Search

Impacts from the coronavirus pandemic have depressed market returns to corn and soybean farmers in the Midwest, extending pressures that have existed since 2013 and which were made worse by trade disputes with China. Without large ad hoc Federal aid, income on Midwest grain farms would have been quite low and the ongoing cash flow crunch much worse. Farmland prices have not adjusted downward, in part due to continuing ad hoc Federal aid, but also because interest rates have been historically very low. The financial (solvency) position of Midwest grain farms is surprisingly strong because of the strength in land values. However, the financial condition of Midwest row‐crop agriculture could deteriorate markedly if recent and large infusions of ad hoc Federal aid dissipates or if interest rates rise sharply.

The 2014 Farm Bill continued the trend towards more risk management-based support for U.S. farmers. However, it also represents a major departure from previous legislation by introducing multiple program options among which producers had the ability to choose. While allowing producers to have choices creates flexibility, the design of the program required producers to consider potential outcomes for crop prices and production levels in future periods when making their decisions. Experience over the first two years of program implementation suggests that while programs are working as designed, not all producers are fully satisfied with their enrollment decisions. This will lead to proposals for further modification to programs, and to questions about whether program choice should be a component of the next Farm Bill.

The 2014 Farm Bill required farmers and landowners to make a set of one-time, irrevocable decisions lasting for the duration of the farm bill. The decisions included the choice between three program alternatives with uncertain payments. To aid in making those decisions, the farm bill funded two key educational efforts: (a) the development of two online decision tools and (b) additional funding to support land grant institutions and extension systems to educate farmers through more traditional extension mediums, particularly in-person meetings. This paper provides an evaluation of both types of farm bill education through two case studies.