Production costs make alternative crops more attractive

Farming is expensive in Nebraska, according to a national report, but at least one state official wonders if it's really as bad as a recent study indicates.

The study, by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, said Nebraska production costs per farm were up 9 percent from 2005 to 2006, nearly $250,000 per farm. In addition, input costs like fertilizer, fuel, feed and others were more than double the national average.

According to The Associated Press, Gail Hanneman of the service's Lincoln office said the size of farms made the difference, since Nebraska had only 8,000 farms that produced $1,000 or less per year, compared to 16,500 in Kansas and 20,000 in Iowa. Part-time farming is more popular in area with other industries to support off-farm work, Hanneman said.

Livestock production costs made much of the difference, up 29 percent from 2005 to 2006.

But Bruce Johnson, ag economist with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, thinks such issues already should be factored into the report, and he doubts Nebraska's expenses are that much higher than other states like Kansas and Texas.

Still, Nebraska was fourth in total production expenses, trailing California, Texas and Iowa. Johnson pointed out that total farming production costs in Nebraska were $11.5 billion, "just one more measure to see that this is a big business."

Even if production costs are not twice what they are in other states, there's no doubt farming is expensive in Nebraska, especially raising irrigated corn during a dry year.

Coupled with possible new restrictions on irrigation, the farming cost survey should provide increased incentive for exploring alternative crops.