
While we are still on “A,” consider the AgrAbility project which exists in many states, including all Cornbelt states except for OH and ND. The National AgrAbility Project, created in 1991, links the federal and state Extension Services with nonprofit disability service organizations to provide information, education, and technical assistance to heighten public awareness about persons with disabilities employed in agriculture. For specific contact information, navigate to the list of state projects.
“B” stands for Breaking New Ground, the Purdue initiative for farmers and ranchers with physical disabilities. On its website are resources for rural rehabilitation professionals to make worksite assessments and see what accommodations are needed for the individual to remain a productive member of the agricultural community. This tool covers a wide range of topics related to worksite assessments, including identification of potential clients, preparing for assessments, and client confidentiality issues. The core of the resource, a reproducible version of the Agricultural Worksite Assessment Tool, assists in making accurate assessments of work environments through the use of 14 assessment areas.
Your farm kid is the last one you want to be injured, because he or she is going to follow in your footsteps some day. So you and your farm kid need to be familiar with Farm Safety 4 Just Kids. It includes farm safety fact sheets for kids, such as: ATV, lawn mowers, child care, livestock, electricity and many others. The farm kid in a motor vehicle needs to know there are 40% more fatal crashes in the country than in the city, and that means seat belts are important. They should get the point at “Buckle Up or Eat Glass." Farm Safety 4 Just Kids may be best know for its Day Camps. Consider helping sponsor one in your community.
The farm safety advocates embrace each other in a strong network that extends nationally, through most states, and links with many state and local organizations. One of those is the Illinois Network for Agriculture Safety and Health (INASH). INASH members represent a broad range of agencies and organizations with interest and expertise in agricultural safety and health, such as Extension, Farm Bureau, hospitals, state government, etc. INASH is a forum that brings together diverse segments of the agricultural community to develop, coordinate, and implement strategies to reduce the frequency and severity of injuries and illnesses associated with agriculture. INASH was created because agriculture is one of the most hazardous industries in Illinois, with 28 farm deaths in 2005 and 625 in past 20 years.
Integral parts of such an organization are the farm safety specialists at Land Grant Universities. At the University of Illinois, there are farm safety fact sheets on stress, women’s issues, senior issues, manure handling, electricity difficulties, roll-over accidents, and highway safety. Another Land Grant resource is at the Wisconsin Center for Agriculture Safety and Health.
Your farm’s hired employees should also be your focus for health and safety, and help on that issue is available at the National Center for Farmworker health. The National Center for Farmworker Health (NCFH), established in 1975, is dedicated to improving the health status of farmworker families by providing information services and products to a network of more than 500 migrant health center service sites in the United States as well as other organizations and individuals serving the farmworker population.
The granddaddy of resources for farm safety is the National Safety Council, which has links to many organizations and safety issues. By the way, its stress checker is handy.
There will always be stress in a household with someone hard of hearing, who denies he or she is hard of hearing and refuses to do anything about it. The NSC website has an interesting chart of decibels produced by typical farm operations. A recent survey conducted by the National safety Council at the Farm Progress Show found that “Seventy-eight percent of males believed they had a hearing loss, and 81% partially attributed the loss to noise on the farm. When asked if they would wear a hearing aid if they knew they had a significant hearing loss, 91% of farmers affirmed they would; yet only 4% were wearing hearing aids. Forty-three percent had never had a hearing test.”
Stress, arthritis, and hearing loss are not the only safety issues on the farm. The NSC website also focuses on: toxic gases, UV rays, respiratory disease, and hazardous chemicals.
Summary:
As National Farm Safety Week approaches, the awareness of potential mishaps should increase. With some luck, the number of real mishaps should decrease. Farm operators are charged with the responsibility of securing their safety and the safety of others. But in doing so, there is a wealth of resources that provide fact sheets. Before harvest, check your reflectors, plan work breaks, get a hearing test or some arthritis medicine, and ask your family members what they plan to do to increase their practice of safety on the farm.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 1:29 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
January 4, 2006
USDA's Yardstick Will Measure Your 2005 Growth
“Keeping up with the Joneses” is fraught with peril, if the Joneses buy a new combine or pick-up truck every year. But how do you compare with the average US farmer, not just your neighbor who relishes the opportunity to stay ahead of you. Since it is that time of year to take stock, let’s not just look at how you did financially, but examine your management team and explore the corporate culture of your operation. (And, yes, you have both of those!)
USDA’s Economics Research Service peered into farm households and issued a variety of year-end reports on such issues as demographics, income, net worth, and well-being of US farms.
Painting a picture of the typical farmer may yield something close to artist Grant Wood’s “American Gothic.” Demographically speaking, ERS says, “The householder (or principal farm operator) of farm households is generally older, has less formal education, is less likely to be nonwhite or female, and more likely to live in the South than the average US householder. More than one-quarter of farm operators are 65 years of age or more. The average age of operators has been greater than 50 years since at least the 1974 Census of Agriculture. Part of the reason for the advanced age structure of farmers is likely because the farm is not just a place of business, it is the family home. About 15 percent of farm operators report they are retired.”
Over the past 40 years, the education level of farmers has radically changed. In 1964, 67% had not finished high school and less than 4% had been to college. Today, 40% have college experience and 15% have a degree. It is more likely that both the farm operator and spouse have off-farm employment than neither would work off the farm. Those extra jobs were taken to cover farm expenses or repay debt, increase income, or have better access to health insurance.
And how do you measure up to the income level of the typical farmer? ERS says, “The income earned by farm operator households in 2005 is expected to continue a 5-year string of increases. Average farm household income for 2005 is forecast at $83,660, up 2.7% from 2004. In 2005, average farm gross cash income is forecast to be $90,813, 4.9% higher than in 2004. Declines in crop cash receipts are projected to be offset by increases in livestock cash receipts, government payments, and other farm related income. However, higher farm expenses are expected to result in lower net cash income for farm operator households. Still, the 6.6% decline in farm income is expected to be partially offset by a 4.6% increase in off-farm income.”
For corn and bean farmers, the average household income is expected to decline 1.7% in 2005, resulting from a 13% reduction in farm income. The average income of households that operated cash grain and soybean farms was $91,392 in 2004, with 36.1% of this income attributed to farming. ERS says, “Most of the cash income of farm operator households comes from their off-farm wage and salary earnings. Since 1998, the off-farm income sources of farm operator households alone exceeded the average income of all U.S. households.”
If farm income was high in 2005 (good 2004 yields and prices), what did farmers do with that money? Retire debt? Increase Net Worth? USDA’s Economic Research Service says, “On average, nonfarm assets accounted for about 29% of farm household assets in 2003, while borrowing for nonfarm purposes was 44% of farm operator household debt. About 27% of the average farm household's net worth could be attributed to nonfarm sources. Two additional statistics further illustrate the interrelationships between farm and nonfarm components of farm household balance sheets. First, nearly 38% of farm operator households reported debt balances for their farm operations at the end of 2003, while more than 53% had incurred debt for nonfarm purposes. Second, two-thirds reported loan balances on either farm and/or nonfarm debt.”
Finally, let’s look at the overall well being of the typical farm household. In its report ERS says, “For the majority of farm households, income from off-farm work remains the dominant contributor to the economic well-being measure. Farm households specializing in dairy tend to receive about 50% of their composite measure of well being from farming. Those specializing in poultry and other general livestock receive about 50% of their composite measure of well being from off-farm wages and/or salaries. Farm operators 65 years or older rely the least on income from off-farm wages and salaries, and tend to rely the most on income from annuitized marketable wealth. Both trends start in the 55-64 year old age group. Farm households whose operators have attended graduate school had negative income from farming in 2003 and tended to rely on income from off-farm sources and on annuitized marketable wealth as their main sources of income.”
Summary:
American farmers are growing older, not only individually, but on the average. As a few new farmers replace the retiring ones, they are more educated than their predecessor. Farm income for 2005 is at a high level, due to good 2004 yields and higher prices being offered when commodities were sold, however a significant part of that household income is from off-farm employment. That income has allowed some farm debt to be retired, family assets to increase, and for farmers to have better access to health and retirement benefits. On the whole, farm families are depending more heavily on that off-farm income.
Posted by Stu Ellis at 3:15 PM | Comments (1) | Permalink
January 2, 2006
A 2006 "To Do" List for the Shop Door
It is New Year’s Resolution time on Rural Route 4, or wherever your farm is. Many of those “character builders” are being made and most will be broken by the end of the week, according to those who keep track of such social goals. It is tough to make and keep our own resolutions for a better life, but it is easy to make resolutions for other folks, so I’ll offer some suggestions to those who produce the food of which we are resolving to eat less. Here is a checklist of Farmer Resolutions that spouses can post on the refrigerator or the shop door.
1) Pay attention to your family. They come before your farm operation. Farm wives are your best friend, confidant, and business partner. Don’t let her slip out of the loop on any decision, except when you call to have flowers delivered for no specific reason. She needs to know everything: your plans for the day, your need for the checkbook, and when you will see her next. She already knows your goals and objectives for the operation, since she was part of the team that developed them. And if any modification needs to be made in those, ensure that she is part of that process.
2) Speaking of goals and objectives, this is a good time to either create or update them. You have a good handle on your financial position, and your goals and objectives should correlate with that. Is your goal to retire early, to expand your acreage, to diversify into a new operation, or to raise your business to the next higher level and begin exporting your own brand of corn, beans, wheat, or high quality meat? Once you have set your goal, your objectives indicate how fast you’ll get there. It may take months or the entire year to develop and refine family goals and objectives, but it only takes a moment to resolve to begin that process this year.
3) Watch the quantity and type of food you consume. We can all afford to push back from the table a little earlier than we do. Instead of buying a bigger belt, make sure you can fit into a smaller belt. The food you eat is a significant factor to your health, and if you don’t want your family to suffer from your ill health, resolve to change your culinary lifestyle. And come to think about it, a resolution to lose one pound per month will make you 7-10% lighter a year from now. That is at least one belt size.
4) If you want to be farming a year from now, you will do yourself a favor by resolving to improve your marketing skills. You may have 2005 grain still unpriced. You have the 2006 crop to sell, and some folks will be laying plans for 2007. Sure, there are uncertainties, but how many years have you not harvested some portion of a crop? Crop insurance will help guarantee your financial commitments and that can be built into a marketing plan. Some marketing plans are implemented by the seat of the pants, and those are the ones that you probably don’t want serving as your financial foundation. So, initially, develop a written marketing plan, which addresses such issues as futures and basis, interest rates being paid and earned, storage costs, grain quality, and similar issues that few farmers really include. The marketing plan should be written and signed, which becomes a contract with one’s self to get the job done. Secondly, join a marketing club. And if you can’t find one, start one. There is not an Extension agent, elevator manager, or farm manager who would not help you do that. Marketing clubs are not fueled with rumor and emotion. They will utilize solid market information, generate conversation about marketing tools that might be used in various situations, and allow you to hear from other farmers about development of marketing alternatives that have worked well. Thirdly, attend a seminar on either basic or advanced marketing, and don’t let your ego get in the way of education. Too many farmers do not want to be seen going into a seminar where they may learn something, and then have their neighbors find out. By attending a marketing seminar, you might end up providing tips to someone else, and that is going to feed your ego. Don’t tell yourself you already know 90% of what is going to be taught. That may well be true. But the 10% of the seminar that might be new to you could mean the difference between just breaking even, and making a profit.
5) If you have rejected all of the preceding ideas, at least resolve to practice the highest level of farm safety. Canisters of fresh water will reduce the potential for burns to your eyes and nose during anhydrous season. Goggles, rubber gloves, and repellant clothing will reduce the potential for you to develop some weird patches on your skin after spraying season. Maintain all safety shields and guards on equipment. Turn equipment off before working on it. Put locks and braces under hydraulic lifts before you crawl underneath to look for problems. Continue your safety campaign with the use of reflectors, reflective tape, and slow moving vehicle signs on all of my equipment that will be on roadways. Respect for electricity, volatile fuels, toxic chemicals, and equipment that dismembers or kills needs to be high on your farm safety resolutions. You are aware of your fellow farmers who lost their lives in the past year because of accidents, and you don’t want your family to have to unexpectedly plan your funeral this year. You are needed as a role model, not as the bad example.
Summary:
You can make these resolutions any time of the year, but take advantage of a new calendar to write them down, record your progress, and make a positive change in your life by the end of 2006. Since you cannot possibly do all of these this week, pledge to work on them throughout the entire year
Posted by Stu Ellis at 10:10 AM | Comments (2) | Permalink
