The 2008 Organic Production Survey counted 162 Nebraska farms and ranches that were either USDA certified organic or exempt from certification because their sales totaled less than $5,000, according to USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, Nebraska Field Office.

These operations comprised 146,188 acres of land, of which 51,015 acres were harvested cropland and 69,866 acres were pasture or rangeland.

Nebraska organic product sales in 2008 totaled $48.6 million, including $26.5 million in crop sales and $22.1 million in sales of livestock, poultry, and their products. Organic production expenses totaled $32.9 million, or $204,508 per farm.

Most Nebraska organic producers sold their products locally and regionally, with 54 percent of sales taking place less than 500 miles from the farm.

The 2008 Organic Production Survey is the first organic production and practices survey conducted on a national level by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).

The survey showed the nationwide farm value of organic production to be nearly $3.2 billion on the 14,540 estimated farms. The 2008 Organic Production Survey provides acreage, production, and sales data for a variety of organic crop and livestock commodities as well as information on organic production expenses and organic production and marketing practices.

Complete results of the 2008 Organic Production Survey are available at: www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Organics/index.asp

This year’s record corn yield of nearly 1.6 billion bushels is a good example of the growth of Nebraska agricultural productivity over the last 50 years.

A new report from the USDA Economic Research Service shows that the level of U.S. farm output in 2008 was 158 percent above its level in 1948, growing at an average annual rate of 1.58 percent.

According to ERS, aggregate input use increased a mere 0.06 percent annually, so the positive growth in farm sector output was very substantially due to productivity growth. This contrasts with a 3.6-percent annual output increase in the private nonfarm sector, with productivity growth accounting for a little more than a third of the economic growth.

Major findings of the data include:

• Agricultural output contracted during 1999-2002; measured productivity growth slowed. But the return of favorable weather in 2003 and 2004 led to sharp increases in output and productivity, with productivity growing by 4.0 percent in 2003 and 5.7 percent in 2004. On average, then, productivity continued to grow rapidly over the 1999-2008 period, by 1.74 percent per year.
• U.S. agricultural productivity growth compares favorably to agricultural productivity growth in other industrialized countries, and to productivity growth in the overall U.S. economy .All but four States exhibited positive rates of growth in agricultural output over the 1960-2004 period. Output expanded most rapidly in Arkansas, growing an average 2.8 percent per year.
• Every State exhibited a positive average annual rate of productivity growth over the entire 45-year period. Average annual rates of growth ranged from 2.6 percent for Oregon to 0.5 percent for Oklahoma. California and Florida had the highest relative levels of productivity in 2004.

The development of irrigated agriculture in Nebraska has propelled ag productivity since 1960. According to ERS, Nebraksa’s annual ag productivity growth has increased from 1.33 percent annually in 1960 to 3.617 percent in 2004.

The made Nebraska the fifth most productive ag state in the nation behind California, Iowa, Texas and Illinois.

The USDA announced Friday that they will develop a new, flexible framework for animal disease traceability in the United States, and undertake several other actions to further strengthen its disease prevention and response capabilities.

“After concluding our listening tour on the National Animal Identification System in 15 cities across the country, receiving thousands of comments from the public and input from States, Tribal Nations, industry groups, and representatives for small and organic farmers, it is apparent that a new strategy for animal disease traceability is needed,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “I’ve decided to revise the prior policy and offer a new approach to animal disease traceability with changes that respond directly to the feedback we heard.”

The framework provides the basic tenets of an improved animal disease traceability capability in the United States. USDA’s efforts will:

• Only apply to animals moved in interstate commerce;
• Be administered by the States and Tribal Nations to provide more flexibility;
• Encourage the use of lower-cost technology; and
• Be implemented transparently through federal regulations and the full rulemaking process.

“One of my main goals for this new approach is to build a collaborative process for shaping and implementing our framework for animal disease traceability,” said Vilsack. “We are committed to working in partnership with States, Tribal Nations and industry in the coming months to address many of the details of this framework, and giving ample opportunity for farmers and ranchers and the public to provide us with continued input through this process.”

One of USDA’s first steps will be to convene a forum with animal health leaders for the States and Tribal Nations to initiate a dialogue about the possible ways of achieving the flexible, coordinated approach to animal disease traceability we envision. Additionally, USDA will be revamping the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Animal Health to address specific issues, such as confidentiality and liability.

Although USDA has a robust system in place to protect U.S. agriculture,  USDA said it will also be taking several additional actions to further strengthen protections against the entry and spread of disease. These steps, according to the USDA, will include accelerating actions to lessen the risk from diseases–such as tuberculosis–posed by imported animals, initiating and updating analyses on how animal diseases travel into the country, improving response capabilities, and focusing on greater collaboration and analyses with States and industry on potential disease risk overall.

More information on USDA’s new direction on animal traceability and the steps to improve disease prevention and control is available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability.