Search
Displaying 671 - 680 of 1038
July 8, 2011
Agribusiness Papers
Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of Manufacturers
(www.census.gov/manufacturing/asm/index.html … PAYROLL
Source: Annual Survey of Manufacturers, Census … MANUFACTURING)
Source: Annual Survey of Manufacturers, Census …
April 28, 2016
representative U.S. public & producer surveys
– Nov. 2013 – May 2014 … Producer and U.S. Public
Survey Responses
• Supporting … Supporting
Principles
• BOTH SURVEYS
– In your opinion, should …
January 10, 2017
Soil compaction?
Crop Residue
River Valley and Post Rock Extension Districts 2015 Leasing Survey◦ Crop Residue: $9.00 per acre (Range $3‐$25) ◦ … Cover Crops: $12.50 per acre (Range $10‐$15)
University of Nebraska 2015 Survey◦ Corn Stalks: $11‐$15 … Corn Stalks: $11‐$15 per acre
Iowa State University 2016 Cash Rental Rates Survey◦ Corn Stalks: $12 per acre (Range $8‐$19)
Cover Crops
Advantages◦ …
October 22, 2020
Precision Ag and Technology Articles
Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) (McFadden,
2017 … used to control drones that survey the fields. Smartphones alert … agriculture practices. One 2019 survey of over 2,000 corn, soybean …
June 21, 2018
Animal Health
2
The purpose of the research summarized here was to estimate the value of metaphylactic use in U.S. cattle
feeding and determine economic impacts on consumers and producers if its use were eliminated.
Procedures:
To accomplish the objective, a cattle feeding net return simulation model was developed to determine how use
of metaphylaxis impacts net return distributions. Net return distributions for high health risk cattle were
compared across three different animal placement weight categories (550, 700, and 850 lbs.) and two health
treatments (metaphylaxis and no metaphylaxis). The cattle feeding simulation estimated changes in net returns
distributions and translated these into short‐run producer and consumer surplus changes with and without the
use of metaphylaxis in treatment of high health‐risk cattle. Producer and consumer impacts were estimated
using a multi‐market partial equilibrium model that allows for changes in the feedlot industry to be transmitted
from beef to pork, lamb, and poultry final consumers through a series of market linkages, including international
trade.
Key Findings:
Use of metaphylaxis is most profitable when administered to high health‐risk cattle having lighter placement
weight. On average, high health‐risk 550‐lb. placements lose $104.46 per head; 700‐lb. high health‐risk cattle
placements lose $99.26 per head; and 850‐lb. high health‐risk cattle placements lose $63.36 per head when not
treated with metaphylaxis relative to treated cattle. Greater uncertainty in net returns is associated with no
metaphylaxis and lighter placement weights (see Figure 1).
The feedlot data used in this research was collected from ten large Midwestern feedlots which are
representative of traditional large scale production feedlots. These feedlots, on average, used metaphylaxis as a
health management protocol on 87% of 550‐625 lbs. placements; 23% of 626‐775 lbs. placements; 4% of 776‐
925 lbs. placements, and 26% of all cattle placed. These estimates are higher than those reported by NAHMS
surveys of cattle feeders of 68%, 18%, 3%, and 20%, for each of the three placement weight categories and
overall cattle treatment, respectively.
The value, metaphylactic application rates, and number of cattle placed on feed in a given year in each weight
class were used to calculate the cumulative value of metaphylaxis to the U.S. cattle feeding industry. If
metaphylaxis were eliminated, and cattle producers did not substitute into other health management practices,
net returns to the cattle feeding sector would decline by $532.18 million to $679.56 million annually if the
metaphylactic application rates were similar to NAHMS or our sample feedlot data, respectively. These translate
to a reduction of 0.92% or 1.17% in industry gross revenue for NAHMS and our sample feedlot data, respectively
(see Table 1).
Kansas State University Department Of Agricultural Economics Extension Publication …
August 1, 2021
Breakout Sessions
data.
• Farmers answered surveys about conservation practice … their time and travel.
Survey Questions
Crop Have you … practice for this question.
Survey Questions
Asked this type …
September 30, 2021
Patterns
https://www.agmanager.info/livestock-meat/meat-
demand/monthly-meat-demand-monitor-survey-data
https://www.agmanager … monthly-meat-demand-monitor-survey-data
https://www.agmanager … monthly-meat-demand-monitor-survey-data
https://www.agmanager.info/livestock-meat/meat-
demand/monthly-export-meat-demand-indices-usdabls-data
LOTS …
October 1, 2021
2021 Crop Insurance Workshop Presentations
Center
https://www.agmanager.info/livestock-meat/meat-
demand/monthly-meat-demand-monitor-survey-data
https://www.agmanager.i … monthly-meat-demand-monitor-survey-data
https://www.agmanager … monthly-meat-demand-monitor-survey-data
https://www.agmanager.info/livestock-meat/meat-
demand/monthly-export-meat-demand-indices-usdabls-data
LOTS …
June 21, 2022
https://www.beefboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Assessing-
Beef-Demand-Determinants.pdf
https://www.agmanager.info/livestock-meat/meat-demand/monthly-meat-demand-monitor-survey-data
https://www.agmanager … monthly-meat-demand-monitor-survey-data
https://www.agmanager …
August 1, 2022
Breakout Sessions
2020
Share of expenses
All Others
Rent and Lease Payments
Interest
Repairs and Maintenance
Fertilizer and Chemicals
Seed and plants
Fuels and oils
Source: USDA‐ARMS (Agricultural Resource Management Survey)
Soybean farm costs
Sourc … … Actual unit costs or raw materials?• Survey based? • Index based? • …