|
 |
|
|
|||
|
 |
|
May 27, 2025 Op-ed by J.C. Carroll who owns Agriliance Insurance Group, which serves farmers across the Southeast as it ran in Agri-Pulse.
But this interpretation misses a critical point: the USDA's definition of a "farm" is outdated and overly broad - so broad, in fact, that it includes hundreds of thousands of entities that are not commercially viable and may not grow any crops at all. According to USDA's Economic Research Service, a farm is defined as "any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the year." This definition hasn't changed at all since the 1970s to account for radical changes in agriculture, technology, or even inflation. And it's not much different than the $500 sales threshold used by the USDA in 1870. In fact, USDA's current definition includes properties with no actual production - such as hobby farms, gardens, timber lots, and even old farms converted into rural residences. USDA itself acknowledges that "more than 25% of farms have no sales in a typical year, and at least another 30% have positive sales of less than $10,000." This means more than half of the operations categorized as "farms" under this definition have minimal or no market activity and may not grow crops at all - making it misleading to include these entities when evaluating crop insurance participation. The more accurate measure comes from actual farmers. A recent survey conducted by Anthro Insights found that 91% of U.S. crop producers purchased crop insurance in 2024, and 90% have done so consistently over the past five years. These farmers grow everything from row crops to fruits, vegetables, and forage. The survey included 401 responses from operations representing nearly 750,000 acres and over 3 million head of livestock across the country. The same survey found high satisfaction with the crop insurance program: 83% of farmers report a positive experience, and 85% are satisfied with the claims process. Notably, 87% say the program does not hinder their conservation practices - contradicting another common criticism. To read the entire Op-ed click here. Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
