|
Newsletter | Past Issues
May,
2007
In This Issue:
Buying and Selling Tractors on eBay
Flexible
Cash Lease Arrangements and Government Payments Clarified
Corn
or Soybeans – What to Plant on Those Undecided Acres?
OSU
Web Resources for Next U.S. Farm Bill
Projected
Large Profits in 2007 for Crop Producers? Higher Input
Costs May Shrink Bottom Line
What are Your Chances of an Audit?
Hogs:
New Eastern Corn Belt Weekly Returns Series
Group
Risk Insurance Plan (GRIP) - Less Attractive in 2007?
Ohio
Environment Report v4(1): Trade, the Environment, and
Farm Bill Reflections
Purdue
Top Farmer Crop Workshop
Do
you have a question that you would like to ask the Ohio
AG Manager Team? If so, click here to email your
question.
Buying
and Selling Tractors on eBay: Differences from In-Person
Auctions
by Florian Diekmann, Brian E. Roe, Marvin T. Batte
Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development
Economics
Ohio State University
Few sounds capture the rhythm of agricultural economies
better than the syncopated cadence of an auctioneer
echoing across a clutch of farmers gathered around the
auction block. This seemingly timeless portrait of economic
exchange in rural America has changed, however, as advances
in technology alter the way auctions are conducted.
The advent of telephone bidding, video links and, more
recently, internet bidding platforms change the nature
of auctions by broadening the pool of potential sellers
and bidders. As the commercial success of eBay and other
online auction sites suggest, the internet provides
many possible advantages over in-person auctions. Internet
auction sites provide extensive listings and powerful
search technologies, which can create markets for specialized
product categories, even when buyers and sellers are
geographically dispersed. This issue is particularly
important for U.S. agriculture because, as production
becomes increasingly concentrated among fewer entities,
the number of potential bidders within a given radius
of any particular location continues to diminish.
A key strength of the internet – the pooling of
bidders from geographically dispersed locations –
can also be a weakness, as distance removes a critical
advantage of in-person auctions, i.e., bidders directly
inspecting merchandise. While some internet sites that
hold agricultural equipment auctions attempt to directly
offset this weakness by providing inspection services
(e.g., www.IronPlanet.com), the most widely used internet
auction site, eBay, does not provide such up-front risk
mitigation services. eBay does other things, however,
including the posting of reliability ratings of individual
sellers and the use of on-line photos and videos that
allow buyers to inspect aspects of goods from a distance.
Starting in June of 2005, eBay also began offering its
Buyer Protection Plan, an after-the-fact risk mitigation
service to business equipment purchasers in the form
of a fraud protection policy that refunds buyers’
outlays up to $20,000 for business equipment (including
farm equipment) sold by eBay sellers in the case of
seller fraud or undisclosed equipment defects.
KEY QUESTIONS
As online sales of farm equipment become more widespread,
questions arise about the nature of price determination
in online versus traditional markets. We present empirical
evidence from recent auctions for used farm tractors
conducted on eBay and via in-person auctions. We are
interested in several questions. Do eBay and in-person
auctions yield similar average prices for comparable
equipment? Second, what influences whether tractors
are offered for sale on eBay versus in-person auctions?
Then, we want to take a step back and ask, what kind
of tractors are being offered for sale on eBay and which
ones are actually getting sold, i.e., generating bids
that surpass reserve prices? In this installment we
focus on the first question: does comparable equipment
sell for the same on eBay and in in-person auctions?
DATA
To answer this question we use data from internet and
in-person used tractor auctions conducted between June
1, 2005 and March 31, 2006 in 11 Midwestern states (IA,
IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, NE, ND, OH, SD, WI). The internet
sample was purchased through eBay’s service provider
program. The data includes information about auctions
that took place in eBay’s “Tractor and Farm
Machinery” category, including the final sales
price, make, model, engine horsepower, year, hours of
use, auction date, seller zip code, and other information
describing the auction items and the nature of the auction.
The in-person auction data was purchased from Machinery
Pete’s Farm Equipment FACT’s Report, which
summarizes results from retirement, estate, dealer and
consignment auctions reported by a network of more than
600 auctioneers. The FACT’s information includes
sales price, make, model, engine horsepower, year, hours
of use, auction date and location (region within a state),
and other descriptive information. The data do not represent
the entire universe of used tractor transactions for
the Midwest during this period, as other internet auction
sites regularly transact tractors and some auctioneers
may not report to the FACT’s Report, but this
likely represents a wide, representative sample from
the universe of used tractors.
Several filters were applied to each data set to arrive
at a sample used for analysis. For both samples, tractors
with model years earlier than 1960 were excluded to
focus on tractors that were most likely purchased for
operational rather than collectible purposes. Also tractors
of 30 horsepower and less were excluded to focus on
tractors most likely to be used in agriculture rather
than nursery or landscape operations. Items that were
classified by the seller as “for parts”
or “not running” and items that were sold
with expensive additional implements such as backhoes
were excluded. Items with less expensive implements
such as loaders or mowers were included. Finally, the
data set was also limited to the 13 manufacturers (makes)
that contributed more than 89 percent of sample observations
(John Deere, International Harvestor, Massey Fergusson,
Ford, Case, CaseIH, New Holland, Ford-New Holland, Allis
Chalmers, Oliver, White, Versatile, and Belarus). The
complete data set (see table 1 for summary statistics)
included 588 eBay observations (about 30% of all observations)
and 1,770 in-person observations for a total of 2,358.
APPROACH
The way we approach answering our key question is to
find the statistical relationship between the price
of a used tractor and its key attributes like horse
power, hours, age, manufacturer and transmission type.
This is known as the hedonic modeling approach. We use
the data and some statistical techniques to develop
this relationship for both tractors sold on eBay and
in in-person auctions. We then predict each tractor’s
sale price for both auction venues (eBay and in-person),
apply the relevant commissions and calculate the difference.
We’ll note a couple things about commissions.
eBay commissions for business and industrial capital
equipment sales are 1% of the final sale price with
a maximum charge of $250, a $20 listing fee, and a variety
of optional fixed-fee listing enhancements (e.g., bold
lettering) targeted to improve item visibility among
potential bidders (we assume $55 in additional fees).
In-person auctions feature commissions that typically
range from 2.5 percent to 15 percent, often with no
limit on the maximum total commission paid. To the best
of our knowledge, detailed information concerning the
average commission structures for U.S. farm equipment
auctions is not available, though industry sources suggest
that the bulk of commissions fall in the five to ten
percent range. The data provided to us from the FACT’s
report does not include information concerning the commission
or fees charged. As a point of reference, we list the
commission structure of an internet-based auction house,
IronPlanet.com, which provides features similar to that
of an in-person auction company, including equipment
inspection and lien searches. This firm features a block-rate
commission structure outlined in table 2. We also assume
each sale costs an additional $450 in fees. The eBay
– in-person difference between the total commissions
paid for various sales prices can vary dramatically;
the difference for a $1,000 item is about $100 and the
difference for a $100,000 item is more than $6,000.
In table 3 we list six example calculations for the
predicted price in each sale venue, the difference in
net sales revenues between the two venues, and the size
of the in-person commission that would make eBay and
in-person auctions yield the same net sales revenue.
We also provide the average and median across all tractors
in the sample and for all tractors that sold for less
than $20,000 and, hence, would be covered by eBay’s
Buyer Protection Program.
The results are quite stark. The median tractor (i.e.,
half of the tractors sold for a price less than this
tractor, the other half sold for more) was predicted
to sell for $7,706 on eBay and for $10,996 at an in-person
auction. Once the typical commissions and fees are deducted
this results in a $2,197 more from an in-person sale.
In fact, the commission on the in-person auction would
need to rise to 31.3% before both venues would offer
the same predicted level of net sales revenues. We do
not adjust for the differences in other costs that accompany
a sale in each venue. For example, at an in-person auction,
the seller must transport the tractor to the sale location,
which could erode the perceived advantage of in-person
auctions with regard to net revenues as eBay sellers
need not transport the item to a central location. On
the other hand, eBay sellers may incur costs associated
with internet technology, including the cost of the
computer, internet hook up, and any charges for taking
digital photos or videos to post on the eBay sale site,
though many of these costs may be quite small if the
seller already is engaged with internet activities.
The average tractor in the sample is predicted to sell
on eBay for less than half the price it is predicted
to fetch at an in-person auction. In fact, all three
of our example tractors in the top half of table 3,
which are predicted to sell for more than $20,000 at
an in-person auction, are predicted to sell for considerably
less on eBay. For example, the Case-IH tractor is predicted
to generate $23,367 less if sold on eBay than if sold
at an in-person auction.
Once we move to the smaller, older, lesser-valued tractors
depicted in the bottom half of table 3, we see that
the eBay discount persists but is diminished. Recall,
all these tractors would be covered by eBay’s
Buyer Protection Program as each is predicted to sell
for less than $20,000. The net sales revenues for the
median tractor in the ‘under $20,000’ sample
are only $489 less if sold on eBay, though this still
translates to the idea that an in-person auctioneer
could charge a 26.1% commission and still generate similar
net sales revenues. However, at this point, the added
costs of transporting the item to the sale and the inconvenience
with such transportation may begin to grow closer to
the $489 bump in revenue promised by the in-person sale.
In fact, for 2 of the 3 example tractors in the bottom
half of table 3, eBay generates higher net sales revenues,
including $1,416 more for that 43-year-old Allis Chalmers
D17 with a front-end loader.
Another more straightforward way to verify if the two
auction venues are generating similar prices is to simply
compare the price for a single used tractor model that
is frequently sold in both outlets. The most commonly
sold used tractor in this data set is the John Deere
4020. More than 57,000 units of this tractor were produced
by John Deere at its Waterloo, Iowa, factory between
1963 and 1971, making it one of the most common models
ever produced in U.S. agriculture. Our data set includes
the sales price of 83 units, including 23 sold via eBay.
The in-person and eBay 4020’s had statistically
similar profiles with respect to age, hours, presence
of ancillary implements, reliance upon diesel fuel and
horsepower, though about 13 percent of the eBay 4020’s
feature manual transmission while none in in-person
auctions list this feature (if we leave these tractors
out, it doesn’t change our results). So, other
than the difference in transmission types, eBay and
in-person offerings of the 4020 appear to quite similar
with regard to their attributes. (We would have liked
to do this with more models, but there weren’t
other models with enough sales in both venues to provide
a statistically rigorous test).
The mean in-person auction price ($8,212.50) is quite
close to that of the eBay sample ($8,166.37). Several
statistical tests suggest that the two venues yield
the same sales price for this venerable tractor. Hence,
in-person and eBay auctions provide similar prices for
the John Deere 4020’s sold in the Midwest during
this time frame. This provides some additional evidence
of convergence in average sales prices for used tractors
that sell for less than the upper limit of eBay’s
consumer protection policy.
SUMMARY
Markets for durable and non-durable agricultural inputs
are being altered by the emergence internet-based trading
venues. We explore differences between internet and
traditional markets for used tractors using data from
eBay and in-person used tractor auctions. We find the
average price received in eBay auctions is substantially
lower than that received in in-person auctions; the
average tractor in our sample is predicted to generate
nearly $10,000 less in net sales revenue if sold on
eBay. However, the percentage discount for eBay tractors
is smaller for items that sell for less than $20,000
– the price threshold beyond which goods are no
longer covered by eBay’s Buyer Protection Program.
In fact, for the most frequently traded model in our
data set (the John Deere 4020), which normally sells
for prices well below the $20,000 threshold, the distribution
of prices obtained in eBay and in-person auctions is
no different.
This suggest that, from the buyer’s point of view,
purchasing newer, more powerful tractors on eBay may
offer the opportunity to source key capital inputs at
a discount compared to traditional in-person auctions.
However, these buyers must bear additional risk both
because they cannot be present to personally inspect
the merchandise and because occurrences of fraud or
misrepresentation cannot be fully covered under existing
eBay’s Buyer Protection Program, which currently
covers items up to only $20,000.
From a seller’s point of view eBay is attractive
because it offers great flexibility (e.g., absolute
freedom to choose sale dates, no transportation of equipment
to a central location) and low commissions (capped at
$250). However, for tractors that sellers think will
sell above the $20,000 limit of the eBay buyer protection
program, our calculations suggest that in-person auctions
generate greater total seller revenue, i.e., the higher
commissions paid to in-person auctioneers are outstripped
by higher selling prices. Indeed, the in-person flat
commission rate that we predict would equalize seller
revenues gained from eBay and in-person auctions averages
31.3 percent, which is double the highest commission
charged by in-person auctioneers.
Smaller, older tractors, which commonly sell for prices
less than $20,000, can often generate more revenue if
sold on eBay. The in-person flat commission rate that
would equalize seller revenues gained from eBay and
in-person auctions averages only 29.2% percent across
our sample of used tractors that sell for less than
$20,000, while 39 percent of the tractors that sold
for less than $20,000 in our sample are predicted to
generate more seller revenue if sold on eBay. For the
internet-savvy seller with older tractors to sell, eBay
may be an attractive sales outlet.
Full
article and tables available here:
http://ohioagmanager.osu.edu/resources/May07
eBaytractors.pdf
Flexible
Cash Lease Arrangements and Government Payments Clarified
Donald
J. Breece, Farm Management Specialist, OSU
Extension Center at Lima
This
USDA Notice clarifies the Flexible or Variable Leasing
issue as it pertains to whether these agreements should
be considered as cash or share leases for Direct Crop
Payments. It also addresses the impact to the CCC-509
payment shares for bonuses paid to landowners. A cash
lease has payment based upon cash, a fixed number of
bushels or pounds of crop. A share lease contains provisions
that require one or a combination of a payment of rent
based on the amount of crop produced, proceeds derived
from the crop and/or interest the producer would have
had, if the crop had been produced. Also, the greater
of a guaranteed amount or share of the crop proceeds.
And, FSA will consider it a share lease if there is
a guaranteed amount (such as a fixed dollar amount or
quanity) and a share of the crop proceeds paid as rent.
In the Flexible examples within the notice, it would
appear that if the flexibility is based upon factors
external to the farm, it would be classified as a cash
lease. If the lease is based on performance on the farm,
it is a share lease. Read this USDA FSA notice so that
you will know the latest information on the subject.
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_Notice/dcp_172.pdf
Return
to Top
Corn
or Soybeans – What to Plant on Those Undecided
Acres?
Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management,
Ohio State University Extension, Department of Agricultural,
Environmental and Development Economics
If you still have acres to be planted that are in the
undecided category for planting to corn or soybeans,
it would helpful to analyze your profit potential. The
following is a quick look at the contribution margin
(gross revenue minus variable expenses) using OSU Extension
Enterprise Budget numbers and up-to-date forward cash
bids for October ’07.
The first set of analyses examines 2nd Year Corn versus
Soybeans with higher priced N ($580/ton NH3). The analysis
on the left assumes 2nd Year Corn with a 10% Yield drag.
The analysis on the right assumes a 5% Yield drag for
second year corn. The Operating Expenses include nothing
for land, machinery, labor and management. If corn does
incur more costs for machinery, labor and management
on your farm the Corn “Advantage” may have
to be higher to offset these higher fixed costs.
Be sure to incorporate your own costs and commodity
prices into this type of analysis as your numbers will
almost certainly be different from the ones we have
in our analysis. And be sure to accurately assess relative
yield potential on the parcel in question. This will
be very important in the analysis. 180 bushel 2nd Year
Corn versus 55 bushel soybeans certainly would change
the analysis (full analysis available here: http://ohioagmanager.osu.edu/resources/corn_soyanalysis.pdf)
Return
to Top
OSU
Web Resources for Next U.S. Farm Bill
Stan
Ernst
Extension
Outreach Program Leader/Marketing Instructor
Agricultural,
Environmental, & Development Economics
Ohio
State University
As
debate continues on the contents of the next U.S. farm
bill scheduled to be passed later this year or in 2008,
a number of issues are likely to be contested. OSU's
Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development
Economics has a web page compiling analysis and commentary
by their various experts on some of these issues. Articles
will be added as they are produced. The latest postings
include “It's the Process, Isn't It? Reflections on
the 2007 Farm Bill Debate,” Brent Sohngen's thoughts
on the growing importance of conservation provisions
in Farm Bill negotiations, especially as related to
agriculture's role in future U.S. domestic energy production.
Carl Zulauf ‘s “Changes in Farm Support Rates” is the
first of several articles looking at components of Title
I – the commodity section of the legislation. Also included
is Ian Sheldon's “Trade and the Environment: Will there
be a Race to the Bottom?,” a look at the related issue
of the environment's role in trade negotiations under
agreements such as NAFTA and the WTO. The web address
for these Farm Bill resources and others to come is
http://aede.osu.edu/resources/special/farmbill/
Return
to Top
Projected
Large Profits in 2007 for Crop Producers? Higher
Input Costs May Shrink Bottom Line
Barry
Ward, Leader, Production Business Management, Ohio State
University Extension, Department of Agricultural, Environmental
and Development Economics
Higher
commodity crop prices have fueled projections that corn
and soybean producers will net large profits in 2007.
In early winter the prospect of relatively stable input
prices (namely nitrogen and fuel) fueled speculation
about large profits for the 2007 crop year. And with
good weather and yields, many crop producers will see
a very healthy bottom line this year. But, it may not
be quite the windfall that many were predicting just
3-4 months ago.
The
combination of much higher nitrogen prices, higher phosphorous
prices, higher seed costs due to the transition to stacked
trait genetics, higher crop insurance costs, higher
fuel costs, higher rents on many land parcels, and now,
lower commodity prices compared to the pre-March 31
st Planting Intentions Report have seen that large profit
potential shrink some.
Some
of these cost increases were expected in late fall and
early winter as higher commodity prices for 2006 and
2007 crops pointed toward higher crop insurance costs
and potential increases in land rents for some farmers.
Many producers had already made seed buying decisions
which included stacked trait corn hybrids that add $20
per acre to variable costs. Fertilizer cost increases
have been a surprise to many as nitrogen prices have
equaled and in many places surpassed the very high prices
of last year. Recent surveys reveal nitrogen in the
form of anhydrous ammonia priced at $600/ton and nitrogen
in the form of UAN (28%) priced at $225-$295/ton. Expectations
were for nitrogen prices to remain at much lower levels.
Last fall and early winter, predictions for prices were
closer to $450/ton for anhydrous and $200/ton for 28%.
There were some pricing opportunities at these prices
but for many the possibility was there only if on-farm
storage was available. Some pre-pricing opportunities
in early winter allowed producers to lock in prices
close to these lower levels but many didn't get their
entire needs locked in. So what does this mean for the
2007 bottom line? Let's compare contribution margins
(gross revenue minus variable costs) for corn with 2
sets of variable costs: projected variable costs in
early winter (with lower crop insurance costs) and today's
updated variable costs (including higher crop insurance
costs).
Projected
2007 Variable Costs (Fall 2006)
Nitrogen
$45/acre ($450/ton NH3)
Seed
$40/acre ($92/bag)
Insurance
$7.75/acre (70% CRC)
Today's
2007 Variable Costs
Nitrogen
$60/acre ($600/ton NH3)
Seed
$60/acre ($142/bag stacked trait)
Insurance
$11.50/acre (70% CRC)
Incorporating
these costs differences and declining commodity prices
into a profit analysis reveals a contribution margin
of $95.24 less then projections in early winter.
The
following is a look at the difference in contribution
margins from early winter when cost projections were
lower and now with higher input costs facing us.
Return
to Top
What
are Your Chances of an Audit?
Donald
J. Breece, Farm Management Specialist, OSU Extension
Center at Lima
According
to the IRS 2006 Data Book, PUB 55B, of the 584,000 individual
returns filed showing gross receipts from farming, 2,895
were audited in 2006. With Schedule F receipts less
than $100,000 the audit rate was .42%. Farms with Schedule
F gross receipts above $100,000 had a .58% audit rate.
Compare this to Schedule C, Individual Business returns,
that had an audit rate of 2.21% for receipts $25-100,000
and an audit rate of 3.9% for over $100,000 receipts.
However, in the words of Trenna Grabowski CPA, instructor
for Extension's Ohio Income Tax School and editor of
the Farm Tax Saver, do not be "lulled into complacency"
since the word is out and IRS has beefed up the audit
process and resources.
Return
to Top
Hogs:
New Eastern Corn Belt Weekly Returns Series
Brian
E. Roe, Department of Agricultural, Environmental and
Development Economics
Ohio State University
In
these times of changing feed prices and feeding practices,
it has never been as important to thoroughly understand
how profitable it is to feed hogs. However, many of
the existing series that you find on the web from USDA
or extension sources still base estimated returns on
a finishing model that starts with the purchase of a
50 pound feeder pig and ends with the sale of a 250
or 260 pound fat hog. The industry has changed substantially
– very few operations start with 50-pound feeders and
most finish their hogs nearer to 270 pounds. Furthermore,
some producers are beginning to introduce small amounts
of dried distillers grains (DDG) into their rations
to take advantage of this proliferating feed source.
This
month I'll discuss a new weekly series I've calculated
and posted on my web page (http://aede.osu.edu/people/roe.30/livehome.htm).
The series reflects the average returns to hog finishing
for two different types of hog finishers. These new
series borrow from recent work by John Lawrence at Iowa
State that use updated budgets that include lighter
feeder pigs – both 10 pound early wean pigs and lighter
40-pound feeders – and heavier finishing weights of
270 pounds. The budgets also reflect the price of finishing
if 5% of the ration is supplied from dried distillers
grain. The data reflects feed, hog, and feeder pig prices
that are reported in the Eastern Corn Belt .
The
first series is calculated for finishing 40-pound feeder
pigs. The feeder pigs are priced using the USDA's Eastern
Corn Belt price series for 40-pound farm-delivered feeder
pigs while the hogs are assumed to fetch the Wednesday
Eastern Corn Belt lean price averaged across all sales
categories (negotiated and contract prices). I assume
these hogs face a 2.2% death loss during their 20 weeks
on feed and that they consume 9.8 bushels of corn, 88.2
pounds of 48% soybean meal and 34.2 pounds of DDG. All
other costs, including other ration components, vet
charges, labor, utilities, facilities, etc. are assumed
to cost $28.47.
The
second series focuses on the finishing costs for early
wean pigs. I assume these hogs face a 5% death loss
during their 25 weeks on feed and that they consume
10.7 bushels of corn, 122 pounds of bean meal and 34
pounds of DDG. All other costs are assumed to cost $34.75.
Many of these production and cost assumptions are based
on recent Iowa State hog budgets. Of course, every producer
may face slightly different feed efficiencies, death
loss and other costs. Therefore, I've set up the spreadsheet
so the user can alter one or more of the components
for any of the three series; this, in turn, changes
the entire series of data generated and the resulting
summary statistics. A third series, provided for reference,
is also included on the spreadsheet – it uses assumptions
typical for older finishing return series, including
a lighter feed-out weight of 250 pounds and no use of
DDG.
The
spreadsheet contains data for hogs placed beginning
the first week of 2002 through the end of March of 2007.
The summary statistics reveal several interesting trends.
First, finishing early wean pigs yielded the highest
average returns over the time period investigated. The
average net returns for finishing early wean pigs was
$8.71 per hog while it was only $6.05 for finishing
40-pound feeder pigs. This difference in returns may
be the reason why there are 2.5 early wean pigs sold
for each 40-pound feeder pig sold in the U.S. today.
The old net returns series, which reflects feeding pigs
from 40 pounds to 250 pounds, average a $4 loss per
pig over the time period. Clearly, feeding pigs to greater
end weights has increased operational returns.
When
looking across the various months, several clear patterns
also emerged. For example, December through May were
the most profitable months for producers finishing 40-pound
feeder pigs over the past 5 years. In fact, December,
which provided some of the most financial distressing
months in the 1990's, yielded the second highest average
net returns for these finishers. July, August and September
were the least profitable months over the past 5 years.
The
seasonal profit pattern for the finishers of early weaned
pigs is different. The most profitable months for these
finishers are shifted four months later: March through
August. The traditional heavy-slaughter months of October
through December provide the lowest average profits
for this segment of the finishing sector though, even
here, the average net returns remained positive for
the 2002-2006 period.
The
spreadsheet also allows a user to input projected weekly
prices for feeder pigs, hogs and feed stuffs over the
next year or two on the ‘weekly data' sheet. This allows
a user to generate customized feeding returns predictions,
which can be used for the purposes of planning.
Return
to Top
Group
Risk Insurance Plan (GRIP) - Less Attractive in 2007?
Barry
Ward, Leader, Production Business Management, Ohio State
University Extension, Department of Agricultural, Environmental
and Development Economics
The
Group Risk Insurance Plan has been an attractive insurance
product the past few years for many in the Midwest .
Certain counties in the Midwest had a high ratio of
indemnities paid out to premiums paid in (loss ratio)
with GRIP. This resulted in a comparatively attractive
crop insurance product that many farmers signed up for.
The article cited below examines past performance of
GRIP and it's potential for 2007 and beyond.
“GRIP
in 2007”
Schnitkey
and Sherrick
farmdoc
- University of Illinois
http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/manage/newsletters/fefo07_04/fefo07_04.html
Return
to Top
Ohio
Environment Report v4(1): Trade, the Environment, and
Farm Bill Reflections
Stan Ernst
Extension Outreach Program Leader/Marketing Instructor
Agricultural, Environmental, & Development Economics
Ohio State University
The articles in this issue of the Ohio Environment Report
tackle two important issues of interest to Ohioans.
First, Dr. Ian Sheldon, Andersons Professor of International
Trade at Ohio State University, examines whether and
how free trade affects the environment, and how trade
policies can address environmental impacts. The second
article considers conservation proposals for the 2007
Farm Bill, and highlights a few key issues to consider
about the evolution of conservation policy in the Farm
Bill.
Available at: http://aede.osu.edu/people/sohngen.1/OER/
Return
to Top
Purdue
Top Farmer Crop Workshop
The
40th Top Farmer Crop Workshop will be held July 22-25,
2007, and there is certainly no shortage of interesting
topics this year! We will send an email notice when
preliminary program information, including speakers
and their topics, is posted on the TFCW site. If you
have attended the workshop in recent years, you should
be on our mailing list and will receive a printed program
and registration materials by early June. To reserve
your spot now, mail the registration form available
at http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/topfarmer/conference_info.asp,
or call Purdue Conferences at (765)494-7220.
Return
to Top
Readers
can subscribe electronically to this newsletter by sending
an e-mail message to: ohioagmanager-on@ag.osu.edu.
A successful subscription message will receive by an
automatic reply from the listserv. Contact your local
Ohio State University Extension Office or e-mail dmarrison@ag.osu.edu
if you have problems subscribing.
Ohio
Ag Manager Team Leaders: Chris Bruynis & David Marrison
Web
Page Managers: David Marrison & Andy Kleinschmidt
Information
presented above and where trade names are used, they
are supplied with the understanding that no discrimination
is intended and no endorsement by Ohio State University
Extension is implied.
All
educational programs conducted by Ohio State University
Extension are available to clientele on a nondiscriminatory
basis without regard to race, color, creed, religion,
sexual orientation, national origin, gender, age, disability
or Vietnam-era veteran status.
Issued
in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of
May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Keith L. Smith, Director,
Ohio State University Extension.
link
TDD
# 1 (800) 589-8292 (Ohio only) or (614) 292-1868
|
