More misleading reports of "smaller farms"

Here we go again.

Last time it was the New York Times. (See this old post.  And this one and this one.)

Now Emmeline Zhao at the Wall Street Journal:
FARMS GET SMALLER, LESS GOVERNMENT SUPPORT 
More — but smaller — farms across the country generated greater national net income in times of drastically less government support. National net farm income in 2008 was $87.3 billion, up from $50.7 billion in 2000, the Census Bureau said last week. Net income was greatest in California, Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois.
The latest agriculture census data also reveals a greater number of farms in the U.S. — just over 2.2 million in 2007, up from more than 2.1 million in 2002 — and about a 52% increase in overall property value, but the average size of farms has fallen to 418 acres from 441 acres over the same period....
This is a mirage.  And average farm size is a utterly meaningless statistic. This goes back to an utterly ridiculous definition of a farm that is intended to maximize farm counts and keep counts increasing over time.  But it's the definition that's changing, not the actual management of farms or land.

Here's a great USDA-ERS report that spells out these issues carefully.  Here's a brief report  about how this matters for tracking changes in farm size.

At least the article explains that less government support is coming mainly from the fact that commodity prices are higher today than they were in 2005 and earlier.  What the article shamefully does not mention is the implicit support coming from ethanol subsidies.  These get passed to farmers in the form of higher commodity prices, not checks from the government.  Instead those checks get passed to ethanol producers who then buy the grain from farmers.

Is it too much to ask the Wall Street Journal to inform rather than misinform readers?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to U.S. Crop Yields Under Climate Change

Image
It's been a long haul, but my coauthor Wolfram Schlenker and I have finally published our article with the title of this blog post in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . We've been told that it would show up on the early-edition website this week. It hasn't shown up there yet so I guess it will come out tomorrow [Friday 8/28], probably late afternoon EST. UPDATE: You can find the article here . We set out to develop a better statistical model linking weather and U.S. crop yields for corn, soybeans and cotton, the largest three crops in the U.S. in production value. Our major new finding is that (by far) the best predictor of yield is a measure of extreme heat: how much temperatures exceed about 29C (84F) during the growing season. The threshold varies somewhat by crop--29C is the threshold for corn. Below this threshold, warmer temperatures are more beneficial for yields, but the damaging effects of temperatures much above 29C are staggeringly large. A
Read more

Renewable energy not as costly as some think

Image
The other day Marshall and Sol took on Bjorn Lomborg for ignoring the benefits of curbing greenhouse gas emissions.  Indeed.  But Bjorn, among others, is also notorious for exaggerating costs.  That fact is that most serious estimates of reducing emissions are fairly low, and there is good reason to believe cost estimates are too high for the simple fact that analysts cannot measure or imagine all ways we might curb emissions.  Anything analysts cannot model translates into cost exaggeration. Hawai`i is a good case in point.  Since moving to Hawai`i I've started digging into energy, in large part because the situation in Hawai`i is so interesting.  Here we make electricity mainly from oil, which is super expensive.  We are also rich in sun and wind.  Add these facts to Federal and state subsidies and it spells a remarkable energy revolution.  Actually, renewables are now cost effective even without subsidies. In the video below Matthias Fripp, who I'm lucky to be working w
Read more