Ag Economists Monthly Monitor

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

Thu, 08 May 2025 20:25:18 GMT

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

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

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

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

April Ag Economists’ Monthly Montior

(Lindsey Pound)

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

62% said yes
38% responded no.

Most major agricultural groups argue that the current farm bill is outdated.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

Other Hurdles for Passing a Farm Bill in 2025

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

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

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

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

Concerns About a Recession in Agriculture

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

Poll Results: More Than Half of Farmers Say They Don’t Support Trump’s Use of Tariffs

Mon, 24 Mar 2025 18:38:30 GMT

President Donald Trump has been clear since the campaign trail: Tariffs are a tool he would use aggressively during his presidency, and that’s exactly what the president is doing as tariffs have become a bit of a trademark during Trump 2.0 and the first 100 days.

As he prepares to impose more tariffs on April 2, Trump said Monday that he will impose tariffs of 25% on any nation that purchases oil from Venezuela.

“Venezuela has been very hostile to the United States and the freedoms which we espouse. Therefore, any country that purchases oil and/or gas from Venezuela will be forced to pay a tariff of 25% to the United States on any trade they do with our country,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

As both targeted and blanket tariffs are applied, retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agriculture are also caught in the middle of the latest trade war. How do farmers feel about this? That’s exactly what we wanted to uncover during the latest AgWeb poll.

The latest AgWeb poll asked, “Do you support President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs as a negotiation strategy?” And even though the majority of farmers say they don’t support Trump’s use of tariffs, according to the recent AgWeb poll, it wasn’t on overwhelming majority.

(AgWeb Poll)

Out of the nearly 3,000 farmers who responded,

54% responded “no”
41% responded “yes”

The poll then followed-up by asking, “Do you believe USDA will compensate farmers for losses if agriculture is affected by a trade war?”

The responses here were much more mixed.

36% responded “no”
34% said “yes”
30% responded they were “unsure”

What are farmers saying in the field? Michelle Jones, a fourth-generation farmer in south central Montana was asked the question about if she supports Trump’s use of tariffs on “AgriTalk” last week.

“No, definitely not,” Jones said. “I don’t think that tariffs are an effective negotiation strategy, and I also don’t think that we’re truly being surgical in how we are applying them.”

Jones says there are cases in history where tariffs are effective, but she says in the majority of those cases, the tariffs are extremely targeted and apply to a certain industry or specific country.

“They were also very short-term whereas now, we’re just using them as basically a blanket approach and then escalating when the president gets angry, and then he rolls them back, and it creates too much uncertainty. It’s just not wildly effective,” Jones also said on “AgriTalk.”

“I agree, they were used before the Phase One deal with China, and they were never dealt with under the Biden administration either,” added April Hemmes, an Iowa farmer, who was also on “AgriTalk” last week. “Now all we’ve done is piss off our neighbors with this, the Canadians, bringing Canada and Mexico into it. And now all consumers are going to have to pay up, not just the farmers.”

However, there are some farmers and those in agriculture who support the president’s heavy use of tariffs. One of those is Bubba Horwitz of Bubba Trading, who focuses on the commodity markets.

“I think it’s a great tool to use,” Horwitz said on “AgriTalk.” “I think you’ve seen it with Canada and Mexico to get things that he wanted to get done. And certainly, you can bargain with those tariffs, you can do whatever you want. I think it’s a great negotiating tool, and it certainly can put pressure because remember one thing, the United States of America could stand alone. We could be an island without anybody. We don’t need anybody else to survive, whereas other countries and nations do need us to survive. We could be totally an island and exist perfectly well without the help of any other country in the world.”

Secretary Rollins Defends Trump’s Use of Tariffs
During a recent interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins defended the president’s use of tariffs, also saying he’s holding Canada accountable.

“This president’s vision of tariffs being such an important part of his toolkit, as he begins to realign the economy to put America first, to put our men and women, our families first. Everybody knows, and when they voted in November of 2024, they knew that’s what they were voting for. And so as we see the president begin to roll out, as we see him hold accountable Canada with their 250 % tariffs on our dairy products, as they see him hold accountable, Mexico, China, all these countries where we have a 5 % on our end when our products go out. They’ve got 15 %,so three times, this is on average on their end when their products come in. It’s not fair. And it’s got to be equalized as we move toward more free trade,” said Rollins.

Rollins pointed out the president has been very clear that there will be an interim period where the economy readjusts.

“Real transformation takes these harder decisions. And no one’s willing to do that, except now President Trump is,” Rollins said during the interview. “So obviously 100 % behind it, I am talking to farmers every single day. They know that the president has their back. They know and are prepared for potentially, you know, an interim period as we move toward what the president has said is the greatest age of prosperity not just for all Americans, But for our farmers in our ranchers as well.”

Ag Economists are Concerned About Tariffs and Impact Long Term
Farm Journal asked a similar question regarding using tariffs to negotiate in the March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, and the survey found an overwhelming majority of economists are concerned about the impacts long term.

Ninety-two percent of economists think Trump’s strategy of using tariffs as a negotiating tool won’t benefit U.S. agriculture in the long run.

“Lost trade and lost reliability in a key sector for aggregate ag demand will hurt agriculture more than any specific market gains made from negotiations or reciprocal trade battles,” one economist said.
“Tariffs not only have a negative impact the short run, they also have negative impacts in the long run,” said an economist in the anonymous survey.
“Lost market share is extremely difficult to regain, especially when the U.S. becomes known as an unreliable market partner,” another economist noted.
“I responded yes, although I believe there are scenarios where this is harmful and scenarios where it could be beneficial,” said another economist. “For it to be beneficial depends on it being short lived and resulting in trade initiatives with market access or purchase commitments. And in the meantime, action is taken quickly related to President Trump’s post to offset trade loss with increased domestic use such as removing dated rules that limit ethanol blends, renewing or creating biofuels production incentives, and adding SAF as a mandated fuel.”

Market Facilitation Program 2.0?
If agriculture is caught in the middle of another trade war, the March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor wanted to know if economists think USDA will compensate farmers for their losses again, similar to what the previous Trump administration did with Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments.

Even though Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has promised to make farmers whole through another trade war, economists are concerned about available funding.

Seventy-seven percent of economists think USDA will compensate farmers, but 23% don’t think so.

Here’s what economists in the March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor had to say.

“Congress might be the limiting factor,” one economist said.
“They will want to do so, but their ability to do so may be limited. The failure to include replenishment of the Commodity Credit Corporation’s borrowing authority in the continuing resolution limits available CCC funds, and other options may also be limited in potential scope,” another respondent shared.
“Yes, I expect more trade compensation because of the political sensitivity of ag and the administrative commitments already to doing so. I don’t know what and how much it might be, particularly if we are entering a new era of budget austerity or at least stated goals of budget restraint,” responded one economist.
“Depends on who is calling the shots Trump or Musk,” another economist noted. “Trump might want to because farmers voted for him. But will he spend the money? He probably would. But, who else are farmers going to vote for? Is Trump running again?”
“Tariffs are not good revenue creators — they are a poorly targeted tax on U.S. consumers. If the federal government believes it will raise revenue from these tariffs like it claims, it is hard for me to believe that they will turn around and give that limited revenue back to the people it impacted the most,” said an economist in the anonymous survey.

No matter what happens with the upcoming April 2 tariff deadline, economists agree that what happens with trade and tariffs will likely be the top factor that impacts agriculture over the next 12 months.

In a recent interview on “AgriTalk,” hear where Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, stands on fair trade versus free trade.

92% of Ag Economists Say the U.S. is Already in the Middle of Another Trade War

Fri, 21 Mar 2025 14:47:55 GMT

President Donald Trump hasn’t been shy about using tariffs as a negotiating tool. As he cracks down on fentanyl and illegal border crossings, he’s also pushing to restore what he calls fairness in U.S. trade relationships and countering non-reciprocal trading arrangements.

The reality for agriculture is the U.S. agricultural trade deficit hit a record in 2024 as imports soared, and Trump says he wants to reverse the trend.

According to the Trump administration, when it comes to tariffs and the impact on the overall economy, long-term gain will be worth the short-term pain. However, when it comes to agriculture, ag economists survyed in the March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor don’t agree.

Ninety-two percent of economists think Trump’s strategy of using tariffs as a negotiating tool won’t benefit U.S. agriculture in the long run.

Here are some of those economists’ comments from the most recent Farm Journal Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor survey.

“Food as a weapon doesn’t have a successful track record, see Jimmy Carter and the 1980s,” responded one economist in the anonymous survey. “It’s not a guarantee as it’s like playing Russian roulette; you might ‘win,’ but the risks are huge.”
“Farm Journal readers should learn about the long-term consequences of Smoot-Hawley. It wasn’t just about the economic costs — it was also about the relational damage between trading partners. I have a hard time believing we will rebuild these relationships any time in the foreseeable future,” another economist said.
“It depends on whether tariffs are used as a negotiating tool with the ultimate goal of reducing trade barriers, or whether they instead result in a world with higher barriers. The president’s emphasis on tariffs as a way to raise revenue suggests tariffs and their consequences may persist,” was another economist’s response in the Monthly Monitor.

However, one economist wasn’t as certain, saying, “For it to be beneficial depends on it being short lived and resulting in trade initiatives with market access or purchase commitments. And in the meantime, action is taken quickly related to Trump’s post to offset trade loss with increased domestic use such as removing dated rules that limit ethanol blends, renewing or creating biofuels production incentives, and adding SAF as a mandated fuel.”

Trade War or No Trade War?
What an overwhelming number of agricultural economists do agree on is that the U.S. is in the midst of another trade war. Ninety-two percent of economists say a trade war is already here, while only 8% responded no.

“I don’t think anyone is arguing with the notion that we are in another ‘trade war,’” one economist said. “This one is far bigger and far more consequential than the last one we were in.”

“It seems more like a trade cold war,” another economist responded. “The situation is ever-changing, and it is hard for buyers, markets and producers to anticipate reality and effect. The threat of tariffs is almost as effective as a tariff.”

As agriculture tries to navigate the turbulence and shocks of another trade war, the ultimate question is: Who wins in a trade war? According to Romel Mostafa, professor of business, economics and public policy for the Ivey Business School in London, Ontario, it’s neither the U.S. or Canada.

“If we think about U.S. and Canada, we both lose,” Mostafa says. “The way our markets are integrated, both from the input side as well as the product side, any tariff really increases cost of production for our farmers all the way to food on the table. What then happens, essentially, some of our products are going to be less competitive in major markets than where we compete. Who then benefits? Perhaps Brazil, Russia or other countries.”

Other agricultural economists agree: If you’re looking at the trade war between the U.S. and Canada or the U.S. and China, it’s not the U.S. who wins, it’s ultimately one of the United States’ biggest competitors: Brazil.

The Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked, “In the next 10 years, which country ultimately benefits the most from the current trade turbulence?” Seventy-three percent of economists think it’s Brazil, and 18% said China.

This Trade War Could Be Worse Than the Last time
Of the agricultural economists surveyed, 69% say they don’t think a trade war today would have the same impact it did 2018 through 2020. Instead, most think it will be worse.

“The trade war in 2018/19 also had the African swine fever in China. Because of ASF, they did not need the soybeans anyway. It will be hard to figure out what impacted the U.S. markets/prices more, but the market reaction should not be as great this time,” said one economist in the monthly survey.

Ag Econoimsts’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

“It would be a bigger impact,” another economist said. “The first round of trade wars in agriculture were largely used as a wedge for negotiation or renegotiation of agreements that provided improved access and growth opportunities for ag trade. This round seems to be championed based on reshaping the entire trading system, a system that U.S. agriculture largely benefited from over time.”

“There appears to be less willingness by the U.S. taxpayer to provide financial assistance to agricultural producers. That is not to say that financial assistance is absent this go around, but I do believe it increases the uncomfortable situation for producers who largely support less government spending,” one of the respondents shared.

However, other economists think it could have a similar impact, saying the same commodities will be impacted.

Even talk of tariffs is enough to move the markets, as some analysts argue the commodity markets have been ignoring fundamentals, instead trading headlines recently.

The Potential Economic Hit to Ag
The American Farm Bureau (AFBF) economists recently took a deeper dive into the possible impact of reciprocal tariffs. AFBF economists say of the top 20 U.S. agricultural products currently being targeted by Canada, for a total of $5.8 billion, commodities such as juice, coffee and chocolate are hardest hit, along with wine, fresh fruit, dairy products, poultry and rice.

Canada’s retaliatory tariffs

(AFBF)

China’s retaliatory tariffs

(AFBF )

When it comes to China, Beijing has specifically targeted 15 products including beef, cotton, grain sorghum, pork, corn and dairy along with fresh fruit. Economists say while it’s too early to measure the full impact of the tariffs on U.S. agriculture, they believe it will certainly decrease demand for U.S. products in Canada and China.

Market Facilitation Program 2.0?
If agriculture is caught in the middle of another trade war, the March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor wanted to know if economists think USDA will compensate farmers for their losses again, similar to what the previous Trump administration did with Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments.

March Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

Even though Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has promised to make farmers whole through another trade war, economists are concerned about available funding. Seventy-seven percent of economists think USDA will compensate farmers, but 23% don’t think so.

“Congress might be the limiting factor,” one economist said.

“They will want to do so, but their ability to do so may be limited. The failure to include replenishment of the Commodity Credit Corporation’s borrowing authority in the continuing resolution limits available CCC funds, and other options may also be limited in potential scope,” another respondent shared.

“The political dynamics appear to be similar,” said another economist. “Amounts are however likely to be less, maybe substantially less, due to the general policy initiative to reduce government spending.”

The Secretary of Agriculture has come out and said they will use these tools if it becomes necessary.

Will Border Security Issues Force Congress To Take Action On Immigration Reform? Ag Economists Say It's Unlikely

Mon, 13 Nov 2023 14:45:25 GMT

The debate over immigration and border policies continues to be a point of contention in Washington. With a renewed push by the GOP to address illegal border crossings, and the White House emphasizing the need to allocate more than $13 billion to manage the increase of migrants into the U.S., the topic as at the forefront of policy discussion once again. However, ag economists are still skeptical immigration reform will finally see movement in Washington.

In the October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, a survey of nearly 70 ag economists from across the U.S., economists were asked if they expected to see any movement on immigration reform in 2024. Nearly 83% of respondents said no. Just over 8% said yes, with the remaining economists, or just over 8%, unsure about the outcome in 2024.

Of the overwhelming number of economists who said they don’t think Congress will move on immigration reform in 2024, the reasons included:

Election year in 2024 will stall potential legislation, although it might be a focus during campaigns.
Political gridlock and competing priorities make a bipartisan solution unlikely, especially with a sensitive issue like immigration reform.

The biggest hurdle, according to respondents, is the fact it’s an election year, as well as how controversial the issue is. One economist even called it “politically unpopular.”

“Congress has a vested interest in keeping this issue unresolved in the current partisan environment,” responded an economist in the latest survey.

Another economist said, “Getting anything started and passed in an election year will be tough, let alone something as confrontational as immigration.”

A different economist in the October survey said immigration reform won’t happen because, “Too many other issues to happen first. Congress and the administration are too far apart to find an acceptable resolution. Legislators don’t have the fortitude to address it.”

However, one economist who thinks Congress may address immigration reform in 2024 said their response is due to the fact that “Right to Shelter will be rescinded in certain major cities that have reached the breaking point.”

It’s evident immigration reform is a major issue for agriculture. One economist said, “Immigration reform is a huge issue for the U.S. economy and MUST be addressed. However, it is so politically sensitive that very few Senators or Congressmen are willing to push the issue.”

Ag Labor Void

The survey also asked economists if they thought U.S. agriculture will be able to utilize the influx of immigrants at the southern border to fill the void in ag labor. While the feedback was mixed, most were not confident due to mismatched skills and what they called ‘noise’ in the system. Other economists indicated that some of that labor could possibly be used, particularly for specialty crops like fruits and vegetables.

“The ‘immigration problem’ at the Mexican border is a humanitarian problem, as well as an immigration issue,” said one economist. “Many of the new immigrants entering at the Mexican border are being moved to the East or West Coast. It will be hard for ag to access this potential workforce.”

What Will It Take for Congress to Take Action on Immigration Reform?

As the issue continues to draw criticism and debate, economists were asked: what’s the one thing that would need to happen in order for Congress to take action on immigration reform in the next couple of years? While sentiments were largely pessimistic on any action, some economists think increased pressure from labor markets could prompt Congress to take action.

One economist said “cooler minds” is what it would take for Congress to find compromise.

“A perceived crisis where both parties can agree on a solution. In other words, a very unlikely situation,” said another economist.

Another economist said, “Elect smart people.” While one economist in the anonymous survey said, “One part would need to gain total control.”

Another economist thinks the only way to find a solution is to, “Separate ag labor from broader immigration discussion.”

A Bipartisan Issue?

According to Farm Journal Washington correspondent Jim Wiesemeyer, Republicans are currently pushing for changes in immigration policies aimed at deterring illegal border crossings. He says they want to address border security issues and make it more difficult for migrants to enter the U.S. without proper documentation.

At the same time, Wiesemeyer reports Democrats, including President Joe Biden, emphasize the need to allocate $13.6 billion to manage the increasing number of migrant arrivals. They argue that this funding is essential to address the current challenges at the border.

“The debate over immigration is causing tensions in Congress, particularly as it relates to funding for Ukraine and other foreign aid initiatives. There is a risk that disagreements over immigration policies could lead to delays or the derailment of government spending and aid packages,” reports Wiesemeyer.

He also points out that Democrats are facing pressure to compromise on immigration, with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) pledging to link a substantial border package to aid for Ukraine. He says Senate Republicans are also seeking to incorporate policy changes in an emergency funding discussion with some Republicans advocating for bipartisan efforts to address border security.

“They are proposing changes to asylum policies, including raising the bar for ‘credible fear’ claims and reinstating the ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy for asylum-seekers,” says Wiesemeyer.

He also reports key Democrats are opposed to Republican demands on immigration policy changes, as they doubt the possibility of reaching a workable middle ground during time-sensitive funding negotiations. But some Democratic lawmakers, such as Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), express a willingness to address border security issues but reject “draconian” policy ideas that could harm migrants. They seek more humane solutions.

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Gary Peters (D-Mich.) urged colleagues to focus on measures that already have bipartisan support, such as increasing the number of border patrol agents and Customs and Border Protection officers, which align with President Biden’s request. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) indicated a willingness to consider any bipartisan border proposal put forward by the Senate.

The Ag Economy Is Healthy, And That's One Reason Economists Think It Could Be 2025 Before We See A New Farm Bill

Mon, 30 Oct 2023 13:39:52 GMT

Political dysfunction, a healthy ag economy, lack of urgency and the start of a presidential election year. These are all reasons leading agricultural economists to cast doubts on Congress’ ability to pass a new Farm Bill this year, as well as anticipate a strong possibility the legislation will face gridlock throughout all of 2024.

The Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor is a survey of more than 60 ag economists across the country, conducted by the University of Missouri and Farm Journal. In the October survey, economists were a touch more optimistic about the ag economy picture for next year, while their thoughts around current economic conditions compared to last month remained unchanged.

“I’m not terribly surprised to see very much change in sort of the expectations on prices and incomes for the year,” says Jackson Takach, chief economist with Farmer Mac and one of the economists surveyed each month. “We have a lot of really new information coming out in the July, August, even September timeframe. But when you get to October, I think a lot of those expectations are starting to settle down. We’re starting to really dial into what 23 looks like, and even starting to get a good picture of what 24 is going to start to look like.”

(Farm Journal)

Looking into this month’s results, Tackach says economists expect 2023 net farm income to top $140 billion, while forecasting 2024’s net farm income to reach just over $130 billion. That’s down from the record $183 billion USDA estimates for 2022. It’s not a disaster and more in line with what agriculture saw in 2021.

“It’s almost impossible to repeat the level of farm income that we had ’22,” Tackach says. “So of course, you’re going to see some compression there. What I’m looking for is the revenue side. The input costs went up in 2022, parts of 2023. We’ve seen some relief in some of those input costs. So, now it’s really about the revenue and what happens to commodity prices in 2024. Then, we’re looking at the supply side. What kind of crop do we get out of Brazil? What kind of crop and yield do we get out of the U.S. next year? And I think that’s going to be the deciding factor into how farm incomes go in 2024.”

2025 Farm Bill

With farm income still relatively healthy, and the current state of politics in Washington, the October Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows there’s simply no urgency to get a Farm Bill written and passed, especially with 2024 being a political year.

The October survey asked economists what they thought the biggest hurdles are for getting a new farm bill written and passed. They said:

Election year in 2024.
Overall legislative dysfunction and turmoil, including leadership difficulties.
Funding issues, including those at the overall government level.
Competing issues and priorities, paired with limited time on the legislative calendar and no urgency around agriculture.

(Farm Journal)

Of those surveyed, 50% think it will be 2025 before Congress passes a new farm bill. 20% think it could happen within the first half of 2024.

“Historically, when you get the alignment of a farm bill with that presidential election cycle, you tend to see people want to wait until after that cycle to see what changes - either colors over the White House or within the house of Congress itself,” Tackach says. “So, I think that’s what the economists are reacting to. This is a presidential election year next year and we’ve got some things we need to address in terms of budgets and funding of the government just in general coming up in November.”

He says economists are taking note of the political realities of what happens in an election year, but also the ag economic picture.

“The ag economy is generally healthy. So, a lot of these changes that you might typically see in a farm bill year, maybe some of them can wait with an extension of the existing provisions and budget allocations,” he says.

Economists even disagree on timing of a farm bill extension. Of those surveyed, the majority think Congress will pass an extension, while two think it will fail to do so. Of those who think Congress will move on an extension, the majority think it’ll happen before the end of this year.

Top Two Factors That Could Shape Agriculture Over the Next 12 Months

If Congress is unable to pass a new farm bill before 2025, economists worry farmers could face crop prices below break-even. When asked what they think are the two most important factors that could shape agriculture over the next 12 months, rising costs and declining crop prices were some of the top concerns.

“Crop margins are considerably tighter than they were last year. In addition to relatively high breakeven prices, crop prices are much lower this fall,” responded one economist.
“Today: weaker commodity prices for crops, high interest rates; 12 month: I expect lower input costs,” said another economist.
“Today- commodity prices and working capital; 12 Months- interest rates and production,” an economist said in the October survey.
“Impact from escalating interest rates. Disappointing export sales,” was another response.
“The outlook for commodity prices and for input costs. In 2023, commodity prices have declined, while input costs remain high. In 2024, both may be lower than in 2023,” responded one economist.

Takach points out balance sheets are healthy today, but there are rising concerns about the cost side of them.

“Balance sheets are incredibly strong. We got a couple of years of really strong incomes and farmers and ranchers socked away a lot of that cash. I’ve rebuilt our working capital after several years of maybe tighter margins in 2018/2019. So, replenishment of that working capital was a welcome sign for ag lenders. But of course, for those farm families in ‘23, you do see those higher costs: higher cost of land, higher cost of interest, higher costs of labor. All those sorts of things start to eat into the cost of production,” he says.

Looking Ahead to the Next 6 Months

Economists were also asked what factors will impact crop and livestock prices over the next 6 months.

For crops, they said:

South American production and weather favorability.
Export competition from Russia and Brazil.
Global factors including economic health, geopolitical risks, dollar strength and demand impacts on export volumes.
Domestic demand and final size of the 2023 crop.

For livestock, they said:

Tight cattle/beef supplies, sow herd liquidation.
Cost of production, including feed costs and interest rates.
Confidence in domestic consumer demand, export opportunities.

Ag Economists Monthly Monitor

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

Poll Results: More Than Half of Farmers Say They Don’t Support Trump’s Use of Tariffs

92% of Ag Economists Say the U.S. is Already in the Middle of Another Trade War

Will Border Security Issues Force Congress To Take Action On Immigration Reform? Ag Economists Say It's Unlikely

Ag Labor Void

What Will It Take for Congress to Take Action on Immigration Reform?

The Ag Economy Is Healthy, And That's One Reason Economists Think It Could Be 2025 Before We See A New Farm Bill

2025 Farm Bill

Top Two Factors That Could Shape Agriculture Over the Next 12 Months

Looking Ahead to the Next 6 Months

Related News: