Duration: 10/01/2024 to 09/30/2029

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

The issue of focus for this multi-state research project is the functioning and performance of agricultural and rural financial markets. The proper functioning of these markets and related financial institutions is of first-order importance for ensuring the stability and continued productive capacity of the agricultural sector in the United States. Demonstrating how operations in this sector rely on accessible financing in order to ensure productive capacity is maintained or improved over time is one of this project’s primary goals. This has become especially important in recent years, when global commodity and credit markets have experienced profound and unprecedented volatility from biological, geopolitical, and social disruptions. The target audience of this multi-state project are agricultural economists in both academic and government institutions, along with agricultural and financial policymakers. Another relevant group of stakeholders are the directors and managers of agricultural or rural financial institutions at all levels, from the Federal Reserve system through local banks. By conducting research projects that examine all angles of the agricultural and rural financial system and disseminating that research through academic papers, extension-style outputs or publications, and various presentations, the participants in this multi-state project achieve our stated outcomes. In particular, these outputs are able to provide quantitative evidence about the importance of rural and agricultural finance, evaluate changes to the structure or functioning of these institutions, and estimate the impacts of policy changes that relate to the accessibility and functionality of agricultural and rural financial markets.

Statement of Issues and Justification

The U.S. farm economy and credit landscape have seen substantial disruptions over the last five years. These disruptions are diverse: arising in trade markets, political instability, and market upheavals due to COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic in particular highlighted the potential fragility of the food and agricultural supply chain. Current and ongoing violence in productive agricultural regions have highlighted the degree to which agricultural markets are interconnected and demonstrate the compounding volatility in market movements. Global trade has also been uncertain, with the US facing major disputes over agricultural commodities with important trading partners, like China, who instituted retaliatory tariffs on US soybeans in 2018, and Mexico, which as of 2023 is considering an import ban on GMO corn. These disputes, particularly those with key allies, drives uncertainty that could shock farm income and in turn harm agricultural credit conditions.

 

In addition, the structure of agricultural lending continues to evolve. Of particular note are the increasing presence of “non-traditional” actors on both the credit demand and credit supply side of these markets. On the credit supply side, the set of lenders supplying credit to agricultural operations is growing increasingly diverse. There is a growing group of non-traditional lenders, defined broadly as institutions without a strong connection to the agricultural market; this group continues to gain ground in terms of lending volume. The role of “start-up” style funding mechanisms, typified by venture capital funded arrangements, is also receiving additional attention from stakeholders in this space, as is the increasing presence of funding from agricultural institutions, like implement dealers, that may not have been considered a viable or attractive lender in the past. Underlying many of these trends is a noticeable pattern of bank consolidation, particularly in rural spaces and among agricultural-focused banks.

Evolutions in banking regulations have likely contributed to this increased trend in banking consolidation, as many financial institutions now face more scrutiny and regulation. The increased regulatory environment is continuing to reshape rural financial markets since these financial regulations were passed by the US Congress in 2008 to address the disruptions associated with the global financial crisis. For rural credit institutions, oversight and bank lending practices in particular have been directly impacted by these financial regulations. Since these regulations were enacted, mergers and acquisitions within the rural credit markets have increased. Consolidation in the lender space means that the choice set for farmers is reduced, as is competition in the credit and lending sector. Reduced competition further rives changes in long-term credit availability and the structure of rural financial markets. Altogether, these trends have important implications for the accessibility and affordability of credit for agricultural operations. This is especially true given compositional differences in the types of operations that access credit via one type of lender or another continues to be a concern.

Credit access has long been identified as a factor that determines the success of an agricultural operation. In the last five years, increasing attention has been given to the difficulties many producers face in accessing credit. To some extent, this widespread difficulty has driven some of the changing patterns in terms of lender type that are described above. However, the sector has recognized that the difficulties in terms of credit access are not evenly distributed across all producers. Instead, difficulties in credit access have been concentrated among producers who have traditionally been under-served and/or socially disadvantaged. Thus, efforts are underway to expand the farm safety net to meet the needs of these underserved and socially disadvantaged producers. This increased recognition underscores a changed context in the agricultural and rural financial markets, which are responding to increased recognition by policymakers of the difficulties these producers face.

 

Together, these disruptions and the changing landscape of agricultural finance markets point to the need for new research in the field of agricultural and rural finance. How agricultural operations will respond to the challenges and opportunities these disruptions pose is one primary area where new research is especially important. Such research would inform current policymakers about the most effective means of supporting these farm operations, but may also be instructive for understanding how the country’s agricultural supply chain will respond to future large-scale shocks. Another important area of new research that this multi-state will be well-positioned to address are the differences between producers who are seeking credit or capital from non-traditional lenders, who are, as described above, increasingly present in agricultural financial markets. In response to many of these disruptions, many developed agricultural economies, including the United States, distributed substantial ad hoc payments to operators of businesses along the food and agricultural supply chain. This disbursement represents a significant enhancement of the traditional agricultural safety, which had been diversifying away from direct or counter-cyclical type payments. These payments, along with stable or even increasing commodity prices, gave some of these years record levels of farm income in some states.

 

However, other trends have worked to destabilize farm financing and erode farm incomes. Most notably are the headwinds brought about by inflation and generalized price increases that have marked the years following the COVID-19 pandemic. For an agricultural producer, this is felt most keenly in the increasing cost of inputs: for example, fertilizer experienced unprecedented price spikes in 2022 and the early part of 2023. Wages have also been increasing at a rate higher than their pre-COVID rate of increase, as another example. Perhaps most salient for the discussion of agricultural finance is the fiscal policy response to this inflation undertaken by the Federal Reserve. Interest rates were remarkably low during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic; they have since increased markedly, and, although they are well below the historic highs seen in the 1980s, the current rates represent a significant increase in the cost of credit. This increase is likely to have uneven effects across the farm income distribution, with operators of smaller operations particularly struggling to fund expansion. High interest rates also dampen demand for agricultural assets, like farmland and may increase operators’ vulnerability to financial shocks.

US agricultural production, like production in many parts of the developed world, faces the ever-increasing challenge of meeting demand for food and fibers. Competing land uses to use agriculture to produce bioenergy add to the difficulty, as does growing urbanization pressure competing for farmland. This production system depends on capital markets that are accessible, prudently regulated, and affordable.  A key determinant of how competitive US agriculture is on a global market is the ease and availability of credit. Without access to credit, operations are unlikely to be sustainable in the long term.

The members of NC-1177 are extremely well-positioned to produce research highlighting the importance of credit access, determining differences in credit access and subsequent outcomes across different groups of producers, and in evaluating policies that change the nature of lending in rural or agricultural spaces. In addition, through teaching in the classroom and as part of their roles with university extension, members of this multi-state project have direct access to both future and current agricultural lenders, financial managers, and farm operators. Thus, members have a crucial job in educating these participants in the agricultural and rural financial space. Through this work, industry participants are exposed to both the fundamental theories as well as the forefront of research on agricultural finance, endowing them with the necessary information to think critically about the best ways to management the finances of their operations and agribusinesses. the industry with the knowledge necessary to manage financial aspects of farms and agribusinesses. By engaging with the training of students, extension educators, and producers directly, the project will improve members of the food systems’ ability to do financial management. This will, in turn, increase the long-term sustainability of businesses operating in the food, fiber, and bioenergy system.

The members of the NC-1177 project have continued their excellent track record in terms of the number of collaborations and outcomes that depended upon the multistate project’s efforts. This current proposed project will continue to leverage the existing relationships while diligently working to incorporate new members into the research networks of the group. Below, you will find that each objective of the new project describes the actions members will take to achieve that objective and how outputs will be measured. A key function of this multi-state group is in this research network: given the relatively small number of researchers in this area at any one institution, it is unlikely that within-institution networks can form and work productively in this area. However, the connections provided for by the multi-state overcome these concerns. The involvement of a diverse group of researchers from a variety of institutions in turn improves legitimacy and allows for better marketing of the group’s outcomes.  The multi-state structure allows for the development of a critical mass, which is necessary to attract stakeholder interest; more efficiently collect and share data; enhance peer review of each work produced; and collaborate on issues that cross-cut geographic boundaries. Members also benefit from the participation of industry, public agency, and non-profit members.

This group has a strong history of leveraging the multistate funds to acquire numerous nationally competitive and state-level grants and other sources of funding. For example, in 2021, members of NC-1177 from Kansas State University, Cornell University, and a non-member from the University of Minnesota received a national AFRI grant in order to examine the impact of a changing farm credit climate on different measures of resilience among agricultural producers. These researchers received just under half a million in funds. NC-1177 members have also increased the impact of multistate funds by working with industry, including various state- and national-level commodity groups and other farm advocacy groups. Members will continue to collaborate and pursue grant opportunities from USDA, state agencies, and private industry to maximize the benefits of multistate funds.

The primary activity of this regional research group is the annual meeting, which is held each year in conjunction with the National Agricultural Credit Committee meeting. Researchers and staff Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City serve as the hosts for this annual meeting, regardless of the geographic location where the meeting is held. The meeting gathers representatives from academia, industry, and government to present research findings, engage in discussion about the implications of those research findings, and hear from industry or policy leaders about developments or concerns that are grabbing their attention. This allows for the ground-truthing of research with a “real world” perspective. The research is presentations are solicited via an academic call for papers, in which participants are explicitly asked to address the objectives of this multi-state in the work they apply to present. Whether or not these objectives are being addressed will be based on the relevance and quality of the research projects and the discussion among academic and industry participants. In addition, most of the research projects presented at the annual meeting will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals. The number of such publications, and the times they have been cited, can be used as a quantitative measure of the impact of the research generated. Other work will result in extension publications and outputs, which are targeted at a non-academic audience; nonetheless, we can use the number and geographic reach of these outputs as another measure the project’s impact. 

In addition to the fall Annual Meeting, many of members of this multi-state research group are also members of the Agricultural Finance and Management (AFM) section of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA). This section hosts a business meeting each year at the annual summer AAEA meetings; in addition, it sponsors or co-sponsors up to four track sessions at those meetings in the general area of agricultural finance. For organizational simplicity and operational ease, the leadership of the two groups (the AFM section and the NC-1177 multi-state research group) are the same. Activities sponsored by the AFM section, much like activities sponsored by the multi-state, foster collaboration among researchers in agricultural finance domestically and internationally. These activities generate additional research presentations and publications directly related to the objectives of this project.

Upon completion of the project, we will have a better understanding about frictions and pressure points in the agricultural and rural financing system. The improved functioning of those markets, as a means to better serve the diverse array of agricultural producers that rely on them, is one of, if not the, primary goal of our research project. Benefits accrue not just to producers who see reductions in their business risk but also for rural residents and operators of non-agricultural businesses, who see greater local stability and increased long-term sustainability for their communities and their financial institutions. insights will be gained to ultimately improve the functioning of agricultural and rural financial markets. The value of this work to stakeholders is ultimately evident in the large number of non-station members who actively participate in the annual meeting and engage with the group’s research and extension output digitally. There are no apparent barriers hindering the technical feasibility of the proposed research project.

Related, Current and Previous Work

The project is a renewal of NC-1177 ending in 2024, which had originally begun under that title in 2014 and ending in 2019. That project in turn was a replacement for NC-1014, NC-221, and NCT-194. The proposed membership of this new iteration of the NC-1177 multi-state research group is composed mostly of continuing members of the current iteration, along with members of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA)’s section on Agricultural Finance and Management (AFM). Our regional project is unique in that there are currently no other active multi-state regional projects that address the financial standing, decisions, and institutions of agriculture and/or the rural United States.

The AFM section of the AAEA, with its membership largely congruous to this multi-state research group, provides administrative support and an extremely close topical research fit to the NC-1177 multi-state research group. One of the primary services that AFM provides is support for a journal dedicated to the research topics central to this AAEA section and this multi-state group: the Agricultural Finance Review. This journal is externally managed and peer reviewed; it makes AFM unique among AAEA sections for having its own associated journal. From 2019 to date, there have been over 111,000 article downloads: a 50% increase from a similar period between 2014 to 2019 (78,500). The journal has been particularly successful in producing high-quality special issues in the area of agricultural finance, including one titled “Nontraditional Credit in the U.S. Farm Economy” that deals with issues of non-traditional finance published in 2022 with more than 2,000 downloads to date and one currently in the midst of the review process that is dedicated to issues of agricultural credit that are policy relevant. The ultimate goal of this latter special issue is to address the current agricultural credit climate ahead of the 2023 Farm Bill cycle. In addition to having AFR as a dedicated outlet for the work of our research group, our participants continue to produce high quality work that is published in the field’s top journals, including the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, China Agricultural Economic Review, Agricultural Economics, and Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.

In addition to producing academic publications in these and other journals, many members of this research project produce materials for the general public. For some members, this is part of university extension programming. These extension-style outputs provide additional value through their relative ease in attracting media and policymaker attention. Several members or groups of members at the same universities manage or contribute to websites that publish and advertise these outputs. These include Kansas State University's agmanager.info, University of Illinois farmdoc daily, Purdue University's Center for Commercial Agriculture and Center for Food and Agribusiness, Iowa State University's Ag Decision Maker, and The Ohio State University's Farm Income Enhancement Program. 

As our projects objectives deal directly or indirectly with evaluating and understanding government agricultural and financial policy, many of our participants work for government agencies, in particular the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as well as the Federal Reserve system. Participants from the Federal Reserve system also work to coordinate the hosting of our multi-state’s annual meeting in conjunction with the National Agricultural Credit Committee. This joint event brings together participants from academia, industry, and government for a mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge, research ideas and findings, and current issues. Incorporating the concerns and trends most affecting institutions in the industry into our research improves the relevance and impact of our work. In turn, sharing our findings can improve industry performance through the identification of frictions, bottlenecks, and other barriers to well-functioning credit institutions.

NC-1177 had four objectives for the last five years:

1. Examine the impact of relationships between recent fluctuations in capital and commodity markets and the performance, management, and regulation of agricultural financial institutions.
2. Evaluate the management strategies, capital needs, and policies impacting the financial performance and long-term sustainability of firms in the food and agribusiness sector.
3. Identify and analyze financial institutions and services that benefit agricultural producers and rural communities and expand agricultural markets, especially those producers that are beginning, young, and from socially disadvantaged groups.
4. Evaluate farmland and commodity markets and government policies that affect producers and the risk management and financial strategies producers use to mitigate risks and enhance profitability and sustainability of the agricultural sector.

The previous iteration of this project was quite productive in terms of research outputs focused on these stated objectives, which all broadly deal with the financial status of US agricultural and rural institutions. Importantly, the majority of work members have done in this area over the last lifecycle of the project has been in collaboration with another member, addressing one or more of the objectives described above. At the end of this proposal in the Literature Review section, we have provided a list that demonstrates the depth and breadth of members’ work in this area during its lifetime. This list only reflects published academic papers, and thus does not capture the extension-style outputs or additional funding members have secured to do research on topics related to project outcomes that were described above. 

The body of work from the previous iteration of this multi-state project has made particularly strong strides in analyzing objective 3, particularly the aspect of that objective that addresses the conditions of under-served producers. Researchers in our group have analyzed these producers’ interactions with the market from both the supply side and the demand side, exploring whether their lower access to credit is driven by their characteristics or lenders’. Other work has looked at how credit access and affordability differs by the characteristics of the underserved producers in question, which important findings in terms of the intersectionality of different characteristics in terms of influencing access to credit. In other papers, researchers have looked at the performance of government programs and how they have served different kinds of producers differently over time; the programs analyzed included the more traditional lending programs, such as those administered by the FSA or the FCS but also looked at differential levels of access to ad-hoc or non-standard government payments, such as those that were designed to ameliorate the effects of the US-China trade dispute or the COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin, the USDA ERS, Mississippi State University, and West Virginia University, among many others, have all explored these topics.

A great strength of this group’s work over the last four years has been in examining the functioning of agricultural lenders, both individually and in aggregate, during the numerous disruptions that characterized that time period. The ability of all institutions that provide credit to agricultural producers to perform efficiently during times of upheaval was of great interest to members. Of particular interest, given the volatility observed in the market during this time, is the interplay between behavior related to credit access and various risk management strategies adopted by producers. One of the most prominent strategies is, of course, participation in the federal crop insurance program. Interactions between decisions around crop insurance and credit access are extremely interesting to researchers in our group, as it deals with a fundamental question of how agricultural operators tolerate and balance different kinds of risk. Researchers at The Ohio State University, Kansas State University, Purdue University, and others have looked at different aspects of this broad question over the past four years.

Land values and the performance of commodity markets continue to be an important topic, given their central role in determining operations’ asset values and annual incomes.  NC-1177 participants and researchers from USDA-ERS, the Federal Reserve, Kansas State University, Cornell University, Iowa State University, University of Illinois and Purdue University have advanced understanding of how land values respond to and influence the financial situation in the rural places in which farmland tends to be located. This work has become particularly meaningful as land values continue to appreciate rapidly, driven in part by increased development pressure due to housing search behavior changes during the COVID-19 pandemic and the years immediately following it. Increasing land values also have important implications for the functioning of rural lending institutions. The pandemic, along with prior and subsequent geopolitical disruptions, led to volatility in commodity markets. An important area that has been given increased attention by NC-1177 members is in the evaluation of commodity price or farm income forecasts. Many papers have examined the quality of these forecasts and described the implications of having, or not having, accurate forecasts for farm lending. Lenders and other financial institutions often make long-term policy decisions based on these forecasts, and so it is crucial to have a strong understanding of their strengths and weaknesses.

The financial behavior and attitudes of agricultural operators and managers of agribusinesses, particularly in terms of borrowing, is a long-standing area of interest and continued research for members of NC-1177. This has continued to be of importance, particularly in recent years as the cost of credit has experienced rapid fluctuations: from the low interest rates that characterized the pandemic to the more recent counter-inflationary interest rate hikes. These fluctuations provide an important context in which to examine how producers use credit during periods of increased risk. The importance of producer-level behavior for the health of the local rural financial market belies the need to acquire and analyze producer-level data. To that end, many universities have continued to invest in their farm-level data sources. Such data sets exist at many institutions, including Kansas State University, University of Kentucky, University of Illinois, University of Minnesota, and North Dakota State University. These data provide researchers with an important source of information to perform locally relevant and timely analysis. Such work complements the national or regional-scale analyses also being performed by all research group participants.

Objectives

1. 1. Examine the impact of recent inflation and continued volatility in capital and commodity markets on the relationships between the performance, management, and regulation of agricultural financial institutions.
   
2. 2. Evaluate the relationship between firm-level decisions, such as management strategies; government programs or policies; and the capital needs, financial performance, and long-term sustainability of firms in the food and agribusiness sector.
   
3. 3. Identify and analyze the functioning of financial institutions that service agricultural producers and rural communities, including an evaluation of the capacity of agricultural markets to serve producers and managers of agribusinesses that are historically underserved or socially disadvantaged.
   
4. 4. Evaluate fluctuations in farmland and commodity markets, including those caused by weather volatility, trade limitations, macroeconomic conditions, and geopolitical disruptions, and estimate their impact on the risk management and financial strategies producers use to mitigate risks and enhance the profitability and sustainability of their operations and the agricultural sector overall.
   

Methods

During the last proposal, the primary concern was what was then a recent downturn in commodity prices, with the possibility that this would lead to a long term erosion of farm income. Also driving this concern was the leveling off or, in some cases, decline in farmland values. Needless to say, the years that the previous iteration of this research group was active (2019-2024) were among the most volatile and unpredictable in living memory. The massive, unprecedented, and global nature of the supply chain disruptions brought about by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic were quickly following by government policy response. Of particular interest to our group is the support payments the government mobilized to provide economic stability while the pandemic was ongoing. The remaining years of activity for the previous iteration were marked by price increases, including the price of agricultural commodities and food items more broadly. These dynamics represented the counter-cyclical nature of the agricultural sector quite well: producers experienced strong income while consumers were less happy. The concerns about land values also went up in the smoke of the pandemic, as development pressure in rural areas increased, partly to escape the congestion of urban areas during the height of the pandemic.

The theoretical models that underpin the majority of the research outputs from this regional research group are drawn from the theory of finance and credit markets. According to the simplest model of asset valuation, the present value model, the value of an asset is determined by the discounted stream of expected future returns. As a result, the major areas of concern for agricultural finance are (i) expected farm income, (ii) interest rates (the discount factor and/or the cost of credit), and (iii) asset values. These three components continue to comprise the tenants of agricultural finance research and are the primary topics of inquiry for this regional research group. This is particularly true now that each has experienced dramatic disruptions in recent years. Expected farm income, for example, was positively shocked by the disbursement of government payments. Interest rates have been rising steadily throughout 2023 as a means of curbing growing inflationary concerns. Last, as mentioned above, asset values have retained or increased in value, particularly for farmland. In light of this volatile context, it is especially important to understand market fundamentals by beginning analysis with simple models of asset valuation and credit demand. Below, we explain how we apply those theories along with other methods to the research objectives of this group.

Objective 1: Examine the impact of recent inflation and continued volatility in capital and commodity markets on the relationships between the performance, management, and regulation of agricultural financial institutions.

The inflation and general price increases experienced in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic caused the Federal Reserve Bank managers to enact counter-inflationary fiscal policy through an increase in the general interest rate. This has caused widespread concern among agricultural operations, many of whom took on more debt during the period of low rates at the height of the pandemic. It is thus crucial that agricultural operations’ debt load be monitored to ensure it remains at a healthy level and that these operations do not wind up in a situation where they are over-extended or over-leveraged. Although there is limited evidence to suggest that this is the case, it is nonetheless cause for concern, as agricultural operations’ primary means of expansion is through increased use of debt.

In addition, the instable geopolitical situation, particularly the war in Ukraine, has caused large fluctuations in both the food and fuel commodity markets. This is on top of the volatility already observed in this sector that many attribute to the conjoining of farm and fuel policies following the introduction of the Renewable Fuel Standards in 2008. We know from previous research that volatility in a market is a self-perpetuating cycle: when a market is already volatile, reactions to events, like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, tend to be over-reactions. Market movements become larger and thus volatility increases over time. This may contribute to an increase in systematic risk in the agricultural sector. Systematic risk is inherent to the broader financial system and thus cannot be diversified away. In years of relative calm or minimal disruption, the common understanding is that the agricultural sector, and agricultural financial institutions in particular, are insulated from this systematic risk. As outside forces continue to put pressure on major agricultural players, however, it is no longer possible for the sector to consider itself immune to the short- and long-run effects of this increase in systematic risk or the increase in volatility of capital and commodity markets. Research of the widespread and self-perpetuating effects of the widespread and growing capital and commodity market fluctuations on the performance, management, and regulation of agricultural financial institutions is thus the focus of this objective. 

The issues described above are global and thus felt nationally; however, the specific nature of the impact and the characteristics of firms who are able to weather such shocks is quite likely to differ regionally. Agricultural financial institutions are facing increasing consolidation, partly in response to regulatory changes and perhaps as a response to the increased cost of doing business and uncertainty that the volatile markets described above represent. Risk for the producers translates almost exactly into risk for the lenders. With land values being pushed upwards, particularly in the parts of the country that are already characterized by high value, highly productive farmland, the outstanding loans agricultural financial institutions hold also increases. The noted increases in the interest rate benefit these lenders on one hand but increase default risk on the other. Concerns are magnified or diminished based on the local context, despite these issues being national or even global in scope. Thus, the inherent risks are different for agricultural banks across the U.S. due to differences in land values, as well as difference in agricultural production. In addition to differences created by the type of agricultural production that dominates their region, the size, scale, and commitment to agricultural lending varies considerably across the country. For example, the Northeast is characterized by relatively large banks, having already experienced the consolidation that is now beginning to become apparent in the Midwest, for example.

NC-1177 and its members have a long history of describing and characterizing the effective functioning of agricultural financial institutions, particularly as many of our members have close working relationships with researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, which provides administrative oversight and surveys of agricultural lenders. The Bank has been and will continue to be actively involved in supporting NC-1177’s research efforts. This is, of course, in addition to the work the Bank does in terms of producing outputs that are directly relevant to the status of agricultural finance in the US. The Bank also surveys agricultural bankers and collects opinions in Survey of Agricultural Credit Conditions. Access to these data provides information on the loan availability, loan demand, and the overall health of agricultural banks and agricultural producers. These data can be merged with other sources to provide insight into other factors that are impacting the performance of this banking sector. With input from researchers from the Bank and other government institutions, participants will be well-informed about the kinds of research that are most relevant and important for policymakers, providing them with solid evidence of how to best address the impacts of many kinds of disruptions on agriculture.

Many researchers in our group, including those from Kansas State, Purdue, Ohio State, Auburn, and others, are quite adept at working with the publicly available bank call data that is a common source of information on the performance and year-over-year functionality of these institutions. The group also has a history of working on pooled data from many states in order to provide timely estimates of potential impacts of and responses to situations of financial distress or crisis. A good example of this from the early part of many of our participants’ careers was the joint work done in response to the 1980s farm crisis. More recent examples include collaborations analyzing the lasting impact of the 2007/2008 global financial crisis. It is apparent that such collaborations will continue in order to respond to the ongoing disruptions in the agricultural financial markets. In order to do so, both late- and early-career experts are proposed participants in the renewal of the NC-1177, and they will continue to pool data (such as income and call reports for banks) and conduct collective analyses to address the increase in systemic risk for agricultural financial institutions.

Agricultural banks are one type of agricultural financial institution and a subset of general commercial banks. These banks, even if they do not have a particular focus on agriculture, are making up a growing share of lenders in the agricultural space. This is along with growing representation from various sources of what is considered “non-traditional” finance, such as loans from equipment dealers or online-only banking platforms. The entry of these non-traditional actors into the market has been cause for considerable attention and will continue to be a primary area of focus for participants performing research in other to address objective one. Open questions include whether the entry of such actors will displace other key agricultural financial institutions, such as government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). Another question is whether the benefits, costs, and risks to producers who borrow from these lenders are changing over time. A series of studies will be conducted to address first whether the observed fluctuations in capital and commodity markets influence the emergence of non-traditional lenders; research will then examine the implications of these lenders’ for traditional actors like these GSE agricultural firms. Efforts will focus on examining how changes in government policy toward GSE’s would impact their ability to provide affordable capital in agricultural markets, particularly to producers who have been traditionally underserved by these institutions and thus may find the “outside actors” more appealing.

Objective 2: Evaluate the relationship between firm-level decisions, such as management strategies; government programs or policies; and the capital needs, financial performance, and long-term sustainability of firms in the food and agribusiness sector.

Efforts in this objective will be directed toward issues related to capital supply and demand in agriculture, financial management of agricultural businesses, and the impacts of public policy on capital availability and its use in the agricultural system. Because this objective is focused on firm-level decisions, the availability and provision of farm-level data that is either state or nationally representative is of critical importance. In addition, because the productive situation differs so widely across states, it is important to have such data sets from a variety of states in order to best capture the diversity of experiences across different operational sizes and typologies. Coordinated analysis of similar data will allow for comparisons of how farm characteristics and local contexts influence the operation-level response to global disruptions and changes in macroeconomic conditions. One key to successfully addressing this objective is to utilize a variety of state and national level data sets designed to understand the financial situation of farms. Many of the researchers involved in the project lead or assist with farm level data collection efforts in their respective states. Researchers from Illinois, Kansas, North Dakota, Minnesota, and Kentucky will collaborate on this objective.

Additionally, the project will seek to maintain its long history of collaborating with researchers from the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS). Many researchers have strong working relationships with researchers at that institution, with many of our participants having spent at least a small part of their career at that institution. These connections allow for the continued ability to use data from the ERS’s Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). ARMS is the “gold standard” in terms of the level of detailed financial, demographic, and production characteristics that it provides to researchers. In addition, it is the only nationally representative and annual farm-level survey. In order to achieve the goals laid out in objective 2, it is necessary to maintain access to this invaluable resource. It is not possibly to analyze firm-level decisions without these data or others like it. The data will be analyzed with well-known and accepted econometric and optimization procedures, including those that have been recently developed to work with cross-sectional data in a manner that approximates a panel data set.

The seismic changes experienced in the global agricultural sector belie the need for continued efforts towards collecting new data from farmers about their attitudes and possible and enacted responses to the fluctuations they are observing. To support this objective, researchers in states that currently do not have centralized farm survey data collection will work to understand the barriers to such collections in their state and overcome them if possible. Better access to data will mean improved capacity to analyze how management strategies, capital needs, and policy impact financial performance. These new data collection efforts will benefit greatly from multi-state coordination, which will allow for best practices in terms of survey design and implementation to be shared.

Federal programs and policies are, by their nature, national; however, regional perspectives are necessary in order for there to be a full understanding of the potential impact, both good and bad, of federal policies across the country. In order for education about the effects of federal policy on farm financial performance to be effective, it is therefore necessary for educators and/or researchers to not only understand how the policy functions but also understand how the specific context where they are located will augment its potential impacts. In short, by summarizing and building upon this knowledge a coherent and useful financial management research and education program can be developed to achieve the greatest benefit to agricultural producers in all regions of the country.

In terms of federal programs and policy, none are more central or critical than the Farm Bill. At the time of writing, the 2023 Farm Bill has already been authorized for an extension, allowing legislators more time to develop the coalitions needed to effectively move the Farm Bill through Congress and into law. The bill that will become the 2024 Farm Bill will be enacted amidst a climate of increasing volatility and disruption from all areas of the farm economy. It will, in turn, affect all sectors of the farm economy. It is therefore a crucial that awareness of the possible effects and implications of this Bill are made clear by all participants. This is in keeping with the longstanding tradition this project has of providing detailed and insightful analysis into the functioning and implications of past Farm Bills and other sources of farm policy. All participants from each member state will contribute to this part of the objective.

Objective 3: Identify and analyze the functioning of financial institutions that service agricultural producers and rural communities, including an evaluation of the capacity of agricultural markets to serve producers and managers of agribusinesses that are historically underserved or socially disadvantaged.

The primary focus of this objective is on differential levels of access to credit by producer type, focusing on personal characteristics about an operator and/or his/her operation that may change the ability to access credit or the terms under which credit is accessed. A body of research already performed by participants in this research group have documented historical trends in differential levels of access, showing lower rates of credit usage and credit provision by producers who are historically underserved or from another socially disadvantaged group. These characteristics can be demographic, such as gender or race, but they may also relate to the characteristics of the operation itself, namely having a young operator, having an operator who is new to agriculture, or operating a small operation. The key to analyzing how financial markets service these kinds of borrowers is in examining how much of the difference in their credit access can be explained by factors that make them more of a credit risk and how much is due to assumptions on the part of lenders about their credit worthiness. These assumptions may or may not be based in reality and should be explored, and, to whatever extent possible, addressed through research that also meets this objective. This is especially true given that one of the charges of the Farm Credit System is providing credit to young, beginning, and small farmers. Given the strong historical connections between this research group and researchers and administrators at FCS, it is important to do this research in such a way that lending practices can be adjusted to incorporate an awareness of differences between credit use rates and terms across these different borrower groups.

Many researchers, including those at Ohio State, West Virginia University, Louisiana State University, Auburn University, University of Arkansas, Kansas State, and others have looked at various aspects of the broad question of how the financial market serves different kinds of agricultural producers differently. In recent years, that research has much more directly targeted differences by demographic characteristics that are outside of the control of borrowers. Thus, NC-1177 participants already active in this space will share their findings to establish baseline knowledge levels about where and for whom barriers to credit access exist. Through partnership with researchers at FCS, participants can develop and refine policy-relevant results that assist with the proper targeting of information in order to ensure these groups access credit in a way that is fair to both them and the lender.

Another important area of research that will address this research objective is an examination of how the global disruptions described earlier in the draft can differentially impact producers who already have a more tenuous credit access situation, such as young, beginning, or small farm operators. These disruptions are global in nature, but their impact is not evenly distributed and may be felt more in some sectors than others. Acknowledging these differential impacts will help to target future programs and potential payments that are designed to ameliorate the effect of exposure to these deleterious trends and disruptions. Of particular importance in the current context is the effect of the increasing interest rate on credit availability for these operators. Given they already experience credit constraints, it is likely that the impact of rising interest rates will squeeze these producers especially hard.

Objective 4: Evaluate fluctuations in farmland and commodity markets, including those caused by weather volatility, trade limitations, macroeconomic conditions, and geopolitical disruptions, and estimate their impact on the risk management and financial strategies producers use to mitigate risks and enhance the profitability and sustainability of their operations and the agricultural sector overall.

Analysis of the farmland market is already an area of great strength for participants in this multi-state research group. In order to achieve this objective, therefore, it will be necessary to build on pre-existing knowledge bases and supplement them with new methods of analysis and alternative sources of data. For new methods of analysis, the growing availability of transactions-level data provide an exciting opportunity for researchers studying land markets, and such large-scale datasets allow for the use of machine learning or other “big data” techniques in order to derive important results. Incorporating such data into existing models to see how prior conclusions either hold up or change when new data is considered will be one important element of addressing this part of the objective. Similar techniques can be applied to the study of the commodity market, which produces a similar amount of data in that transactions on the commodity exchanges occur daily and often more than daily. Using the proper techniques to analyze such a preponderance of data is one way in which the participants can expand on and improve an already strong theoretical knowledge base about the functioning and performance of the farmland market, particularly in terms of how it relates to operators’ ability to access credit and other financial decisions that producers make.

Weather volatility and trade disputes both represent sources of uncertainty outside of the control of producers. In order to make knowledgeable production or marketing decisions, producers will need to be able to quickly understand the changing terms of international trade, the changing rules of international finance, and their ramifications for their operation. A key role for participants of this research group is therefore the rapid and accurate provision of such information, which, if delivered in a timely fashion, can help their competitiveness on a global scale. This is an area where collaboration among participants is key, especially as specialists in the field of agricultural trade are few and far between. Sharing the knowledge produced by these key participants is an important means of addressing this part of the objective.

At the time of this proposal, the war in Ukraine is still ongoing, with uncertain outcomes in terms of the ability of either Russia or Ukraine to produce at their historic levels. Similar disruptions are always possible. Therefore, all dimensions of the food and agricultural supply chain need to understand how to be responsive to such changes and be ready to proactively respond to changes in the production situation. Faculty members in Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, North Dakota, New York, and elsewhere will all work to provide timely and applicable information regarding how these dramatic disruptions, as well as other, more quotidian ones, affect producers and the risk management and financing strategies they choose.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

• • Dedicated section (Agricultural Finance and Management) with congruous participation at the annual meeting of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association Comments: o One section business meeting o At least two and as many as four AFM-sponsored track sessions focused on agricultural finance or related topics
• • Refereed journal articles
• • Multi-state research bulletins
• • Extension publications (e.g., fact sheets, bulletin updates, blog posts, white papers, policy briefs, etc.)
• • Articles for or interviews with the popular press
• • Research presentations at professional conferences
• • Extension presentations, which are designed to deliver research findings, educational material, and information on best practices to a broad and general audience
• • Maintenance of outreach websites, described above, including the provision of multimedia elements such as videos, podcasts, etc.
• • Organization of relevant conference sessions at professional meetings, including the track sessions described above but also longer-form pre- or post-conference workshops

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• • A strengthened and robust network of scholars, industry participants, and economists at all stages of their careers that is capable of performing policy analysis about the financial health of US agriculture and rural areas. Participants from across the country will observe and comment on local impacts of policy, market fluctuations, and geopolitical disruptions, with the end goal of observing how these impacts differ across space and time.
• • Publications and educational materials for a diverse set of stakeholders: including other researchers, public and private policymakers, financial industry and agribusiness leaders, and farmers and rural citizens. These materials will provide guidance and insight during times of global financial stress about potential “best practice” responses and will allow for extrapolation towards understanding which factors promote resilience to such stressors
• • A standardized set of accepted investigative methodologies to assess the functioning of the rural and agricultural financial system from a variety of perspectives, with access and affordability being of first-order importance

Milestones

(2024):Organizational meeting as part of the business meeting session at our annual meeting, which traditionally occurs in October of each year, in order to identify and prioritize the topics to be addressed under each objective. • Prior to the start of the meeting, members will be informed of the process and given the opportunity to prepare their ideas. • During the meeting and continuing remotely thereafter, participants will work on developing detailed literature reviews under each objective in order to assess what has already been done. This year will also involve the assessment of the current data inventory and identify the data needs for the project. Last, report summaries from each objective and interim data development reports and analyses will be prepared.

(2025):Descriptive summaries and analysis of preliminary data.

(2026):Preparation and synthesis of results and creation of bulletins from the data analysis that occurred in the prior year. Submission of workshops or track sessions at professional meetings and completion of edited volume that aggregates the results of the initial analyses. Initial drafting and development of refereed publications, along with continuing dissemination of short-term findings to general public. Continued refinement of the research models through identification of 1) additional priorities for each objective for further analysis and 2) important subsamples for analysis.

(2027):Final development and implementation of community of practice for eXtension.org. Intermediate analyses of priority projects identified in 2024.

(2028):Development of final reports and summarization of key findings. Updates to eXtension.org. Research dissemination through refereed journal articles and to lay audiences.

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

The value of NC-1177 derives from the need for collaboration among researchers and educators spread out across many institutions, as well as with government and industry leaders. Previous NC-1177 projects have highlighted how the collective research done through the support of this project places a premium on communicating and disseminating research results to a wide variety of stakeholders. Indeed, it is the breadth of these stakeholders, including academic professionals, policymakers, farmers, managers of both financial institutions and agribusinesses, and local community leaders. In addition to the typical channels for dissemination, namely academic journals for research papers along with extension publications, multimedia, and interviews, NC-1177 has a particular comparative advantage in terms of its connections with government and industry leaders. As mentioned elsewhere in this proposal, our group’s close relationship with researchers and staff at the Federal Reserve Bank Kansas City is especially valuable. Since 2013, the annual NC-1177 meeting has been held concurrently with the National Agricultural Credit Committee at a Federal Reserve Bank Branch. The meeting is topical, with a focus on current trends and issues relevant to the agricultural and rural financial context. The structure of the meeting allows for each group to meet separately, while also providing time for everyone to meet together to share research and insights. Such relationships provide our group with direct access to those at the center of macroeconomic and farm financial policy analysis and generation. These connections allow for the immediate transfer of knowledge to government and industry stakeholders, allowing us to move faster than the normal timeline for academic outlets.

In addition, we encourage and indeed directly plan for a close-to-perfect overlap of our members with the Agricultural Finance and Management (AFM) section of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA). Each year, as part of the AAEA annual meeting, the AFM section organizes at least two and up to four track sessions, composed of relevant groups of papers or panels of speakers of broad relevance to the members’ research and interests. Project annual reports, symposia programs and related materials will be provided to the public via the NC-1177 website along with summaries of research results.

Organization/Governance

The recommended Standard Governance for multistate research activities include the election of a Chair, a Chair-elect, and a Secretary. All officers are to be elected for at least two-year terms to provide continuity. Administrative guidance will be provided by an assigned Administrative Advisor and a NIFA Representative. Additional administrative support and institutional knowledge will be provided by the past Chair on an ad hoc, as-needed basis.

The officers will coincide with the officers elected to serve in the Agricultural Finance and Management (AFM) Section of AAEA. This will allow for consistency in terms of the groups’ organization and research objectives and will also serve to ensure that the minimum two-year term is met in order to provide continuity. The close relationship and congruous membership between NC-1177 and AFM will ensure that a plurality of members of the multi-state research group is meeting at least twice per calendar year. These in-person meetings are critical, as they facilitate project work and results synthesis, while also allowing for the development and incorporation of new or more early-career members, including graduate students.

Literature Cited

Ahrendsen, Bruce

 

Vekemans, M. C., Short, G., Dodson, C. B., & Ahrendsen, B. L. (2023). Loan survival: Are Black farmers more likely to default?. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, forthcoming.

 

Dodson, C. B., Ahrendsen, B. L., & Short, G. (2022). Does use of nontraditional credit increase risk?. Agricultural Finance Review, 82(2), 359-378.

Ahrendsen, B. L., Dodson, C. B., Short, G., Rainey, R. L., & Snell, H. A. (2022). Beginning farmer and rancher credit usage by socially disadvantaged status. Agricultural Finance Review, 82(3), 464-485.

 

Sulkowski, A. J., Kowalczyk, W., Ahrendsen, B. L., Kowalski, R., & Majewski, E. (2020). Enhancing sustainability education through experiential learning of sustainability reporting. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(6), 1233-1247.

Atwood, Joseph

 

Walden, J. B., & Atwood, J. (2023). Measuring Fishing Capacity Using Quantile Data Envelopment Analysis. Marine Resource Economics, 38(3), 000-000.

 

Brester, G. W., McCullough, M., Atwood, J., & Austin, C. (2023). Beer Excise Taxes and the Craft Beverage and Modernization Tax Reform Act. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 48(2), 342-360.

 

Shaik, S., & Atwood, J. (2020). A Comparative Study of Alternative Approaches to Estimate Productivity. Journal of Quantitative Economics, 18(4), 747-766.

 

Atwood, J., & Shaik, S. (2020). Theory and statistical properties of quantile data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 286(2), 649-661.

 

Hamilton, L., McCullough, M. P., Brester, G. W., & Atwood, J. (2020). California’s Wage Rate Policies and Head Lettuce Prices. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 51(856-2020-1664), 92-110.

 

Bampasidou, Maria

 

Balachandran, R., Penn, J., & Bampasidou, M. (2023). Understanding the variation in estimates of off‐farm labour supply elasticities: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(1), 116-134.

 

Bampasidou, M., Frelier, J., Coleman, M. A., & Motsenbocker, C. E. (2022). Research Update: COVID-19 and Marketing Challenges for Food Producers in Louisiana. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 53(1).

 

Coleman, M. A., Bampasidou, M., & Motsenbocker, C. E. (2022). Research Update:" Growing" Sustainable Horticulture Farmers. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 53(1).

 

Bampasidou, M., Bernard, S. E., Lopez, R., Tregenza, I., Jůzl, M., & Saláková, A. (2022). 2021 Food Symposium Adapting to Pandemic Challenges: An International Collaboration. NACTA Journal, 66.

 

Coleman, M. A., Bampasidou, M., Motsenbocker, C. E., & McKinzie, W. R. (2021). Assessing The Educational Needs Of New And Beginning Urban Farmers In New Orleans, Louisiana. Journal of the NACAA, 14(1).

 

Bampasidou, M., Kaller, M. D., & Tanger, S. M. (2021). Stakeholder’s Risk Perceptions of Wild Pigs: Is There a Gender Difference?. Agriculture, 11(4), 329.

 

Bampasidou, M., & McKinzie, W. (2020). Decision-Making. Journal of ASFMRA, 81-87.

 

Bampasidou, M., & McKinzie, W. R. (2020). Red Stick Farms: Planning for the Future. Applied Economics Teaching Resources (AETR), 2(1), 41-53.

 

Belasco, Eric

 

Boyd, Mark, and Eric Belasco. "The impact of farm-level variables on federal crop insurance coverage selections." Agricultural Finance Review 83.1 (2023): 21-42.

 

Belasco, Eric J., and Kate Binzen Fuller. "Who buys crop insurance? Predictors of the participation gap between organic and conventional farms." Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 44.3 (2022): 1554-1572.

 

Belasco, Eric J., and Vincent Smith. "The impact of policy design on payment concentration in Ad-hoc disaster Relief: Lessons from the Market Facilitation and Coronavirus food Assistance programs." Food Policy 106 (2022): 102189.

 

Belasco, Eric, and Jeff Schahczenski. "Is organic farming risky? An evaluation of WFRP in organic and conventional production systems." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 50.1 (2021): 63-75.

 

Belasco, Eric J., Joseph Cooper, and Vincent H. Smith. "The development of a weather‐based crop disaster program." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 102.1 (2020): 240-258.

 

Bekkerman, Anton, Eric J. Belasco, and Vincent H. Smith. "Does farm size matter? Distribution of crop insurance subsidies and government program payments across US farms." Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 41.3 (2019): 498-518.

 

Bir, Courtney

 

Adom, Enoch, Courtney Bir, and Lixia H. Lambert. "A financial comparison of small-scale quail and laying hen farm enterprises." Poultry Science 102.4 (2023): 102507.

 

Bora, Siddhartha

Bora, S., A.L. Katchova, and T.H. Kuethe. “The Accuracy and Informativeness of Agricultural Baselines”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, (2022), forthcoming.

Bora, S.S., A.L. Katchova, and T.H. Kuethe. `”The Rationality of USDA Forecasts under Multivariate Asymmetric Loss”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics (2021), 103, 3:1006-1033, DOI: 10.1111/ajae.12142.

Kuethe, T.H, S.S. Bora, and A.L. Katchova. “Improving ERS’s Net Cash Income Forecasts using USDA Baseline Projections”, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (2022), 47(2):246–261, DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.310528.

Boyer, Christopher N

 

Martinez, Charles, et al. "Ad hoc government payments impact on non-real estate farm debt." Agricultural Finance Review 83.1 (2022): 83-95.

 

Boyer, Christopher N., and Andrew P. Griffith. "Livestock risk protection subsidies changes on producer premiums." Agricultural Finance Review 83.2 (2022): 201-210.

 

Boyer, Christopher N., Eunchun Park, and Seong D. Yun. "Corn and soybean prevented planting acres response to weather." Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 45.2 (2023): 970-983.

 

Trejo-Pech, Carlos JO, et al. "Profitability, risk and cash flow deficit for beginning cow–calf producers." Agricultural Finance Review 82.1 (2022): 1-19.

 

Brewer, Brady

 

Williams, D. J., Brewer, B. E., & Todd, J. (2022). Farm Household's Consumption of Tariff Relief Payments. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 44, pp. 1465-1481.  View Publication

 

DeLay, N. D., Brewer, B. E., Featherstone, A. M., & Boussios, D. (2022). The Impact of Crop Insurance on Farm Financial Outcomes. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy,  View Publication

 

Kuethe, T. H., Brewer, B. E., & Fiechter, C. (2020). Loss Aversion in Farmland Price Expectations. Land Economics.

 

Boussios, D., Castillo, m., & Brewer, B. E. (2022). The Unintended Beneficiaries of Farm Subsidies. Land Economics,  View Publication

 

Dorfman, Brewer, B. E., & Wu, Y. (2021). The Susceptibility of Farmland Loans to Default  Under Falling Farmland and Commodity Prices. Agricultural Economics, (pp. 561-574).  View Publication

 

Campell, B., Rabinowitz, A., Brewer, B. E., & Chakrabarti, A. (2021). Use and Benefits Associated with State Marketing Programs. Q Open, 1(2).  View Publication

 

Barnard, F. L., Foltz, J., Yeager, E., & Brewer, B. E. (2020). Agribusiness Management. Routledge.

 

Brewer, B. E., Bergtold, J., Feathersone, A. M., & Wilson, C. (2019). Farmer’s Choice of Credit Between the Farm Credit System, Commercial Banks, and Nontraditional Lenders. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 44(2), pp. 362-379.  View Publication

 

Briggeman, Brian

 

Regmi, M., B.C. Briggeman, and A.M. Featherstone. “Effects of Crop Insurance on Farm Input Use: Evidence from Kansas Farm Data.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 51(2022): 361-379. 

 

Mashange, G., A.M. Featherstone, and B.C. Briggeman. “Credit Rating Transitions of Farmer Cooperatives.” Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management 10(2022): 100153. 

 

Mashange, G. and B.C. Briggeman. “Assessing the Financial Condition and Accounts Receivable Risk Among U.S. Farmer Cooperatives.” Agricultural Finance Review 82(2021): 344-358.  

 

Clymer, A., W. Bowman, E. Yeager, and B.C. Briggeman. “Are Cooperatives Transitioning from Cost Minimizers to Profit Maximizers?” Agricultural Finance Review 81(2021): 568-577. 

 

Boland, M.A., B.C. Briggeman, K. Jacobs, P. Kenkel, G. McKee, and J.L. Park. “Research Priorities for Agricultural Cooperatives and Their Farmer-Members.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 43(2020): 573-585. 

 

Clymer, A.C., B.C. Briggeman, and J.C. Leatherman. “Estimating the Value of Local Ownership to a State’s Economy: The Case of Kansas Farmer Cooperatives.” Journal of Cooperatives 35(2020): 1-39. 

 

Bukenya, James O

 

Chandio, Rabail

 

Connor, Lawson

 

2021. Connor, R. Rejesus, M. Yasar. 2021. “Crop Insurance Participation and Cover Crop Use: Evidence from Indiana County-level Data”, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.

 

2021. Brown, L. Connor, R. Rejesus, J. Yorobe. 2021. “Landscape-level Feedbacks in the Demand for Transgenic Pesticidal Corn in the Philippines”, Ecological Economics.

 

2020. Connor, A. Katchova. 2020. “Crop Insurance Participation Rates and Asymmetric Effects on US Corn and Soybean Yield Risk.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

 

Escalante, Cesar

 

1. Zheng, C.L. Escalante, and C.E. Taylor. “Did Aggressive Business Growth Strategies Lead to Bank Failures? Lessons from the Late 2000s Great Recession.” Journal of Applied Finance and Banking. 10,6 (2020): 135-151
   
   

Ghimire, J., C.L. Escalante, R. Ghimire, and C. Dodson. “Do Farm Service Agency Borrowers’ Double Minority Labels Lead to More Unfavorable Loan Packaging Terms?” Agricultural Finance Review. 80,5 (2020): 633-646

 

Zheng, M. and C.L. Escalante. “The Economic Recessionary Pressure on Sustainable Growth Strategies of Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Banks.” Agricultural Finance Review. 80,3 (2020): 437-451

 

Dhakal, Chandra, C.L. Escalante, and C. Dodson. “Heterogeneity of Farm Loan Packaging Term Decisions:  A Finite Mixtures Approach.”  Applied Economics Letters. 26:18 (2019): 1528-1532

 

Etienne, Xiaoli

 

Li, Jiarui, Scott H. Irwin, and Xiaoli Etienne. "Do Extreme CIT Position Changes Move Prices in Grain Futures Markets?." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 54.4 (2022): 792-814.

 

Scarcioffolo, Alexandre R., and Xiaoli L. Etienne. "Regime-switching energy price volatility: The role of economic policy uncertainty." International Review of Economics & Finance 76 (2021): 336-356.

 

Lawson, Joshua, Rafayet Alam, and Xiaoli Etienne. "Speculation and food-grain prices." Applied Economics 53.20 (2021): 2305-2321.

 

Ismailova, Zarina, et al. "Quantifying the Announcement Effects in the US Lumber Futures Market." Journal of Forest Economics 35.4 (2020): 375-395.

 

Maples, William E., B. Wade Brorsen, and Xiaoli L. Etienne. "Hedging effectiveness of fertilizer swaps." Applied Economics 51.53 (2019): 5793-5801.

Featherstone, Allen

 

DeLay, N.D., B.E. Brewer, A.M. Featherstone, and D. Boussios. “The Impact of Crop Insurance on Farm Financial Outcomes.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 45(March 2023):579-601.

 

Skevas, T., M.R. Taylor, and A.M. Featherstone. “How Different Types of Government Payments and the Elimination of Direct Payments Affect Farm Productivity? Evidence from Kansas Crop Farms.” Applied Economics, 55(14, 2023):1621-35. 

 

Regmi, M. B.C. Briggeman, and A.M. Featherstone. “Effects of Crop Insurance on Farm Input Use:  Evidence from Kansas Farm Data.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 51 (2, August 2022):361-79.  

 

Chen, B., E.J. Dennis, and A.M. Featherstone. “Weather Impacts the Agricultural Production Efficiency of Wheat:  The Importance of Precipitation Shocks.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 47(3, 2022):544-562.  

 

Mashange, G., A.M. Featherstone, and B.C. Briggeman. “Evaluating Changes in Credit Rating Quality of U.S. Farmer Cooperatives.” Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, 10(June 2022):100153.   

 

Regmi, M. and A.M. Featherstone. “Competition, Performance and Financial Stability in U.S. Agricultural Banking.” Agricultural Finance Review, 82(1, 2022):67-88.   22  

 

Pokharel, K.P. and A.M. Featherstone. “Examining the Productivity Growth of Agricultural Cooperatives:  The Biennial Malmquist Index Approach.” Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, 9(December 2021):100148.   

 

Canales, E., J.S. Bergtold, and A.M. Featherstone. “Farm Efficiency and Productivity Growth:  The Effect of Commodity Prices.” Journal of Applied Farm Economics, 4(Fall 2021):2337.  

 

Regmi, M., A.M. Featherstone, M.R. Taylor, and C. Cowley. “Big Banks versus Agricultural Banks:  Has Too-Big-To-Fail Regulation Affected Efficiency and Scale Economies Measures?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 103(May 2021):1164-78.  

 

Zereyesus, Y.A., A.M. Featherstone, and M.R. Langemeier. “Are Kansas Farms Profit Maximizers? A Stochastic Additive Error Approach.” Agricultural Economics, 52(January 2021):37-50.  

 

Pokharel, K.P., D.W. Archer, and A.M. Featherstone. “The Impact of Size and Specialization on the Financial Performance of Agricultural Cooperatives.” Journal of Co-operative Organization and Management, 8(December 2020):100108.   

 

Paulson, N.D., A.M. Featherstone, and J.C. Hadrich. “Distribution of Market Facilitation Program Payments and their Financial Impact for Illinois, Kansas, and Minnesota Farms.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42(June 2020):227-44. 

 

Goyal, Raghav

 

Goyal, R., and M.K. Adjemian. 2022. "Information Rigidities in USDA Production Forecasts." Conditionally Accepted at the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

 

Goyal, R., and M.K. Adjemian. 2021. "The 2019 Government Shutdown Increased Uncertainty in Major Agricultural Commodity Markets " Food Policy (4.552).

 

Goyal, R., M.K. Adjemian, J. Glauber, and S. Meyer. 2023. "Decomposing USDA Ending Stocks Forecast Errors." (Forthcoming in the Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics)

 

Gray, Allan

 

Neto, Lourival Carmo Monaco, Brady E. Brewer, and Allan W. Gray. "Data on data: An analysis of data usage and analytics in the agricultural supply chain." Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy (2023).

 

Etumnu, Chinonso, and Allan W. Gray. "A Clustering Approach to Understanding Farmers’ Success Strategies." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 52.3 (2020): 335-351.

 

Hadrich, Joleen C

 

Financial Performance of Beginning Dairy Farmers in Minnesota. Weir, Rebecca; Hadrich, Joleen;Jablonski, Becca R.;Bauman, Allie. November 2022

 

Estimation and analysis of cow-level cumulative lifetime break-even on financial resilience. Gambonini, Alexandra;Hadrich, Joleen;Roberts, Amber. Journal of Dairy Science, v.105, no.5. doi:10.3168/jds.2021-20644. May 2022.

 

The profitability implications of sales through local food markets for beginning farmers and ranchers. Jablonski, Becca B.R.;Hadrich, Joleen;Bauman, Allison;Sullins, Martha;Thilmany, Dawn. Agricultural Finance Review, v.83, no.3, pp.559-576. doi: 10.1108/AFR-05-2021-0056. April 2022.

 

Opportunities to support beginning farmers and ranchers in the 2023 Farm Bill. Jablonski, Becca B.R.;Key, Nigel;Hadrich, Joleen;Bauman, Allison;Thilmany, Dawn;Sullins, Martha.  Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy, Early View.. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13256. March 29, 2022.

 

Unique financing strategies among beginning farmers and ranchers: differences among multigenerational and beginning operations. Thilmany, Dawn;Bauman, Allison;Hadrich, Joleen;Jablonski, Becca B.R.;Sullins, Martha. Agricultural Finance Review, Ahead of Print. doi: 10.1108/AFR-05-2021-0070. December 2021. 

 

The role of Federal crop insurance for farms and ranches that sell through local food markets. Jablonski, Becca B.R.;Hadrich, Joleen;Bauman, Allie. Agricultural Finance Review, Ahead-of-Print. DOI:10.1108/AFR-12-2020-0178. May 2021.

 

Distribution of Market Facilitation Program Payments and Their Financial Impact for Illinois, Kansas, and Minnesota Farms. Paulson, Nicholas D.;Featherston, Allen M.;Hadrich, Joleen C. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, aepp.13055. doi:10.1002/aepp.13055. May 2020.

Hart, Chad E

 

Albulena Basha, Wendong Zhang, and Chad Hart. "The Impacts of Interest Rate Changes on US Midwest Farmland Values." Agricultural Finance Review 81(2021):746-766.

 

Dermot J. Hayes, Lee L. Schulz, Chad Hart, and Keri L. Jacobs. "A Descriptive Analysis of the COVID-19 Impacts on the U.S. Pork, Turkey, and Egg Markets." Agribusiness 37(2021):122-141.

 

Hartarska, Valentina

 

Nadolnyak D., V Hartarska,  B. Griffin (forthcoming) The Impact of Weather, Economic, and Demographic Factors on Beginning Farmers’ Exit, Sustainability. 

 

Malikov E., V. Hartarska and R. Mersland (forthcoming), “Scope Economies in Microfinance: Evidence from Quantile Estimation on Panel Data,” Finance Research Letters. 

 

Li, Sheng, D. Nadolnyak, and V. Hartarska, (2019) “Agricultural Land Conversion: Impacts of Economic and Natural Risk Factors in a Coastal Area,” Land Use Policy. 80(1): 380-390  

 

Hubbs, Todd

 

Schnitkey, Gary D., et al. "Coronavirus Impacts on Midwestern Row‐Crop Agriculture." Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 43.1 (2021): 280-291.

 

Kuethe, Todd, and Todd Hubbs. "Credit booms and financial instability in US agriculture." Agricultural Finance Review 81.1 (2021): 1-20.

 

Ibendahl, Greg

 

Ibendahl, G.  and T. Griffin. 2021. “Machinery Replacement Strategies.” Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. P. 55-58. 

 

Ibendahl, G.  2020. “Predicting Fertilizer Prices.” Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. P. 171-176.

 

Ifft, Jennifer E

 

Jennifer Ifft, Todd Kuethe, Greg Lyons, Alexander Schultz, and John Y. Zhu, “The impact of crop insurance on commercial bank loan volumes: theory and evidence,” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.

 

Fiechter, Chad and Jennifer Ifft. 2023. “Trade Credit and Agricultural Commodity Prices: Evidence from the US Dairy Industry,” European Review of Agricultural Economics, 50(2).

 

Jing Hou, Li Zhou, Jennifer Ifft, and Rui-yao Ying. 2023 The role of time preferences in contract breach: Evidence from Chinese broiler farms participating in contract farming,” Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 22(2).

 

Li, Jie, Jason Troendle, Miguel, I. Gomez, Jennifer Ifft, Deborah Golino, and Marc Fuchs. 2022. “Return to public investments in clean plant centers: The case of virus-tested grapevines,” Journal of Wine Economics, 17(3).

 

Smith, Dana, Jennifer Ifft and Ejin Kim. 2022. “Minimum Wage Increases and Agricultural Employment of Locals and Guest Workers,” Journal of the AAEA, 1(3).

 

Ifft, Jennifer and Margaret Jodlowski. 2022. “Is ICE Freezing US Agriculture? Farm-level Adjustment to Increased Local Immigration Enforcement,” Labour Economics, 78(102203).

 

Brewer, Brady, Jennifer Ifft, and Nigel Key. 2022. “Guest Editorial: Nontraditional Credit in US Agriculture,” Agricultural Finance Review, 82(2). (editorial/not peer-reviewed)

 

Grout, Travis, Jennifer Ifft, and Anna Malinovskaya. 2021. “Energy Income and Farm Viability: Evidence from USDA Farm Survey Data,” Energy Policy, 155(112304).

 

Turvey, Calum, Amy Carduner, and Jennifer Ifft. 2021. “Market microstructure and the historical relationship between the U.S. Farm Credit System, Farm Service Agency and commercial bank lending,” Agricultural Finance Review, 81(3).

 

Ifft, Jennifer and Ao Yu. 2021. “The Impact of the Shale Gas Moratorium on New York Farmland Values”, The Energy Journal, 42(3).

 

Weersink, Alfons, et al. 2021. “COVID-19 and the Agri-Food System in the United States and Canada,” Agricultural Systems, 188(103039).

 

Bigelow, Daniel, Jennifer Ifft and Todd Kuethe. 2020. “Following the Market? Hedonic Valuation Using Sales Prices Versus Self-Reported Values”, Land Economics, 96(3).

 

Fiechter, Chad and Jennifer Ifft.  2020. “Corn Maze: Navigating Seed Corn Discounts”, Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, 116-121.

 

Bigelow, Daniel, Anita Chaudhry, Jennifer Ifft and Steven Wallander. 2019. “Agricultural Water Trading Restrictions and Drought Resilience, Land Economics, 95(4).

 

Ifft, Jennifer and Yawen Gao. 2019. “Old Order Amish Settlements and New York Farmland Markets,” Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, 100-107.

 

Jacobs, Keri L

 

Boland, Michael A., et al. "Research Priorities for Agricultural Cooperatives and their Farmer‐Members." Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 43.2 (2021): 573-585.

 

McKee, Gregory, Keri L. Jacobs, and Albert Kagan. "Trade credit use in agricultural cooperatives: pricing and firm performance." Journal of Cooperatives 35 (2020): 74.

 

Janzen, Joe

 

Janzen, Joseph P., Nicholas D. Paulson, and Juo-Han Tsay. 2023. "Commodity Storage and the Cost of Capital: Evidence from Illinois Grain Farms." American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

 

Janzen, Joseph P., Bryn Swearingen, and Jisang Yu. 2023. "Buying Time: The Effect of Market Facilitation Program Payments on the Supply of Grain Storage," Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association 2(3): 370-385.

 

Janzen, Joseph P., Trey Malone, K. Aleks Schaefer, and Daniel Scheitrum. 2021. "Political Returns to Ad Hoc Farm Payments," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 45(1):555-578.

 

Fuller, Kate B., Joseph P. Janzen, and B. Munkhnasan. 2021. "Farmland Rental Rates: Does Organic Certification Matter?," Land Economics, 97(1): 80-106.

 

Janzen, Joseph P. and Nathan P. Hendricks. 2020. "Are Farmers Made Whole By Trade Aid?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42(2): 205-226.

 

Jodlowski, Margaret

 

Ifft, Jennifer, and Margaret Jodlowski. "Is ICE freezing US agriculture? Farm-level adjustment to increased local immigration enforcement." Labour Economics 78 (2022): 102203.

 

Plakias, Zoë, et al. "On the money: characterizing banking and lending in the California cannabis industry." Agricultural Finance Review 82.2 (2022): 214-246.

 

Katchova, Ani

 

Fang, X., and A.L. Katchova. “Evaluating the OECD-FAO and USDA Agricultural Baseline Projections.” Q Open (2023).  

 

Ding, K. and A.L. Katchova. “Testing Optimality of USDA’s WASDE Forecasts under Unknown Loss.” Agribusiness: An International Journal (2023) http://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21850  

 

Bora, S., A.L. Katchova, and T.H. Kuethe. “The Accuracy and Informativeness of Agricultural Baselines.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics (2023): 105(4): 1116-1148. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12350  

 

Sant’Anna, A.C., and A.L. Katchova. “How Economic Conditions Changed the Number of U.S. Farms, 1960-88: A Replication and Extension of Gale Jr. (1990) to Mid-Size Farms.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy (2023): 45(3):1400-1426. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13306  

 

Kim, K., and A.L. Katchova. “Agricultural bank acquisitions and post-acquisition performance: An examination of the role of shared knowledge.” Agribusiness: An International Journal (2022): 38(4):743-770. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21751  

 

Kuethe, T.H., S.S. Bora, and A.L. Katchova. “Improving ERS’s Net Cash Income Forecasts using USDA Baseline Projections.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (2022) 47(2):246-261. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.310528  

 

Bora, S.S., A.L. Katchova, and T.H. Kuethe. “The Rationality of USDA Forecasts under Multivariate Asymmetric Loss.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics (2021) 103, 3:1006-1033. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12142 

 

Isengildina-Massa, O., B. Karali, T.H. Kuethe, A.L. Katchova. “Joint Evaluation of the System of USDA’s Farm Income Forecasts.”  Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy (2021) 43,3:1140-1160. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13064  

 

Sant’Anna, A.C., C. Cowley, and A.L. Katchova. “Examining the Relationship between Land Values and Credit Availability.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics (2021) 53: 209-228. https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2020.32  

 

Chen, J., A.L. Katchova, and C. Zhou. “Agricultural Loan Delinquency Prediction Using Machine Learning Methods.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review (2021) 24(5): 797-812. https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2020.0019  

Dinterman, R., and A.L. Katchova. “Survival Analysis of Farm Bankruptcy Filings: Evaluating the Time to Completion of Chapter 12 Bankruptcy Cases.” Agribusiness: An International Journal (2021) 37, 2:324-347. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.21662 

 

Dinterman, R., and A.L. Katchova. “Property Tax Incidence on Cropland Cash Rent.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy (2020) 42(4):739-758. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppz004  

 

Kim, K.N., and A.L. Katchova. “Impact of the Basel III Bank Regulation on US Agricultural Lending.” Agricultural Finance Review (2020) 80,3: 321-337. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-11-2019-0124  

 

Sant’Anna, A.C., and A.L. Katchova. “Determinants of Land Value Volatility in the U.S. Corn Belt.” Applied Economics (2020), 52(37): 4058-4072. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2020.1730760 

 

Kim, Kevin

O, N., Kim, K. 2023. Struggle to Survive: Case of Flood Risk on U.S. Community Banks. Agricultural Finance Review Preprint.

Sant'Anna, A., Kim, K., Demko, I. 2023. Limits to capital: Assessing the role of race on the Paycheck Protection Program for African American farmers in America. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy Preprint.

Kim, K., 2022. Agricultural bank acquisitions and post acquisition performance: An examination of the role of shared knowledge. Agribusiness 38(4):743-770.

 

Kirwan, Barrett E

 

"Political Influence in the Distribution of Agricultural Disaster Payments." Applied Economics, 2020. (with X. Liu)

 

Kropp, Jaclyn D

 

Kuethe, Todd

 

Hari Regmi and Todd H. Kuethe (2023) “Impact of Macroeconomic Assumptions on USDA’s Baseline Farm Income Projections,” Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, forthcoming.

 

Jennifer Ifft, Todd H. Kuethe, Gregory Lyons, and Alexander Schultz (2023) “Crop Insurance’s Impact on Commercial Bank Loan Volumes,” Applied Economic Perspectives & Policy, forthcoming.

 

Siddhartha Bora, Ani Katchova, and Todd H. Kuethe (2023) “The Accuracy and Informativeness of Agricultural Baselines,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 105: 1116-1148.

 

Daniel Bigelow and Todd H. Kuethe (2023) “The Impact of Preferential Farmland Taxation on Local Public Finances,” Regional Science and Urban Economics 98: 103848.

 

Todd H. Kuethe, Siddhartha Bora, and Ani Katchova (2022) “Improving ERS’s Net Cash Income Forecasts using USDA Baseline Projections,” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47 (2): 246-261.

 

Todd H. Kuethe, Brady Brewer, and Chad Fiechter (2022) “Loss Aversion in Farmland Price Expectations,” Land Economics 98 (1): 98-114.

 

Todd H. Kuethe, Chad Fiechter, and David Oppedahl (2022) “Perceived Competition in Agricultural Lending,” Agricultural Finance Review 82 (2): 417-437.

 

Siddhartha Bora, Ani Katchova, and Todd H. Kuethe (2021) “The Rationality of USDA Forecasts under Multivariate Asymmetric Loss,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 103 (3): 1006–1033. 

 

Wendong Zhang, Sergio Lence, and Todd H. Kuethe (2021) “Are Expert Opinions Accurate? Panel Data Evidence from the Iowa Land Value Survey” Land Economics 97 (4): 875-892.

 

Olga Isengildina Massa, Berna Karali, Todd H. Kuethe, and Ani Katchova (2021) “Joint Evaluation of the System of USDA’s Farm Income Forecasts,” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43 (3): 1140-1160.

 

Todd H. Kuethe and Todd Hubbs (2021) “Credit Booms and Financial Instability in U.S. Agriculture” Agricultural Finance Review 81 (1): 1-20.

 

Todd H. Kuethe and David B. Oppedahl (2021) “Agricultural Bankers’ Farmland Price Expectations,” European Review of Agricultural Economics 48 (1): 42-59.

 

Daniel Bigelow and Todd H. Kuethe (2020) “A Tale of Two Borders: Use-Value Assessment, Land Development, and Irrigation Adoption,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 102 (5): 1404-1424.

 

Dan Bigelow, Jennifer Ifft, and Todd H. Kuethe (2020) “Following the Market? Hedonic Valuation Using Sales Prices Versus Self-Reported Values,” Land Economics 96 (3): 418-440.

 

Langemeier, Michael R

 

Noumir, Ashraf M., Michael R. Langemeier, and Mindy L. Mallory. "Risk-adjusted farm returns and farm size." Agricultural Finance Review (2023).

 

Noumir, Ashraf, and Michael Langemeier. "Is Farmland a Common Risk Factor in Asset Pricing Models?." Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management 28.2 (2022): 153-165.

 

Langemeier, Michael, and Elizabeth Yeager. "Factors Impacting Variability and Downside Risk." Journal of the ASFMRA (American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers) 2022 (2022): 53-59.

 

Zulauf, Carl, Michael Langemeier, and Gary Schnitkey. "US Crop Profitability and Farm Safety Net Payments Since 1975." Journal of the ASFMRA (American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers) 2022 (2022): 60-69.

 

Larson, James

 

Leatham, David "Dave"

 

Wu, Wenbin, et al. "Gaussian process modeling of nonstationary crop yield distributions with applications to crop insurance." Agricultural Finance Review 81.5 (2021): 767-783.

 

Arunanondchai, Panit, Kunlapath Sukcharoen, and David J. Leatham. "Dealing with tail risk in energy commodity markets: Futures contracts versus exchange-traded funds." Journal of Commodity Markets 20 (2020): 100112.

 

Lee, Seunghyun

 

Lence, Sergio

 

Singerman, A. and S.H. Lence. “The Source of Uncertainty Influences Technology Adoption.” European Review of Agricultural Economics (forthcoming).  

 

Lence, S.H. and A. Singerman. 2023. “When Does Voluntary Coordination Work? Evidence from Area-Wide Pest Management.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 105(1):243-253. DOI: 10.1111/ajae.12308  

 

Malone, R.W., P.L. O’Brien, S. Herbstritt, B.D. Emmett, D.L. Karlen, T.C. Kaspar, K. Kohler, A. Radke, S.H. Lence, H. Wu, and T.L. Richard. 2022. “Rye-Soybean Double-Crop: Planting Method and N Fertilization Effects in the North Central US.” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 37:445-456. DOI 10.1017/S1742170522000096.   

 

Herbstritt, S., T.L. Richard, P.L. O’Brien, B. Emmett, D.L. Karlen, T.C. Kaspar, K. Kohler, H. Wu, S.H. Lence, and R. Malone. 2022. “Rye Double-Crop: Management, Forage Quality, and Revenue Opportunities for Feed and Bioenergy.” Agriculture 12:1691. DOI: 10.3390/agriculture12101691.  

 

Zhang, T. and S.H. Lence. 2022. “Liquidity and Asset Pricing: Evidence from the Chinese Stock Markets.” North-American Journal of Economics and Finance 59:101557. DOI 10.1016/j.najef.2021.101557.  

 

Zhang, W., S.H. Lence, and T. Kuethe. 2021. “Are Expert Opinions Accurate? Panel Data Evidence from the Iowa Land Value Survey.” Land Economics 97(4):875-892. DOI: 080820-0124R  

 

Plastina, A.S., S.H. Lence, and A. Ortiz-Bobea. 2021. “How Weather Affects the Decomposition of Total Factor Productivity in U.S. Agriculture.” Agricultural Economics 52(2):215-234. DOI: 10.1111/agec.12615 

 

Mallory, Mindy

 

Attachments

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AL, AR, FL, GA, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MT, NC, NY, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, VA, WI, WV

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions