Image

Thumb

Avatar

0 repins 0 comments

The World Development Report 2016

Thumb

Avatar

0 repins 0 comments

Image

Thumb

Avatar

0 repins 0 comments

© Dasan Bobo/World Bank

Thumb

Avatar

0 repins 0 comments

Image

Thumb

Avatar

0 repins 0 comments

Glyphosate cancer claims a wake-up call for farmers - Agriculture - Cropping - General News - Farm Weekly

Thumb

Avatar

0 repins 0 comments

China resumes importing US beef Premium Australian beef being sold online in China.

Thumb

Avatar

0 repins 0 comments

Sclero infections to expand Rohan Brill, NSW DPI, says grading canola seed can help improve germination rates, with larger seed achieving better results.

Thumb

Avatar

0 repins 0 comments

Local wool market enjoys solid recovery - Agriculture - Sheep - Wool - Farm Weekly

Thumb

Avatar

0 repins 0 comments

hạt cỏ giống tại vật tư chăn nuôi với nhiều chọn lựa cho người dùng. http://vattuchannuoi.com/hat-co-giong

Thumb

Avatar

0 repins 0 comments

Average farm debt-to-asset ratio declining While total debt held by farms increased from 1992 to 2011, average farm debt-to-asset ratios declined during that time according to a report on debt use by farms conducted by USDA’s Economic Research Service. Farm Debt use decisions by farms not only affect the economic stability of the individual farm but also the larger rural community, which is why USDA ERS says policymakers, agricultural lenders and bank regulators, and other farm-industry stakeholders closely monitor farm debt trends. This study compared debt use in various categories of farms, including farm size, specialization, operator age, region and other farm characteristics. It identified two major types of farms – family farms (including small, midsize and large-scale farms) and non-family farms. From 1992 to 2011, total farm debt increased 39 percent (adjusted for inflation). However, the debt-to-asset ratio declined from 0.13 in 1992 to 0.09 in 2011. Further, the share of highly-leveraged farms, those with a debt-to-asset ratio of greater than 0.4, has declined during the two decades the study covered. With regard to farm size, the share of farm debt held by large-scale farms (those with a gross cash farm income, or GCFI, of $1 million or more) increased from 16 percent in 1992 to 35 percent in 2011. Additionally, during that time, the average debt held by large-scale farms increased from $684,400 to $1,165,500 (in constant 2011 dollars using the chain-type deflator). The share of debt held by small family farms (those with a GCFI of less than $350,000) decreased from 46 percent to 27 percent, and the average debt held by small family farms decreased by 9 percent from 1992 to 2011. According to the report, the value of farm production during the 20 years studied shifted similarly between small and large farms. The report also looked at different types of specialized farms and found that dairy and poultry farms tend to be more leveraged than farms specializing in field crop, beef and hog production. According to the report, dairy and poultry farms generally face higher capital costs in order to operate or expand and thus have a higher debt use than other types of farms. According to USDA ERS, the share of highly leveraged farms has decreased since 1993. According to the report, the share of farms with debt-to-asset ratios exceeding 0.4 was halved between 1993 and 2011. Among livestock operations, more than 8 percent had a debt-to-asset ratio between 0.41 and 0.7 in 1993 and 2 percent had a debt-to-asset ratio of greater than 0.7. In 2011, those figures dropped to less than 4 percent and 1 percent, respectively. The agency says that more research is needed to predict how current debt use would be affected by changes in financial conditions, including a rise in interest rates, decline in farmland values, changes in farm and energy policy, and changes in international trade. The full report is available on the USDA ERS website.

Thumb

Avatar

0 repins 0 comments

<span style="font-weight: bold;">Fears of blind eye on toxic farming chemicals </span><span style="font-weight: normal;">The Abbott government is planning to axe a scheme designed to eliminate dangerous chemicals from food and other agriculture production, outraging consumer and environmental groups. Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce wants to allow farmers to continue using certain chemicals that are banned in the United States, the European Union and Canada and have never been tested to see if they meet current Australian safety standards. National Toxics Network co-ordinator Jo Immig said the Coalition was choosing corporate and farming interests over the health of Australians. "The chemical industry has spooked the farmers, and the farmers are opposing the scheme, and the government is planning to abandon it,'' she said. ''I believe public health is at risk. "Over the years, as scientific standards have improved, older chemicals haven't undergone rigorous assessments. The US, EU and Canada have implemented re-registration schemes to make sure every chemical on the market is meeting today's scientific standard". She said the farmers' claims about the financial burden imposed by the scheme had been exaggerated. Advocacy group Choice says chemicals such as the insecticide trichlorfon and the miticide dicofol continue to be used on food crops despite them being banned by the EU because of ''environmental, human health and residues concerns''. A scheme designed under the former Labor government to re-approve and re-register agricultural chemicals on the market was to begin in July. But Mr Joyce has signalled he would scotch it, introducing legislative amendments last month that will rid "duplicative and unnecessary red tape" burdening chemical users, especially farmers. "As a result of these reforms farmers will have surety that access to chemicals with a history of safe and effective use will not be compromised by an unnecessary bureaucratic process," he said. In a submission to the government, NSW Farmers welcomed the repeal, saying there would have been high compliance costs. Choice said the current regulatory system was "ad hoc", and pointed to a government committee report issued last year that said "some chemicals used in Australia have never been assessed against modern standards and may have been in use for over 40 years". Choice campaigner Angela Cartwright said the purpose of the scheme was not to stop the use of pesticides, but to ensure chemicals being used were safe for humans. "We think it's critical that these products are properly tested to ensure they don't pose risks to consumers, farmers or the environment," she said. World Wildlife Fund spokesman Nick Heath said the laws were there to protect Australians and all MPs should ensure they remained. ''Over 30 countries have a re-registration system [for old chemicals],'' he said. ''Australia should not slip back in its vigilance."</span>

Thumb

Avatar

0 repins 0 comments