Tag Archives: agricultural economics

Georgia Farmers Advocate for Relief & Reform at State Capitol

Posted on by

Atlanta, GA |

Recently in Atlanta, Georgia Farm Bureau showed off its grassroots strength as nearly 600 members attended this year’s GFB Day at the Capitol event – an annual gathering full of advocacy, education, and fellowship between members and their legislators.

“As a true grassroots organization, that is what we’re here for. We’re connecting the constituents and our members back home with their elected officials so they can hear directly from the experts what kind of hurdles they’re having to deal with on the farm. And there are thousands of bills that get introduced every year, they cannot be experts on every topic. So they rely on not only the folks that represent organizations, but especially when we can bring the members here directly so they can hear from them,” says Alex Bradford Director of Public for GFB.

Of course, the timing of the event couldn’t come at a better time as there are several ag issues being discussed this year; the main one being Hurricane Helene Relief, like increasing funding for the Safety 24 low interest loan program that would put money into farmers’ pockets.

“The Georgia Development Authority is overseeing the safety twenty-four low interest loan program. So one of the things we’re doing is advocating for more funding to be made available through that loan program so that low interest loan offers producers the loan at two percent, which is, well below market rate right now. Helps get them some cash quick as they begin the rebuild process and prepare and plan for this coming up growing season,” says Adam Belflower, GFB State Affairs Manager.

Another huge Hurricane Helene Relief measure comes with House Bill 223 – a bill that aims to provide relief to the sixty-six counties under disaster declaration: First and foremost, it would exempt state income tax on federal disaster assistance. Second, it would create a reforestation tax credit for all trees in the commercial production of timber, food, or wood products. Lastly it would provide a sales tax exemption for building materials for poultry houses and livestock barns – all things Belflower says would be great for the ag sector, but says they’re still working to find other helpful relief measures.

“There’s some other ideas in the chambers right now of what we can do to build on the work that’s already happening. So we’re working with members to try to see what the best path forward is, just to provide relief for our folks,” says Belflower.

Another big issue being worked on this year is tort reform as insurance premiums have undeniably gotten out of control, which has left small businesses, farmers, and their operations in a vulnerable position.

“What we’re seeing is it becoming more and more expensive to get insurance, access to insurance for some of these people that carry really high liability coverage, for different things whether that might be commercial trucking, different businesses in general. And really on all Georgians, it’s driving up the cost of doing business, and it’s driving up the cost for just everyday insurers to keep that coverage that they need. But overall, the goal is to drive down the cost of doing business and to ease a burden on Georgians that are really just constantly getting hit with skyrocketing insurance rates, small business owners, farmers that are constantly at threat of a lawsuit,” says Belflower.

By: John Holcomb

U.S. Agricultural Trade Deficit Hits Record High: Will New Tariffs on Canada & Mexico Help?

Posted on by

Athens, GA |

With the agricultural trade deficit reaching a record high of more than thirty billion dollars in 2024, sweeping changes are being discussed to get things back into balance. And chief among them is a tariff being placed on goods imported from Canada and Mexico, which would impact on one sector in particular.

“Some parties may benefit and some may be hurt. So, we have producers of fruits and vegetables in this country. To the extend we put a trade barrier in place and prevent and raise the price of goods that are coming in from Mexico, say for fruits and vegetables, it might make fruit and vegetable products in the United States more competitive. So, it might actually raise the welfare of domestic fruit and vegetable producers,” says Michael Adjemian, Professor of Agriculture & Applied Economics.

As for consumers, potential price increases at the grocery store from these proposed tariffs might just depend on the time of year.

“There’s different growing seasons for products depending on the country that they come from. Right now, US consumers are used to consuming fruits and vegetables year around, but we have a specific season for growing those products in the United States. So, if we limit the trade between the US and Mexico, the price of the products that we import from Mexico will be higher seasonally,” says Adjemian.

This policy would also have an impact on the export market as retaliatory tariffs would likely be the byproduct. However, those effects might not be long lasting if the US is able to cultivate new partners.

“Domestic agricultural producers export quite a bit of what we produce. And so, to the extent that, tariffs overseas are put in place as retaliation to the tariffs that the United States is putting into place, then that can actually reduce the profitability or the revenue that is able to be generated by those exports. On the other hand, because these are bilateral tariffs, it may be the case that US exporters can find alternative markets for their products. So, after a period of adjustment, it may be the case that prices even out,” says Adjemian.

That forced expansion might also be a net positive in the long term as it would showcase American goods to other countries.

“It may be the case that by learning we can expose consumers around the world to just how good US agricultural products are. And maybe we’re forced to through policy, through tariffs, find alternative markets, then that may expand, kind of the market access in the long run, especially if these tariffs aren’t kind of put in place for a long period of time if at all. So, we potentially may see new markets opening to our goods,” says Adjemian.

However, there is also a possible downside to limiting trade with two of the largest importers of US agricultural goods.

“If other countries retaliate to our tariffs that we put into place, and the limit, the supply of US products that they purchase, then they may start to, and other countries around the world may start to invest in agriculture and start to produce products that compete with our exports,” says Adjemian.

By: Damon Jones