U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

39–864 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–233

HARVEST OVER THE HORIZON: THE CHALLENGES

OF AGING IN AGRICULTURE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC

JUNE 21, 2007

Serial No. 110–9

Printed for the use of the Special Committee on Aging

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

DEBRA WHITMAN, Staff Director 

CATHERINE FINLEY, Ranking Member Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Senator Gordon Smith ....................................................... 1

Opening Statement of Senator Herb Kohl ............................................................. 2

Prepared Statement of Senator Robert Casey ....................................................... 11

PANEL I 

Keith Collins, chief economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 3

PANEL II 

Barry Beshue, president, Oregon Farm Bureau, Boring, OR .............................. 23

John Rosenow, farmer affiliated with the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, 

Arts and Letters, Cochrane, WI .......................................................................... 30

Derek Godwin, staff chair and Watershed Management Extension Specialist, 

Oregon State University Extension Service, Salem, OR .................................. 37

Isaac Kershaw, Ph.D., Ohio State Department of Education, Career Tech 

and Adult Education, Columbus, OH; representing Future Farmers of 

America ................................................................................................................. 42

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statement of Senator Ken Salazar ........................................................ 47

Responses to Senator Casey’s Questions from Keith Collins ............................... 47

Responses to Senator Casey’s Questions from John Rosenow ............................. 51

Responses to Senator Casey’s Questions from Isaac Kershaw ............................ 52

(III) 

(1)

HARVEST OVER THE HORIZON: THE 

CHALLENGE OF AGING IN AGRICULTURE 

THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2007

U.S. SENATE, SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:02 a.m., in room 

325, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Gordon H. Smith (ranking member of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Kohl, Casey, and Smith. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR GORDON H. SMITH, 

RANKING MEMBER 

Senator SMITH. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We welcome you all. 

I am grateful to be here with my colleague, Senator Kohl, who 

is the Chairman of this Committee. The way he and I operate, we 

do it in a very bipartisan way and tend to see these issues not as 

Republican or Democrat, but as issues that affect older Americans. 

There has not been too much discussion on the aging demographics of American agriculture. So I look forward today to a productive discussion with our panelists. 

I want to extend a personal welcome to two Oregonians who are 

here: Barry Beshue of the Oregon Farm Bureau and Derek Godwin 

of Oregon State University. We congratulate the Beavers on their 

progress in the World Series. [Laughter.] 

As Congress moves forward with Farm Bill proposals, it might 

be worth considering how many farmers will be around 10 years 

from now and how old they will be. Right now, nearly a quarter 

of farm operations in the country are 65 years of age or older. That 

contrasts with only 8 percent of that age class in non-agricultural 

industries. 

That statistic becomes even more significant when we look at the 

shrinking number of farms in America. In 1930, there were over 

6 million American farms. In 2002, there was one-sixth of that 

number. Clearly, farms are either consolidating or disappearing altogether. Young people are either not entering the business, not 

taking over the family business, or both. 

This trend has something to do with how hard it is to be a farmer these days. In the West, farmers do not just have to deal with 

crops and fuel prices; they also have drought and wildfire and endangered species to deal with. 

But why should we care? Well, we should. 

First of all, agriculture remains a unique part of this country, a 

land blessed with fertile soil and good climate. Americans once beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:54 Jan 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\39864.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
2

lieved that rain follows the plow. The dry corners of my State, however, disprove that theory, but not the interest and intransigence 

of the American farmer. 

The U.S. Capitol is adorned with images of wheat and tobacco. 

‘‘America the Beautiful’’ speaks of amber waves of grain and the 

fruited plain. 

I love the quote of Thomas Jefferson, who spoke of the virtues 

of American agriculture. Wrote he, ‘‘Those who labor in the earth 

are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen people, whose 

breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue. It is the focus in which he keeps alive that sacred fire, 

which otherwise might escape from the face of the earth.’’ The importance of American agriculture can also be described in more 

tangible terms. There is a national security interest of a country 

that can and does produce its own food supply. The U.S. produced 

a record amount of food in 2006. 

We also imported a record amount of food, with imports continuing to close in on that gap. Recent stories of tainted food from 

foreign nations remind us of why our agriculture and our health 

and safety standards are important. 

Last, so many of the communities in my State are rural and 

based on a farm economy of one sort or another. As farms dissolve 

and children move away, those communities suffer. 

Again, I look forward to hearing more from our panelists about 

these issues and what options we, as a Government, have to turn 

to in order to turn the current trend around. 

With that, I turn to the Chairman, Senator Kohl. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL, CHAIRMAN 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we thank Senator Smith for holding today’s 

hearing on the challenge of aging in agriculture. 

Welcome our witnesses and look forward to their testimony. 

In my own State, this is an especially important topic because, 

in Wisconsin, the average age of farmers is 53 years. It is critical 

that the decades of knowledge and experience of these farmers is 

not lost. 

Wisconsin has 76,000 farms, a very, very high number of farms, 

and they generate more than $51 billion annually in revenues. So, 

being the largest industry in our State, it is not only a serious 

workforce issue, it is a critical issue for the entire economy of our 

State. 

We are truly at the front line in facing the challenge of aging in 

agriculture. Wisconsin is preparing to meet this challenge. 

We will hear today from John Rosenow of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 

The academy spent the last 2 years researching the future of 

farming and rural life in Wisconsin. Academy members met with 

hundreds of Wisconsin farmers and conducted six regional forums 

throughout the State to identify problems and opportunities. Their 

comprehensive study has resulted in more than 80 recommendations for action items to be undertaken by policymakers, communities and citizens. 

3

We look forward to hearing the details of their important work 

today from Mr. Rosenow, who operates a very successful family 

farm in our State. 

As a Nation, we must address our rapidly aging farming communities. As you will hear today from Mr. Rosenow, without things 

like good schools, good jobs, affordable health care, our rural communities will lose their vitality. 

I strongly believe that continuing this vitality will require continuing intelligent Federal involvement, and I believe it is necessary for the Federal Government to help rural life if we expect 

rural life to continue to thrive and grow. 

Again, I thank Senator Smith for raising this issue today in this 

Committee. I am delighted to have this distinguished group of witnesses assembled to explore these issues and offer solutions that, 

hopefully, will allow our Nation’s farmers and our rural communities to continue to exist at a level of prosperity in our country. 

Thank you so much. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Kohl. 

We had scheduled to have Chuck Connor, the deputy secretary 

of Agriculture, with us today, but he has been called to a meeting 

at the White House, and it is a higher pay grade than Senator Kohl 

and I have, but we are very grateful that Keith Collins has come 

in his stead. He is well-equipped to address this issue. 

Keith, we thank you for your time, your presence and your competence on these issues. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH COLLINS, DEPUTY CHIEF ECONOMIST, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, thank you very much, Senator Smith, Chairman Kohl. Good morning. It is nice to be here. 

I do want to begin by saying that Secretary Connor regrets that 

he is not able to open this important hearing this morning. As you 

noted, some serious issues have arisen that have compelled him to 

stay back at the department this morning, and I thank you for permitting me to pinch hit for him this morning. 

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Smith, USDA very much appreciates the 

chance to talk about issues related to older farmers and ranchers 

in American agriculture. Agriculture today is undergoing some very 

significant and rapid changes. We have sharp growth in international trade, we have new production and processing technologies emerge almost daily, and we have had this remarkable increase in the demand for biofuels. All of these things are presenting new economic opportunities. 

The past few years have generally been prosperous times for 

American agriculture, and we expect another above-average year 

for farm income in 2007. Higher incomes and rising land values 

have added substantially to the wealth of producers. 

At the start of this year, U.S. farm equity, or net worth, totaled 

$1.7 trillion. That is up half a trillion from just 3 years ago. Stronger economic returns to farm production are important for attracting 

people new people into farming and for keeping current young 

farmers in operation. 

But hoping for prosperous times may not be enough to deal with 

the advancing age of our farmers. The average age of primary farm 

4

operators, which partly reflects the rising average age of our population as a whole, has increased nearly 5 years, from 50.5 years in 

1982 to 55.3 years in 2002, the last agricultural census year. 

As Mr. Smith noted, the primary operator on nearly one-fourth 

of all farms with $10,000 or more in annual sales was 65 years of 

age or older in 2002. 

The rise in the average age of primary operators reflects both a 

decline in the number of young farmers and an increase in the 

number of older farmers. The continuing decline in the number of 

younger farmers has raised concerns that insufficient new entrants 

will be available to replace a large and growing number of retiring 

farmers. 

I want to emphasize that there is no evidence that a shortage of 

farm operators has caused or is likely to cause in the near future 

reduced production and higher prices of U.S. farm commodities. 

There is evidence that there are a substantial number of young 

farmers present on farms, although they do not serve as the primary operator. These secondary and third-level operators in many 

cases represent future primary operators. 

While there appears to be no impending slowdown in farm production resulting from the advancing age of primary farm operators, there are important concerns about how the upcoming 

intergenerational transfers may affect the future structure of agriculture. 

Primary operators 65 years of age or older own over one-fourth 

of farm assets and one-third of the total acres of land in farms. 

Ultimately, these assets will be sold or passed on to their heirs. 

Selling or leasing these assets to existing operators would raise 

concerns about consolidation and its effects on the structure of agriculture, local economies and rural landscapes. 

Over the past two decades, there have already been substantial 

declines in the number of mid-sized farms and increases in the 

largest size farms. 

The divergence between the number of younger new farm entrants into production agriculture and the exit of older retiring 

farmers and the potential barrier to entry of new farmers created 

by rising farmland values and the rising complexity of farm production today are factors behind interest in policies to encourage entry 

into agriculture and to assist in the intergenerational transfer of 

assets from one generation to the next. 

The USDA has a number of ongoing programs to help older farmers and to encourage beginning farmers, and there are many wonderful private-sector programs and dedicated professionals involved 

in helping farm businesses prosper and transition. 

Our efforts at USDA range from programs supported through the 

Cooperate State Research Education and Extension Service that 

help older farmers and their families improve their business and 

their family planning. We also support 4-H and its 9,000 members 

that teach young people leadership, citizenship and life skills. We 

assist FFA and its 500,000 members which orient young people toward careers in agriculture. We have also targeted our credit programs and our other assistance programs to beginning farmers. 

5

Today, I would also like to highlight the opportunity we have 

with the 2007 Farm Bill to address the challenge of effectively 

transferring today’s farms from one generation to the next. 

The administration is recommending a broad package of changes 

to several Farm Bill titles that provide additional support to beginning farmers and ranchers. You may have seen our book, which I 

will hold up for you. It is 183 pages of Farm Bill ideas, and we 

have a special section on beginning farmers. 

As part of our proposals, we suggest for the commodity title that 

beginning farmers receive a 20 percent increase in their direct payment rate for 5 years. That would add an estimated $250 million 

to new producers’ incomes over the next decade. 

Under the conservation title in our proposals, we are recommending that 10 percent of Farm Bill conservation financial assistance be reserved for beginning farmers as well as socially disadvantaged producers under what we are calling a new conservation access initiative. 

As part of the credit title, we recommend prioritizing USDA’s direct operating and farm ownership loans to first meet the needs of 

beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers. We also recommend 

enhancing the existing beginning farmer and rancher down payment loan program to help ensure the success of the next generation of production agriculture. 

Of course, we know that the Federal, State and local Government 

programs alone cannot ensure that older and beginning farmers 

can successfully meet all the life challenges found in farming. Private-sector efforts are critical. Market incentives from a strong 

farm economy are essential. 

Nevertheless, the 2007 Farm Bill provides an excellent opportunity, an opportunity we should not chance missing, to improve 

the effectiveness of our collective efforts. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Collins. 

You mentioned, and I referred to it as well, the number of farms 

declining. What about the acreage under cultivation? Is that declining? 

Mr. COLLINS. There has been a general trend over the last decade of a decline in the number of acres planted to principal crops 

and a slight decline in the total number of acres in farms. It looks 

like this year, in 2007, that is going to reverse itself. It will see an 

increase. 

Senator SMITH. Is that due to food and fuel now being an option 

for farmers? 

Mr. COLLINS. That is the primary reason, yes. 

Senator SMITH. Are more farmers taking land out of the Conservation Reserve Program as a result of that? 

Mr. COLLINS. Not yet. We have about 36 million acres in the 

Conservation Reserve Program. 

Senator SMITH. Do you expect that that will happen? 

Mr. COLLINS. I expect that that will happen. Over the next four 

years, between 2007 and 2010, we have about 12 million acres 

under contracts that will terminate. What gets planted depends on 

what we do at USDA: Will we hold more open enrollments, more 

signups, and how frequently will we do that? We will give people 

6

an opportunity to put that or other land in, and, of course, the 

rental rate we offer is an incentive to do that. It will depend on 

whether farmers pick that up or not. 

Senator SMITH. With the improvement in farm economies 

through so much of the country, I am wondering if that is a category that will really be in decline and then the amount of acreage 

will be dramatically on the increase. 

Mr. COLLINS. Our current projection is that the 37 million acres 

would fall to around 32 million acres in the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) over the next several years. 

Senator SMITH. From 40 to 32? 

Mr. COLLINS. From 37 to 32. 

Senator SMITH. From 37 to 32. 

Do you have any bias or preference for encouraging more land to 

go under cultivation, come out of the program? I mean, does the administration have a policy on that? 

Mr. COLLINS. The administration’s articulated policy is that there 

will be no open enrollment in 2007 because of the record high 

prices we expect for many commodities. The Secretary has indicated he is reserving judgment at this point on whether he will 

hold another signup in 2008. We do——

Senator SMITH. It seems to me that the farmers would rather 

farm, and if they have options that are profitable, that ought to be 

encouraged because the Nation needs the food and the fuel, and the 

competition between the two is certainly squeezing the food chain. 

Mr. COLLINS. I think you make a very good point. It is a point 

that I have made from an economic point of view. There is also, on 

the other side, a very strong conservation movement that would 

like to retain the environmental benefits that have been achieved 

under the program as it now exists. So those two needs have to be 

balanced. 

Senator SMITH. Sure. 

I want to ask you about imports. Despite the improving farm 

economy, imports continue to be on the rise. We are at about a 50–

50 point between domestic and foreign food production. I am wondering if you see any reversal on that, or is USDA concerned that 

we are going to become a net food importing nation? 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, that prospect has been before us over the last 

several years, and, in fact, if you go back two or three years ago, 

many people were projecting, within the next few years, we would 

become a net importer. In fact, that has not happened, and the gap 

between exports and imports has widened a little bit. This year, we expect about $77.5 billion worth of agricultural ex- ports and around $70 billion in imports. So there is a spread of 

nearly $8 billion at this point. Now that is way down from $25 billion to $30 billion that it was in the mid–1990’s. 

So imports have grown faster than exports. Over the last couple 

of years and probably the next couple of years, it looks like they 

are probably going to grow together, so I do not really expect them 

to cross. 

Senator SMITH. As we contemplate this issue of the older farmer 

I live in rural Oregon, I am surrounded by farmer neighbors, and 

many of their kids go off to Oregon State and other places, and 

they go into fields. 

7

Do you think if the dollars improve that that will do the job and 

get more of them to look to agriculture as their daily bread as well? 

I suspect that is a central key. 

Mr. COLLINS. I am a market-oriented guy, and I think that when 

the rates of return in some investment go up and exceed the rates 

of return in other investments, then assets move into that, both 

human capital and in physical assets. So I think that that could 

help solve the problem. 

The question is, though, what does that structure of agriculture 

look like as that occurs? Are the assets that are moving into agriculture existing farmers that are getting much, much bigger and 

foreclosing on the opportunity of current farm children to farm? 

There is a question about what that structure of agriculture 

would look like, and I think that is why, even though we do not 

perceive of an insufficiency of people willing to farm, we are concerned about giving people—young people, people that live on 

farms and people that do not live on farms—an opportunity to have 

a chance in agriculture. 

So, yes, I think a market rate of return can be a powerful incentive for generating production, but I also think that there are also 

social and other issues that have to be dealt with here as well that 

motivate the reason for policies and programs. 

Senator SMITH. Now, as you contemplate a new Farm Bill, I am 

sure you know that one of the biggest costs in running a farm is 

just compliance with regulations. Is there anything you are planning to do or prepared to propose to streamline regulation, reduce 

it, eliminate it where possible, to help, or do you see the regulatory 

burden just growing and growing? 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, the regulatory burden has grown. USDA is 

not a large regulatory agency with respect to farmers. In fact, 

through our Natural Resources Conservation Service we provide 

the tools to farmers to help them meet regulations that generally 

come from the Environmental Protection Agency or the Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management and so on. 

I would say that one development that we have seen, and something that we have proposed in the administration’s Farm Bill proposals, is to try and rely more on markets to deal with environmental regulation. I mean, the clearest example we see today is the 

voluntary market for greenhouse gas offsets that revolves around 

the Chicago Climate Exchange. 

We have a proposal to broaden that dramatically and to get the 

regulatory agencies to come to the table, USDA and the other regulatory agencies, to come to the table and agree on how activities of 

farmers—ecosystem services they are called, like mitigating greenhouse gas emissions—how these ecosystem services could be used 

to comply with regulations. 

That way, farmers, in fact, might be able to get paid for an ecosystem service that a public utility or an electrical generating plant 

would use to meet an environmental regulation. So we have a 

broad-based proposal that looks at both farm regulation as well as 

societal regulation that would get farmers an opportunity to be a 

solution for people who are being regulated and earn an income at 

the same time. It is kind of a creative idea. 

8

Senator SMITH. It is. This is my last question. I will turn it over 

to the Chairman. But I am wondering—and I do not know the answer to the question I am about to ask you, but when it comes to 

global warming and providing carbon sinks, what captures more 

carbon, fields left idle or fields under cultivation? Is there a difference between one crop versus another? 

Mr. COLLINS. Oh, there is definitely a difference between one 

crop and another, and the answer to that question is, it all depends. You can, certainly, through cultivation, dramatically increase carbon sequestration, but if you left the field idle and you 

did not tend it and it did not have a good cover crop, it would lose 

organic matter and would be a net emitter. 

So with using the right crops, the right cover crops, the right rotations, the right tillage practices, you can restore soil carbon and 

you can sequester greenhouse gases, and if you look at——

Senator SMITH. That would be an argument on the side of taking 

land out of CRP, an environmental value on the side of the economy. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, the extreme case, of course, is that you cultivate the land by planting trees, and then you can get the most 

carbon sequestration. 

Senator SMITH. We are big on that in Oregon. [Laughter.] 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Kohl. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Smith. 

Welcome to you, Mr. Collins. I have had the opportunity, as you 

know, to work with you now——

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. For many years, and you are a 

great, great asset to the USDA and a great asset to our country. 

I have always found my interaction with you to be extremely positive and informative, and it is good to see you here today. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, thank you very much, Senator Kohl. That is 

a nice compliment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Collins, one of the things, of course, that the 

farmers talk about is the ability to pass on their farm to their 

heirs, and in that connection, they talk about the estate tax exemption, and many of those who are pushing for total abolition of the 

estate tax refer to ranchers and farmers as being key in this area. 

I think, to some extent, it is really not true, but do you think in 

order to put this aside entirely in terms of the estate tax impacts 

on small ranchers and family farmers, we might increase the exemption from what it is today, which I believe is $2 million, $4 million a couple, to maybe $4 million or $5 million so that, in fact, we 

would put 98 or 99 percent of all family farms in this country out 

of the reach of the estate tax? 

Mr. COLLINS. I cannot state what the administration’s position 

on that would be, but my view on this would be that that would 

be a very positive thing to do. At one time, that unified credit exemption was as little as, what, $650,000, very burdensome for 

many, many family farms. I think, as you raise that up, you do resolve a problem that farms would face in transitioning from one 

generation to the next. 

9

So I do not know if that is going to resolve the issue and take 

it off the table, but I think it would be a very positive step for 

farmers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I agree with that, and I think we 

need to move in that direction. 

Mr. Collins, there is always a debate when we set a Federal 

budget, particularly farm policy. There are those who believe there 

are fairly generous farm policies and rural expenditures already 

important to our country in terms of trying to keep rural America 

alive, growing and thriving, and there are others who believe that 

the market should more or less run its course and have its impact 

and we here in Washington setting Federal policy with tax dollars 

should more or less not get overly involved in that whole discussion. 

Many of us, and I am one of them, believe that if we are going 

to see our rural economy and rural life continue on and, hopefully, 

grow, then there has to be some level of Federal involvement, 

things like good schools, helping to create jobs, health-care benefits, 

Internet connection, you know, cable kinds of setups. These things 

cost money, and these things take some level of Federal tax expenditure. 

Where do you fall in terms of your philosophical thoughts about 

how important it is, A, to keep our rural life thriving and growing, 

including agriculture, of course, which is the foundation of rural 

America, and that we should be willing to spend a certain amount 

of tax dollars to encourage this? 

Mr. COLLINS. Senator Kohl, I personally and as representing the 

Department of Agriculture, I can say the Department of Agriculture feels very strongly in favor of the sentiment that you just 

expressed. The Department of Agriculture is responsible for coordinating rural development across the Federal Government. We are 

dedicated to the mission of trying to increase economic activity in 

rural areas. 

Yes, there can be a debate about whether you should let the market take its course. I mean, that debate is often framed in terms 

of people versus place. Do you invest in people, such as equipping 

them with better human capital, more skills, more education and 

let them go where they want, or do you invest in place to give people that live in a certain area an economic opportunity that would 

parallel those that might live in suburban or urban areas. 

I think the answer to that is you do both, and in the Department 

of Agriculture, we do both. As you know, we have a vigorous rural 

development program that invests in things like you talked about: 

broadband connections, rural community infrastructure, water and 

sewer systems and libraries and health-care facilities and 

firehouses. We provide lending for all of those things, and we think 

those are all very important to help develop the network of infrastructure on which rural businesses can prosper and provide rural 

jobs and rural growth and economic employment opportunities for 

rural people. 

We target a lot of our programs to the areas of the country where 

poverty levels are the highest, the persistent poverty counties of 

our country, and so we think that from both an economic and a social perspective that we ought to be investing in rural America. 

10

That is why Farm Bills have a rural development title, and we 

think that is very, very important, and we have proposals as well 

in our Farm Bill proposal to expand our funding of our rural development activities. 

So I would say the position you voiced is one that we subscribe 

to very strongly. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much. Thank you for being 

here. 

Thank you, Senator Smith. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Kohl. 

We have been joined by Senator Casey of Pennsylvania. 

Senator, if you have an opening statement or questions for the 

witness, we welcome those. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Senator Smith and Chairman Kohl. 

I do not have any questions for Mr. Collins in the interest of 

time. I am sorry I missed your presentation. If we have something 

that we could submit for the record by way of writing—and just 

some brief comments to open because I know we want to transition 

to a new panel, and I know we got notice about votes, too. 

Just very briefly, I want to thank the Chairman for calling this 

hearing, and with unanimous consent, I will ask that my full statement be made part of the record. 

Senator SMITH. Without objection. 

Senator CASEY. But I did want to say how appreciative I am to 

be on this Committee and also to be able to participate in this 

hearing because I come from a State where agriculture is not just 

an important industry or an important economic sector; it is the 

dominant one in large measure. Millions of people affected by what 

happens on our farms and what happens to our farm families, 

dairy being a huge component of that. 

All of the issues that have been discussed already today and will 

be discussed in the second panel about the aging of our workforce, 

and in particular the aging of our farm families and farmers have 

a tremendous impact on Pennsylvania, so we need to focus on this, 

and I am grateful that this hearing calls attention to that challenge, especially in the context of our dairy farmers. 

It is very difficult to do the work. It is very difficult to get the 

capital to acquire the land. We see this firsthand in Pennsylvania. 

So I am grateful for this opportunity. I want to thank the Chairman, and I also want to thank Senator Smith for allowing us to 

come together today. 

By the way, this is the first time I have been in this room for 

a hearing, in this historic hearing room, so thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Casey follows:]

11

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT P. CASEY

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing on the challenge of aging 

in agriculture. As you may know, in my home state, agriculture continues to be the 

number one industry. Dairy is our largest agricultural segment, accounting for 42% 

of all agricultural revenues. 

Unfortunately, the impact of aging in agriculture and the difficulties facing young 

farmers pose an all too real threat to the continued success of our dairy industry. 

Pennsylvania continues to lose between 250 and 350 dairy farms every year due to 

farm sellouts and retirements. While the vast majority of Pennsylvania dairy farms 

are family operations, younger generations are increasingly reluctant to work the 

long, hard hours required when they see their parents doing this same work and 

not being able to make ends meet. 

New start-ups of dairy farms typically number less than 30 per year. One reason 

for this is that the cost of purchasing land is extremely high, making it nearly impossible for young farmers to start new operations. All told, between 1995 and 2004, 

Pennsylvania saw a 29% reduction in the number of dairy farms. 

Pennsylvania’s situation is not unique. Nationally the average age of farmers continues to increase as fewer young people choose farming as an occupation. At the 

same time, the number of farms and farm acres continues to decline. 

American farming has reached a critical threshold. We must find solutions to reduce these trends, to encourage our young people to seek careers in agricultural production. Likewise, we must ensure the availability of incentives to ensure agricultural production remains a viable occupation for young farmers. 

I again would like to thank the Chairman for calling this hearing. I look forward 

to hearing the testimony and working with my colleagues to find solutions to these 

challenges.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Casey. Yes, this is a very 

historic room, and it is appropriate for the Aging Committee to be 

here. 

Thank you very much, Keith Collins, for your time and your testimony today. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:]

12


39864.001
13


39864.002
14


39864.003
15


39864.004
16


39864.005
17


39864.006
18


39864.007
19


39864.008
20


39864.009
21


39864.010
22


39864.011
23

Senator SMITH. We will call up our second panel. 

It consists of Barry Beshue, president of the Oregon Farm Bureau; Dr. Ike Kershaw, Department of Education of the State of 

Ohio, representing the Future Farmers of America; Derek Godwin, 

staff chairman and watershed management specialist from Oregon 

State University; and John Rosenow, a farmer affiliated with the 

Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 

I will give everybody fair warning. Apparently, they are going to 

have a couple of votes here. We will try to get through all of your 

testimonies and questions, if we can, but appreciate your time here. 

We want to give you the time that you have prepared to present. 

Any abbreviation you can do, we appreciate that, too. All of your 

testimonies will be fully included in the record. 

Barry, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY BESHUE, PRESIDENT, OREGON FARM 

BUREAU, BORING, OR 

Mr. BESHUE. Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Smith and Senator Casey, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My children are pleased that I was actually able to 

comment on something for which I am eminently qualified, and 

that is getting old. So they sent my congratulations along and their 

thanks to Senator Smith. 

It is a privilege to represent all members of the Oregon Farm Bureau and the agricultural community in the great State of Oregon. 

Oregon Farm Bureau is the largest agricultural organization in the 

State, representing all aspects of our industry. Consequently, our 

industry and our interests are wide and diverse. 

However, among those many interests of the farmers and ranchers in Oregon, there is one key element that ties us all together, 

and that is the desire to keep agriculture economically viable, passing down our family operations to future generations, and to continue to provide Americans with the safest food and fiber in the 

world. 

More often than not, the general public regards the Farm Bill as 

the only legislation affecting the agricultural industry. What most 

do not understand is that nearly every aspect of public policy decisions has a significant impact on agriculture. These issues, most 

outside the scope of the Farm Bill, and the effect on future and beginning farmers are what I would like to focus on today. 

As an ambassador for Oregon agriculture, I am deeply concerned 

about the future of our industry. In Oregon, 29 percent of farmers 

are over 65. A full 81 percent are 45 years old or older, with only 

a quarter of a percent being 25 years old. I doubt this is significantly different than the national statistics. 

Farming is not easy. There are no guarantees, no paychecks 

every 2 weeks, little stability, and it is extremely expensive to 

start. These statements probably beg the question, why in the 

world would anyone want to be part of the industry? The answer 

is clearly the shear love of the land. 

Environmental conservation is of the utmost importance to farmers and to ranchers. It is too often that farmers and ranchers are 

labeled as anti-environmentalist. I am here to clarify that and tell 

24

you that farmers and ranches are directly involved in the protection and the utilization of the environment surrounding it. 

Preservation of land and conservation of other natural resources 

is necessary if we are to live and professionally thrive. However, 

increasing and unnecessary regulations on the industry continue to 

force established farmers and ranchers out of business. That is not 

much of an incentive for a young person. 

For example, the Agricultural Protection and Prosperity Act of 

2007 currently circulating through Congress regarding the Comprehensive Environmental Recovery, Compensation & Liability Act 

is critical to future producers. I do not believe it was ever the intention of Congress for CERCLA to apply to manure. The law 

clearly exempts the application of chemical fertilizers containing 

the same constituents as manure, which occur naturally in the environment. Furthermore, animal agriculture operations are already 

regulated under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and various State and Federal laws to protect our environment. 

Regulations in areas such as animal agriculture are also a critical disincentive for new entrants and encourage aging operators to 

exit earlier. For example, over the last decade, Illinois lost half of 

its livestock operators, and the burden and costs associated with 

environmental regulation were no doubt a factor in those decisions. 

In many cases, the loss took the form of a 55-year-old operator 

exiting now rather remodeling facilities and changing operating 

procedures radically. Most of what would have been the natural replacement of exiting operators was also cutoff by the complicated 

regulations governing new farmers and entrants. 

The agricultural industry continues to educate Congress on animal rights groups, their strategies and their ultimate goal of ending animal production for food. Not only would this have a devastating economic impact, but also the public campaigns on behalf 

of these groups provide the public with misinformation and half 

truths. The mission of our industry is to educate Congress and the 

public on animal rights issues, as well as to provide tools to assist 

in State and local animal rights legislative and regulatory challenges. 

This is not a large versus a small farm issue, or better put, a corporate versus family farm issue. The statutes current reporting requirements and liability thresholds for non-agricultural release or 

emissions of regulated substances are extremely low. Virtually any 

agricultural operation producing, storing and/or using animal manure could and likely will be held liable. 

Oregon is a specialty crops State. We are famous worldwide for 

our fruits and vegetables as well as our tree planting and nursery 

industry. It is a very competitive and fragile industry impacted by 

spikes in planting, production and weather. Most importantly, the 

availability of labor is critical to any specialty crops operation. 

Again, the unpredictability and uncertainly of the labor force is not 

an enticement for young farmers. 

American farmers and ranchers face a catch–22 when verifying 

the status of their workforce. It is illegal to knowingly hire someone who is not authorized to work, but the employer is limited in 

what he or she may ask for to determine who is authorized. 

25

I commend the efforts of the Senate regarding bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. Your hard work would provide relief from labor shortages. It is critical that comprehensive immigration reform legislation get signed into law this year. 

If, however, President Bush ends up signing into law a bill that 

does not fully address agriculture’s labor needs, economists estimate that up to $9 billion nationwide in annual production is at 

risk of being lost to foreign competitors. Oregon agriculture is estimated to lose nearly $5 million directly. 

A successful comprehensive immigration reform must include a 

reliable verification system, border security, adequate transition 

provisions and a viable long-term guest worker program. 

The estate tax is a tremendous burden on farmers and ranchers. 

Individuals, family partnerships or family corporations own 99 percent of the 2 million farms that dot America’s rural landscape. 

Farms face a common problem of being land rich and cash poor. 

The burden of the estate tax, which can be as a high as 45 percent, often forces young farmers and ranchers to sell land, buildings or equipment needed to operate their businesses just to pay 

this egregious tax burden. When farms and ranches disappear, the 

rural communities and businesses they support also suffer. 

The average estate tax payment in 1999 to 2000 was the equivalent of up to 2 years of net farm income. Roughly twice the number 

of farm estates paid Federal death taxes compared to other estates 

in the late 1990’s. Moreover, the average farm death tax is also 

larger than the tax paid by most other estates. 

Congress voted to end death taxes in 2001. Unfortunately, the 

bill’s provisions expire in 2011, requiring Congress to pass additional legislation to make death tax elimination permanent. I urge 

the Senate to take up companion legislation to H.R. 2380 permanently repealing the inheritance death tax. 

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act is essential, and I probably 

could not go home if I did not. This funding is vital for the education of children in Oregon and across the country. 

More than 100 years ago, Congress recognized that these rural 

communities and counties with federally owned forestland within 

their boundaries would not be able to provide basic services because of the reduction and the resulting loss of property tax base. 

Congress also recognized that national forests exist for the benefit of an entire Nation and, therefore, the entire Nation has a role 

in maintaining the health of our forests and their surrounding communities. Well-funded, well-educated rural communities are critical 

to an agriculture future. 

This is an exciting time for United States agriculture, but so 

much of what happens in these halls has a direct impact on the 

industry. As farmers and ranchers continue to utilize cutting-edge 

technology, yields will increase while maintaining our international 

reputation of providing Americans with the safest low-cost of food 

in the world. 

It is with sincere gratitude that I thank you not only for the opportunity to share with you the many challenges facing our young 

farmers and ranchers today, but also for the great work that you 

folks do day in and day out. 

26

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beshue follows:]


39864.012
27


39864.013
28


39864.014
29


39864.015
30

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Barry, for that excellent testimony. 

Why don’t we just go down the row? John Rosenow, why don’t 

you take it over? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ROSENOW, FARMER AFFILIATED WITH 

THE WISCONSIN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, ARTS AND 

LETTERS, COCHRANE, WI 

Mr. ROSENOW. Thank you for inviting me. I am John Rosenow, 

a dairy farmer from Cochrane, WI. I appreciate this opportunity to 

speak to the Committee today in my role as a leader in the Future 

of Farming and Rural Life in Wisconsin’s two-year study. 

The Future of Farming project is the current public policy initiative of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. I have 

co-chaired the production agriculture segment of the study. 

I have chosen to be involved in this project because I am one of 

those rural folks. My entire life has been devoted to agriculture, 

and it has been very good to me as a business and as a way of life. 

I am now 57 years old and, over the years, have gained some insights that may be of value. 

Agriculture is dynamic. Our farm has changed from 50 cows to 

500, from one employee to 19, from all English-speaking to only 

half native speakers, and there are fewer and fewer of us. I could 

just ride it out and retire and move south, but I think things can 

be done to revitalize rural America. I am here today to explain how 

we have approached this in Wisconsin. 

The Future of Farming and Rural Life initiative began in 2005 

with the mission to create a fact-based process that would stimulate thought, conversation and action on the important issues in 

farming and rural life in Wisconsin. 

To gather maximum expert and grassroots input, we held six regional forums around the State in a 2-day statewide conference to 

stimulate learning and engagement. The pending final report is 

based on 83 recommendations. Implementation of those recommendations represents a commencement to a rural renaissance 

in Wisconsin. 

Organizations committed to rural development are currently 

seeking funding from foundations and Government agencies to 

work on specific project recommendations. These efforts will create 

what we hope will become a model rural development program. 

Included in the materials I have submitted for the Committee’s 

review is a video that illuminates the role of immigrants in farm 

labor today. There is considerable information on the project Web 

site and in the submitted materials, including the draft recommendations. 

In our limited time today, I would like to touch on just a few of 

the things we learned. 

There is considerable poverty in rural Wisconsin, and that affects 

rural communities in many ways. Conversely, there are farmers 

who have accumulated some wealth as well, usually tied up in 

land. 

Health care is a major, perhaps the greatest, concern among 

rural residents. Almost one-third of Wisconsin farmers have no insurance or only catastrophic insurance. Of those with coverage, 36 

31

percent secure it through off-farm employment. In many cases, the 

off-farm insurance does not cover farm-related injuries. 

Rural citizens are less healthy as they delay or avoid professional 

care. The Future of Farming study concludes that all citizens are 

entitled to access to high-quality, affordable health care and better 

preventive care. 

Wisconsin needs to re-think its education system and develop alternate funding strategies. With decreasing school enrollments and 

resources, fewer rural students may be able to compete for higher 

education or desirable employment. 

Some school districts with large immigrant populations are experiencing rapid growth which aids their funding resources. For example, since the first of the year, Arcadia has seen a growth of 159 

students in a district with 986 students in all grades. 

Rural communities are hampered by inadequate access to 21st 

century jobs and leadership for economic development. Inadequate 

access to high-speed Internet and telecommunication services slows 

economic development, innovation, entrepreneurial behavior and 

educational services. 

In contrast to this, there are 11 telephone cooperatives that serve 

a portion of rural Wisconsin. These co-ops provide all their subscribers with the latest in Internet services. 

Wisconsin’s biggest agricultural asset is its diversity. Thoughtfully preserving working lands is critical to our State. Vulnerable 

mid-sized farms urgently need public policy attention. 

The emerging bioeconomy holds great promise in Wisconsin. Wisconsin farms are now truly dependent upon immigrant labor. An 

effective documented worker program and sensible immigration 

laws are crucially important to the dairy and food processing industries. 

My own example is instructive. In 1998, I hired my first immigrant from Mexico. This was a difficult decision. I did not want to 

do this. I wanted to hire locally. I did not want to hire Spanishspeaking people I knew nothing about. I had no choice as the labor 

situation became very tight. My experience with reliable, hardworking Latinos has been very positive. Today, most dairy farms 

in Wisconsin with employees have Mexican help. 

Along with many others, I have founded an organization called 

Puentes that provides language and cross-cultural training and 

links us employers with the families of our Mexican employees. 

This unique approach has been very successful in making employers caring and benevolent rather than the established exploitive 

stereotype. 

This is what I hope you take away from this conversation. The 

people living in rural Wisconsin and America are no longer all 

Northern European, white, 3rd and 4th generation Americans. 

There is a new diversity to rural America which creates both opportunities and challenges. 

Conditions are ripe for a rural renaissance, which is in the interest of all citizens, regardless of where we live. Results of the Future of Farming study are applicable elsewhere. 

Throughout the Future of Farming project, we heard from citizens that they need the tools for rural development. Congress can 

support those efforts with policy and funding. 

32

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenow follows:]


39864.016
33


39864.017
34


39864.018
35


39864.019
36


39864.020
37

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, John. 

Derek Godwin. 

STATEMENT OF DEREK GODWIN, STAFF CHAIR AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT EXTENSION SPECIALIST, OREGON 

STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE, SALEM, OR 

Mr. GODWIN. Thank you. 

I know this might be a little difficult for Senator Smith, but I 

would like for you to imagine yourself as a farmer in Oregon. You 

probably grow grass seed, vegetables, stone fruits, Christmas trees 

or nursery stock. You would make decisions on when to plow, plant 

and harvest, how much fertilizer to apply and when, and methods 

to eradicate a variety of pests or fungi. 

You make decisions on who to hire, how to train them, what jobs 

could be contracted, what equipment to purchase or lease, and you 

would hope for good weather and high yields and reasonable prices 

for your products in order to pay the bills and make a living. 

So then imagine your business as family owned, and you live 

where you work. You cannot get away from your work. There are 

decisions and work on evenings and weekends. These decisions are 

made with your spouse and family, causing tension and stress. 

Now I do not know about you, but my wife and I argue about 

where furniture is located in our living room and the bushes we 

plant in the backyard. So I have a hard time imagining making 

family decisions and work decisions on the family farm. 

But, despite the many challenges facing family farms, I believe 

it is this very structure that has made agriculture in America so 

successful. It is the ties to the land that ensure that land, natural 

resources and communities are protected and sustained. 

So, no matter what the future holds for agriculture and whether 

it is moved toward organic markets or niche markets or new products, success will come because we have supported families on 

farms. 

Now one piece of information that was part of the 2002 Census 

of agriculture that I have not heard this morning was that only 9 

percent of the just over 2 million farm operations have multiple operators that span two or more generations, and this means that the 

overwhelming large majority of operations do not have a younger 

generation in place in which to transfer the operation. 

So how do we keep the family and family farms for our future? 

First, I would like to identify a few things that are preventing 

young people from staying on the farm. 

One is profitability. Decision makers and consumers alike are 

sort of stuck on cheap food as a goal, both in the local super market 

and as a way to compete in foreign markets. 

Second is the difficult access into farming. In reality, you are either born into it or marry into it. Small farms are an option, but 

small farms have a hard time surviving and are often highly leveraged and are often subsidized by off-farm income. 

Third is the estate taxes. They are a major burden facing the 

intergeneration transfer of a farming operation. A farm may be 

asset heavy, whether it is profitable or not, and the last transfer 

between the parent and offspring can still be heavily taxed, so 

38

much so that the heirs often go into debt or sell large portions of 

the property to pay the tax bill. 

So these three reasons are tangible barriers to choosing farming 

for a career, but you also have long hours, low pay, isolation, working with your parents, few vacations and weekends off, and to paraphrase a local farmer: How are you going to keep them down on 

the farm after they have seen what a job at Microsoft pays? 

So let’s see. What are some solutions to resolving these issues? 

One is explore alternative ways to help farmers remain competitive locally. In Oregon, we are having some success with marketing 

local products to support local farmers, and I have seen more educated shoppers in the supermarkets choosing these local products 

as opposed to the cheaper alternatives from other countries. 

Oregon is also pushing State-funded schools to use locally grown 

products over the cheaper foreign grown products. 

Second, eliminate or drastically restructure the estate tax to not 

penalize families who want to transition their ownership and keep 

the farm a farm. 

Third, look for ways to make access into farming a reality for 

more young people. Even young farmers who are taking over the 

business from their parents may not be able to do it because the 

equipment and operation is outdated and they cannot afford to pay 

for the modernization. Assistance could be provided through low-interest long-term loans, and it could also be supporting the education of young people who plan to go back to the family farm. 

The fourth, on a smaller scale, I would like to see agri-business, 

agricultural organizations and non-profits and even local farmers 

take a more direct role in nurturing those young people who want 

to get into and remain in agriculture. These avenues could include 

working with local FFA Chapters, 4-H Clubs, community colleges 

and universities, and they should be available for internships, 

work-study programs and job shadowing. 

Finally, I would like to see support groups and networks created 

that link schools and organizations together with farm families. 

These networks would help farm families facing these challenges. 

One example of supporting this type of network in educating 

farm families is OSU’s new education program entitled Ties to the 

Land: Keeping Forests and Farms in the Family. The essential 

premise of Ties to the Land is that a successful succession plan is 

dependent on how a family effectively communicates and follows a 

fairly simple process in creating a transition plan. 

So Ties to the Land guides the family through a 10-step planning 

process which incorporates effective communication techniques, 

helps them set goals, create business entities, set employment policies, assessing reasons why to keep the property in the family, having fun on the property and creating a governance structure that 

will survive the parents passing. 

So, in closing, I commend this Committee for identifying these 

critical issues facing agriculture, farm families, rural communities 

and society in general, and exploring possible solutions to support 

our future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Godwin follows:]

39


39864.021
40


39864.022
41


39864.023
42

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Derek, for that excellent 

testimony. 

Isaac Kershaw, you are going to get the last word. The vote has 

started, but we are going to hang here with you. We apologize we 

do not have time to do the vote and Q&A, but Senator Kohl and 

I will submit written questions to you for your consideration. 

Mr. Kershaw. I will try to be quick. 

Senator SMITH. OK. 

STATEMENT OF ISAAC KERSHAW, PH.D., OHIO STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CAREER TECH AND ADULT EDUCATION, COLUMBUS, OH; REPRESENTING FUTURE FARMERS 

OF AMERICA 

Mr. KERSHAW. Well, good morning, Ranking Member Smith and 

Chairman Kohl. It is a pleasure to be here today. I appreciate the 

opportunity to address the Committee on behalf of the National 

FFA Association and the National Council for Agricultural Education. 

Today, I would like to share with you our insight regarding 

issues associated with aging farmers and ranchers and the challenges facing young people who have a desire to enter production 

agriculture. 

The retirement of aging baby boomers and the graying of American farmers rightly raise significant questions: Who will farm the 

land? Will we have enough young people willing to enter the field 

in the future? Will they be successful? With respect to agricultural 

education, who will prepare them? 

Those familiar with agricultural education know there are currently more than a million students in our public schools preparing 

for careers in agriculture, food and natural resources. A half-million of these young people are members in FFA, an organization 

dedicated to developing the potential of students in leadership, personal growth and career success, all of which is an integral part of 

an agricultural education program. 

A rising FFA membership is at the highest point in 28 years and 

suggests increasing interest by students in agricultural careers. 

Some 12,000 teachers in 7,200 schools work with these students 

every day, helping them discover their talents, explore opportunities in agriculture and channel their efforts for career preparation. 

It is a system that has served generations of the Nation’s farmers 

and ranchers, and today it is bringing the best and the brightest 

to agriculture. 

Agricultural education programs are designed to create awareness of opportunities in agriculture, to motivate young people to 

begin their preparation for a lifelong career in agriculture, and to 

prepare them with the knowledge and skills necessary for success 

in higher education and on the job. 

Students explore careers and begin to understand that 21st century agriculture is a global enterprise based in science, which demands continued growth in discovery and application. Many of 

these young students choose to pursue careers in farming and 

ranching. Many others might take a different path in an agriculture career, but all are related to the science, the business, the 

43

technology of agriculture. All are tied to food, fuel, fiber and the 

management of our natural resources. 

I submit we have an ideal system in place to produce the results 

we seek. Agricultural education and FFA have the ability to attract, motivate and help prepare the next generation of agricultural 

leaders, managers, scientists and producers. But we will best serve 

the interests of agriculture and the Nation if we can dramatically 

expand the reach of this program to more of our Nation’s high 

schools. 

The agricultural education community is in the process of implementing a plan of action designed to significantly increase the 

number and the quality of agricultural science programs in the 

country. Working under the direction of the National Council for 

Agricultural Education, we have adopted a long-range goal to increase the number of programs from 7,200 today to 10,000 by the 

year 2015. This ambitious effort is viewed as a key strategy for attracting the talent and commitment of those who will keep American agriculture thriving and productive. 

We know that significant financial resources are necessary for 

young men and women to enter careers in production agriculture. 

It will require a comparable investment in education for them to 

acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful. So this 

should be seen as a great, necessary investment in our national future. 

The focus of the Special Committee on Aging, to facilitate an effective transition to a new generation of agricultural producers, is 

timely and critical. The more students we get through our educational pipeline, the greater the number prepared to successfully 

fill the shoes of the farmers and ranchers who preceded them. 

But we need help with this endeavor in terms of research and 

program innovation. We need more investment through education 

and agricultural appropriations. We need language in the Farm 

Bill and in educational policy that strengthens the role of agricultural education and FFA in securing the future agriculture base of 

the Nation. 

There is a real opportunity for the Federal Government to take 

an active role as we move forward with the initiatives of having 

10,000 quality agricultural science programs by the year 2015. 

So, Mr. Chair, Mr. Smith, I certainly appreciate the opportunity 

to address this Committee and wish you the best in your deliberations. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kershaw follows:]

44


39864.024
45


39864.025
46

Senator SMITH. Thank you so very much. That was outstanding. 

Would you agree, Isaac, that if the dollars get better, all of these 

programs in place, we will get more students and then more kids 

on the farm? 

Mr. KERSHAW. Absolutely. 

Senator SMITH. Any final comments, Senator Kohl? 

The CHAIRMAN. An excellent hearing, excellent testimony, on a 

very, very important question, not only, of course, agriculture, but 

rural American in its entirety is the subject of what we are talking 

about, and I think all of us agree it is worth preserving and worth 

investing in, and you are here today to testify to that. 

We appreciate your coming, and we will get back to you with our 

questions. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you all so very much for your time and 

your attention to this important issue and sharing your excellent 

testimony with us. 

We apologize that the leadership of the Senate does not check 

with the Aging Committee before they schedule votes. So that will 

truncate this session a bit. 

But, with that, our thanks. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(47)

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR KEN SALAZAR

I would like to thank Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Smith for holding this 

important hearing. 

As a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture I can say that this is an 

issue that continually comes up in discussions about the future of agriculture. Over 

the last year I have traveled to every corner of Colorado conducting ‘‘Farm Bill Listening Sessions’’ to hear directly from agricultural producers about what they are 

looking for in the 2007 Farm Bill. One of the ‘‘big picture’’ issues that I hear from 

Coloradans is that we must work to revitalize rural America so that our young people in our rural communities do not dismiss the idea of taking over their family’s 

farm or ranch as well as the need to draw new blood into agricultural careers. 

The current data on this issue is a stark reminder of the need to act. Nationally, 

there are about twice as many farmers over the age of 65 as there are under the 

age of 35. In Colorado the average age of our principal operators is 55 and rising. 

So, the million dollar question is how do we revitalize rural America and reverse 

this trend? I don’t think there is an easy answer and I look forward to hearing from 

our witnesses on this topic. 

In my mind, I believe that part of the answer lies in taking advantage of opportunities that are being created by renewable energy. 

That is why I introduced the 25 by 25 resolution that lays out a goal of producing 

25% of our country’s energy needs by renewable energy by 2025. 

A University of Tennessee study projected that this goal is achievable and will 

generate over $700 billion in economic activity and create 5.1 million jobs by 2025, 

mostly in rural areas. That is serious rural development. I, and the 33 Senators who 

have co-sponsored this resolution, were able to add that resolution to the Energy 

Bill that is on the Senate floor this week. I believe this Energy Bill is a great step 

in the right direction for renewable energy and rural America. 

Americans are sick and tired of depending on foreign countries for our energy 

needs and they are demanding action to change the status quo and Congress has 

noticed. The country is ready to take the next step in developing renewable energy 

and Rural America stands to benefit more than any other part of our country. 

It is imperative that we seize these opportunities as they are presented and I look 

forward to working with my colleagues here and on the Agriculture Committee to 

do just that to revitalize rural America. 

RESPONSES TO SENATOR CASEY’S QUESTIONS FROM KEITH COLLINS

Question. The USDA, in its 2007 Farm Bill proposal, has proposed several measures dealing with payment increases and loan incentives to provide additional support to beginning farmers and ranchers. What other types of incentives, besides 

those proposed by USDA, would be effective vehicles to bring more young people 

into careers in farming and agriculture. 

Answer. As noted in your question, the Administration’s 2007 Farm Bill proposal 

recommends a broad package of proposed changes to several Farm Bill titles to provide additional support to beginning farmers and ranchers. These proposals include 

changes to the commodity, conservation, and credit titles identified in the written 

testimony of USDA Deputy Secretary Conner for the June 21, 2007 hearing. 

We believe these changes are the most cost-effective ways to bring more young 

people in careers in farming and agriculture. However, we would encourage Senator 

Casey to share any ideas he may have with the Department in an effort to address 

this important issue. 

Question. The rising costs of health care and insurance coverage are critical concerns for farm families, causing large numbers of farmers to choose minimal insurVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:54 Jan 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\39864.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
48

ance coverage or no coverage at all. How large an impediment is this issue in recruiting and retaining America’s farmers? 

Answer. Market incentives augmented by Federal and State programs will determine the future supply of farmers and ranchers. If farm production provides a sufficient return, capital investment and people will enter production agriculture. Low 

rates of return will discourage investment and cause farm failures. 

Nevertheless, there are a number of issues concerning the adequacy of the future 

workforce needed to farm the nation’s agricultural lands. The decision to enter or 

remain in farming is influenced by several factors. Perhaps the greatest barrier to 

enter farming is the high price of land. Farmland values have been steadily increasing for many years, but jumped 15 percent in 2005 after a 21 percent increase in 

2004, adding to the cost of entering farming. Between 2002 and 2006, the average 

value of farm real estate increased 57 percent. These figures indicate that access 

to capital for the purchase of land, buildings, and equipment may be significant hurdle for many young farmers. 

Health care and insurance coverage are also concerns. Data collected by USDA’s 

Economic Research Service (ERS) as part of the 2005 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) provides additional insights into farmers’ health insurance 

choices. The 2005 ARMS found that almost 85 percent of farm households had full 

health insurance, 7 percent had a portion of household members covered, and 6.5 

percent had no coverage. For those farm households that had health insurance, 50 

percent of farm households received health insurance through off-farm work of the 

farm operator or operator’s spouse (table). Another 44 percent of farm households 

received health insurance through private insurance or public insurance (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid). Only 6 percent of farm households received health insurance 

through the farming operation. The data suggest that health insurance is important 

to farm families but is likely more important in the decision to have one family 

member work off-farm rather than for the entire family to leave farming.

Sources of Health Insurance and Health Care Expenditure of Farm Households 

Source of Health Insurance percent 

Insured through operator or spouse off-farm work ......................................................................................................... 50

Insured through private health insurance ....................................................................................................................... 22

Insured through public health insurance ........................................................................................................................ 22

Insured through farming operation .................................................................................................................................. 6

Question. How can we better educate and train our young people to prepare them 

for careers in farming and agriculture? 

Answer. There are many ways to better educate and train our young people to 

prepare them for farming and agriculture. One tangible way is to continue to support the 4–H program. Participants benefit from a variety of activities intended to 

foster the development of life skills and competencies through participation in activities focused on science, engineering, and technology (SET); citizenship; and 

healthy living. 

Today there are about 6.5 million children aged 5 to 19 participating in the 4–

H program, an increase from the 5.7 million children that were participating a decade ago. However, only about 12 percent of eligible children participate in the 4–

H program. 4–H is trying to double the number of members and the SET Task 

Force has an initial goal of providing high-quality SET experiences to 1 million new 

students by 2013. 

Another program that helps improve agricultural education is Agriculture in the 

Classroom coordinated by USDA. Its goal is to help students gain a greater awareness of the role of agriculture in the economy and society. The program is carried 

out in each state, according to state needs and interests, by individuals representing 

farm organization, agribusiness, education and government. USDA supports the 

state organizations by helping to develop Agriculture in the Classroom programs, 

serving as a central clearinghouse for materials and information, encouraging USDA 

agencies to assist in the state programs, and coordinating with national organizations to promote the goal of an increased awareness of agriculture among the nation’s students. Please see: http://www.agclassroom.org/. 

Question. According to the Agriculture Census, the U.S. lost over 16 million acres 

of farmland to development and other nonagricultural purposes between 1997 and 

2002. If this trend continues, how will U.S. agriculture production, and in turn, food 

prices, be affected? 

Answer. Shifting farmland to urban and nonagricultural purposes, historically, 

has posed no threat to U.S food and fiber production. For example, research conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:54 Jan 15, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 H:\DOCS\39864.TXT SAGING1 PsN: JOYCE
49

ducted by USDA’s ERS has shown that between 1997 and 2002, U.S. total cropland 

area declined about 3 percent to 442 million acres, the lowest level since USDA 

began compiling this statistic in 1945. However, the value of U.S. crop output in 

2002, measured in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, was 2.6 times higher than in 

1948, although the value of aggregate input use declined over this period. Therefore, 

although cropland was declining, increasing productivity allowed U.S. farmers to 

produce more crops with less land. In addition, the greater use of nonland capital 

and materials like energy and agricultural chemicals has substituted for land and 

labor. Increases in yields, due to improved seeds and other technological changes, 

have also raised output. For example, from 1945 to 2002, average corn yields quadrupled, while real prices received for grains fell by 80 percent. As a result of rising 

productivity, despite a smaller land area devoted to crops, U.S. agricultural output 

continues to grow and consumers continue to pay lower real prices.

50


39864.026
51

RESPONSES TO SENATOR CASEY’S QUESTIONS FROM JOHN ROSENOW

Question. The USDA, in its 2007 Farm Bill proposal, has proposed several measures dealing with payment increases and loan incentives to provide additional support to beginning farmers and ranchers. What other types of incentives, besides 

those proposed by USDA, would be effective vehicles to bring more young people in 

careers in farming and agriculture. 

Answer. Agriculture is very capital intensive and the transfer of assets from one 

generation to another has historically been done within families. The parents usually provided loans for the new generation to begin creating some equity. Modern 

systems especially in livestock require more investment than most families can provide so new business structures are used such as partnerships, limited liability companies or corporations. Favorable tax policies for farmers or reduced regulations by 

government in these structure issues will go a long way to providing opportunities 

for the next generation. 

Question. The rising costs of health care and insurance coverage are critical concerns for farm families, causing large numbers of farmers to choose minimal insurance coverage or no coverage at all. How large an impediment is this issue in recruiting and retaining America’s farmers? 

Answer. This is vitally important. Our Future of Farming study found this to be 

the number one issue for rural families across the state. Due to the high cost of 

health insurance and the deductibles, many farm families have made conscious decisions to have one spouse work off the farm for health coverage. When one spouse 

works off the farm, he/she can contribute less to the farming operation and the tendency to keep farming declines, resulting in more flight from farms by children and 

the farmers themselves. Lack of insurance also delays or prevents farm families 

from seeking routine or preventive care of treatment for injuries, leading to more 

advanced illnesses when professional care is sought, and ultimately shortened careers. 

Question. How can we better educate and train our young people to prepare them 

for careers in farming and agriculture? 

Answer. Education for careers in agriculture is not limited to academics. Experience is almost as important. A program that utilizes the experience of existing successful farmers in educating the next generation would help a lot, perhaps in mentoring relationships, on-farm internships, or by utilizing successful active or retired 

farmers as integral resources or contributors to classroom programs in different 

areas of expertise. It is also important for the next generation of farmers to have 

training in business and financial planning and personnel management. Increasing 

choices about expanding specializing, or converting to other operational types mean 

that farmers need to be able to make knowledge-based decisions. The growing trend 

toward using non-family labor requires more sophisticated people management 

skills. 

Question. According to the Agriculture Census, the U.S. lost over 16 million acres 

of farmland to development and other nonagricultural purposes between 1997 and 

2002. If this trend continues, how will U.S. agriculture production, and in turn, food 

prices, be affected? 

Answer. I believe that advances in production resources and practices will continue to outpace the loss of farmland as it has in the last 50 years. However, critical 

farmland needs protection. Wisconsin and other states are identifying and targeting 

critical agricultural lands and developing and initiating tools to protect them. State 

and federal programs, like the federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, 

are urgently needed. Wisconsin is losing farm land at one of the highest rates in 

the U.S. Changing this pattern requires education of the general public about the 

consequences to them of fragmenting or paving over productive agricultural land 

and ongoing meaningful dialogue between competing stakeholders to recognize that 

not all farm land is equally valuable and not all can be saved. 

Question. As a dairy farmer, do you feel that the dairy industry faces any unique 

challenges in dealing with farm succession and an aging farm workforce? 

Answer. Dairy has entered a stage many call a revolution. Old barns and practices are being replaced by very different barns and ways of doing things. Early 

adapters are finding good profits while late adapters and ones who have not 

changed are struggling. This means that a limited number of dairies are prepared 

for the future with adequate capital to grow with emerging technology. 

The future in dairying is thus a structure of more than family. It means combining resources with neighbors, adding outside investor capital and developing the 

human resources. Immigrant labor will milk a greater percentage of cows at an expanding rate which will mitigate the aging of the owners and managers. For example, my father was physically unable to continue farming much past 65 while with 

52

our 19 employees doing a lot of the hard work, we can continue longer. This allows 

more equity to be built up to help transfer the assets to future generations. Productive learning experiences for this generation of migrant workers can lead from labor 

to management to ownership in succeeding generations—just as was the progression 

for previous generations of immigrants. 

If the Federal government recognizes this, policymakers can aid in the development of programs to assist the transition. Of course, a sound approach to immigrant 

workers would be the most helpful. 

RESPONSES TO SENATOR CASEY’S QUESTIONS FROM ISAAC KERSHAW

Question. How can we better educate and train our young people to prepare them 

for careers in farming and agriculture? 

Answer. Increasing student access to quality secondary and postsecondary agriculture programs will help to address the shortfall of young people interested and 

capable of entering farming and agriculture. There are several things that can be 

done to significantly strengthen the quality of and increase the capacity of programs 

that prepare students for careers in agriculture, food and natural resources. 

Quality Instructors. Quality programs cannot be sustained without quality educators. There is a shortage of agricultural educators across the country. This shortage is not anticipated to diminish anytime in the near future. Thus, there is a need 

to support teacher education institutions in their efforts to recruit and prepare 

young people to teach agriculture. At the same time it may be necessary to invest 

in alternative ways to attract and prepare qualified individuals, who have experience and education in agriculture, into the teaching profession. 

Attainment of the right knowledge and skills. There is a need to support the development of technical content standards that clearly identify what students should 

know and be able to do in order to be successful in the agricultural career of their 

choice. This includes the technical, academic and general workforce development 

skills that form the basis of a wide range of careers in agriculture. The National 

Council for Agricultural Education is currently trying to raise the funds and build 

the partnerships necessary to develop the content standards related to careers in 

agriculture, food and natural resources. 

Curriculum Development. There is need to support the development of instructional materials that enhance a teacher’s ability to facilitate learning. The National 

Council for Agricultural Education is partnering with agribusiness and state government to develop a science based curriculum to better prepare students for careers 

in agriculture that are deemed to be in high demand and highly skilled. 

Measurement of Knowledge and Skill Attainment. The availability of industry 

based certification assessments that are applicable to secondary and postsecondary 

programs in agriculture is very limited. Students, school districts, state departments 

of education, and the business community all stand to benefit from the use of quality assessment instruments that effectively measure student competence. 

Students stand to benefit from the use of certification examinations when such 

tools provide feedback on level of competence and offer a means to demonstrate to 

others that significant levels of achievement have been met. Of particular value is 

the portability of industry certifications among businesses across a state and 

throughout the nation. 

Innovative Program Design including Alignment with Postsecondary Programs.

Support is needed to explore and implement new and innovative program models 

in agricultural education. It is necessary to rethink how agricultural content is delivered to students who are enrolled in schools that have not been traditionally 

served through agricultural education. It is essential that secondary agriculture programs coordinate their efforts with their postsecondary counterparts so that students benefit from a seamless educational program.

Æ