By MICHELE F. MIHALJEVICH

Indiana Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Several states in this region bucked national trends found in the 2017 Census of Agriculture for number of farms, amount of land in farms, or the value of agricultural products.

Nationwide, the Census showed a drop in the number of farms and ranches and in the amount of land devoted to farming from the previous Census in 2012. The value of agricultural production also fell.

Regionally, Ohio and Tennessee had more farms than in 2012, and the amount of land in farms rose there and in Illinois and Indiana. The value of agricultural production increased in Kentucky and Tennessee.

The Census was conducted by the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and released on April 11.

That Ohio had more farms and land in farms “shows the Pretenders song (“My City Was Gone,” 1982) is wrong about Ohio farms becoming shopping malls,” noted Kif Hurlbut, deputy regional director of the NASS Great Lakes Regional Office, which serves Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio.

“Ohio is pretty well balanced between urban and rural areas,” he explained. “The biggest increase in number of farms in the state is for those one to nine acres (in size). That type of farm has become more attractive to people.”

Tennessee’s land in farms increased slightly, which may be attributed to farmers purchasing operations in other acreage categories, said Debra K. Kenerson, Tennessee state statistician for the NASS Eastern Mountain region, which also includes Kentucky.

The amount of land in farms in Illinois has remained steady since at least 1997. For the 2017 Census, the biggest increase in farms in the state was for those under nine acres.

“The Census is definitely positive (for Illinois agriculture),” explained Mike Doherty, senior economist with the Illinois Farm Bureau. “It shows the tenacity of the family farm model. Ninety-five percent of farms are still structured pretty much how they always have been.

“We didn’t have a big leap in consolidation. It shows a lot of stability there.”

The first thing Bob White, the Indiana Farm Bureau’s director of national government relations, checked in the Census was the number of farms in the state.

“I knew it was going to go down, but I didn’t know how much,” he said. “We’ve dropped about 4,000 farms from 10 years ago. The number of small and large operations is up.

“With the smaller farms, that shows the diversification of agriculture in Indiana. They’ve found niche markets where they can sell directly to consumers and make a living off the land. Health-wise, Indiana agriculture is in pretty good shape.”

The increase in the value of Kentucky agriculture was due in part to key industries such as cattle and poultry remaining strong, said David Knopf, regional director of the Eastern Mountain Region. A difference in the way data were categorized within the equine industry also boosted the value of the state’s production.

In 2012, the value of the sale of horses was listed for those animals owned by people in the state. The 2017 Census measured all sales regardless of who owned the horses. About $300 million in sales is attributable to the change in methodology, he said.

“The value of production in Tennessee has everything to do with the amounts of agricultural commodities grown or raised in a given year,” Kenerson pointed out. “In Tennessee in 2017, there were record corn and soybean yields, while livestock numbers – cattle and calves is largest (category) – remained stable.”

NASS officials in states with less land in farms weren’t overly worried about the decreases.

“I think that is a concern overall, but it’s probably a little bit less of a concern in Iowa,” noted Greg Thessen, regional director of the NASS Upper Midwest regional field office, which includes Iowa. “It’s not a highly populated state. Since it’s good farmland, that’s what it stays in.”

The level of concern about the loss of farmland in Michigan and elsewhere may depend in part on land ownership, Hurlbut said.

“People who own farmland may have the opportunity to use their asset in another way. Farmers who seem to be renting a large portion of farmland, they would see it as concerning. The best farmland is going to stay farmland. Marginal land may be where we’re seeing the most change.”

States by the numbers

Illinois – number of farms: 72,651 in 2017, 75,087 in 2012; land in farms: 27 million acres in 2017, 26.9 million in 2012; average size: 372 acres in 2017, 359 in 2012; value of agricultural production: $17 billion in 2017, $17.2 billion in 2012.

Indiana – number of farms: 56,649 in 2017, 58,695 in 2012; land in farms: 14.97 million acres in 2017, 14.7 million in 2012; average size: 264 acres in 2017, 251 in 2012; value of agricultural production: $11.1 billion in 2017, $11.2 billion in 2012.

Iowa – number of farms: 86,104 in 2017, 88,637 in 2012; land in farms: 30.56 million acres in 2017, 30.6 million in 2012; average size: 355 acres in 2017, 345 in 2012; value of agricultural production: nearly $29 billion in 2017, $30.8 billion in 2012.

Kentucky – number of farms: 75,966 in 2017, 77,064 in 2012; land in farms: 12.96 million acres in 2017, 13 million in 2012; average size: 171 acres in 2017, 169 in 2012; value of agricultural production: $5.7 billion in 2017, $5.1 billion in 2012.

Michigan – number of farms: 47,641 in 2017, 52,194 in 2012; land in farms: 9.8 million acres in 2017, 9.9 million in 2012; average size: 205 acres in 2017, 191 in 2012; value of agricultural production: $8.2 billion in 2017, $8.7 billion in 2012.

Ohio – number of farms: 77,805 in 2017, 75,462 in 2012; land in farms: 13.97 million acres in 2017, 13.96 million in 2012; average size: 179 acres in 2017, 185 in 2012; value of agricultural production: $9.3 billion in 2017, $10.1 billion in 2012.

Tennessee – number of farms: 69,983 in 2017, 68,050 in 2012; land in farms: 10.87 million acres in 2017, 10.867 million in 2012; average size: 155 acres in 2017, 160 in 2012; value of agricultural production: $3.8 billion in 2017, $3.6 billion in 2012.