Perhaps because veterans tend to be older males, or because of the skills, experiences, and contacts acquired during military service, rural veterans had median incomes that were nearly 50 percent higher than rural nonveterans, based on 2007-11 data. Median incomes of veterans were at least twice those of nonveterans (income ratio of 1:2 or greater) in 79 rural counties, predominantly in the South and in high-poverty areas. Rural veteran income premiums tended to be high in counties dependent on public sector employment, whereas the incomes of rural veterans tended to be about average in manufacturing-dependent counties. There were also a handful of counties (54 or 2.7 percent of nonmetro counties) where rural veterans tended to earn less than nonveterans (income ratio less than 1:1). They were primarily farming-dependent counties where poverty rates tend to be low. This map is based on data found in the Atlas of Rural and Small Town America, on the ERS website.

California processors, who account for the bulk of U.S. tomato processing, intend to contract for 2.8 percent more processing tomatoes in 2013 than the previous year. If the processors carry through with these early intentions, 2013 output is projected to be 13 million short tons, second only to the record-setting output of 13.3 million short tons in 2009. California produces almost 97 percent of the tomatoes grown nationally for processed products such as sauces, paste, soup, juice, and ketchup. When California’s intended contract production amount is combined with the assumed small amount of State open market (noncontract) purchases (0.1 million tons) and the expected production from other States (which averaged 0.5 million tons in 2010-12), the total U.S. crop of tomatoes for processing could reach 13.6 million tons in 2013. This chart along with accompanying analysis appears in Vegetables and Pulses Outlook: March 2013.

Memorial Day weekend kicks off the barbecue season for many Americans, and a grilled burger topped with cheese is a holiday staple. Using price data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ERS calculated the average national cost of a home-cooked cheeseburger. The cost was found to vary seasonally, usually decreasing in February, May, and June while reaching annual peaks in November or December. Most of the seasonal variation is due to the changes in beef prices. The April 2013 cost of $2.07 for a home-prepared cheeseburger is up 61 percent since 2000, while overall food-at-home prices have increased 41 percent in that time. Much of that difference is due to the strong beef price inflation of recent years resulting from low cattle inventories and high feed prices. More information on food price changes and forecasts can be found in ERS’s Food Price Outlook data product.

Rising incomes in China have led to a major shift in Chinese diets to include more livestock products. This dietary change, along with policy measures to spur growth in the industrialized feed industry and modern livestock production, has supported remarkable growth of soybean imports used to feed Chinese livestock while Chinese soybean production has been declining in favor of corn and rice production. The elimination of raw soybean import quotas and a surge in foreign investment in the Chinese soybean processing sector following China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 facilitated soybean imports from the United States and other world suppliers. The bulk of soybeans produced in China are for human consumption, while soybeans from the United States and South America, China’s two primary import sources, are crushed for feed and commercial oil uses. China has more than a 60-percent share of global soybean imports. This chart is found in the June Amber Waves article, “Crop Outlook Reflects Near-Term Prices and Longer Term Market Trends.”    

Farmers can adapt to their local climate in many ways, including through participation in USDA programs. In regions of the country that face higher levels of drought risk, farmers are more likely to offer eligible land for enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). As a consequence, CRP is both more competitive in these regions and drought-prone counties are more likely to face a binding CRP acreage enrollment cap. When counties are near their enrollment cap, farms are less likely to offer eligible land for CRP because those offers are less likely to be accepted for enrollment. In simulations of offer rates based on observed historical data, a national increase in the county CRP acreage enrollment cap to 35 percent of cropland in each county (from the current level of 25 percent), results in more offers from eligible farmers in drought prone regions of the Great Plains and the Intermountain West. This map is found in the ERS report, The Role of Conservation Programs in Drought Risk Adaptation, ERR-148, April 2013.

Disability has emerged as one of the strongest known factors that affect household food insecurity. Food-insecure households are those that lack consistent access to adequate food for one or more household members. Because they face higher expenses for health care and adaptive equipment, households affected by disabilities require higher incomes to meet their basic needs than do households without members with disabilities. Even households that have incomes greater than three times the poverty level have a relatively high likelihood of being food insecure if they include an adult with a disability. In 2009-10, an estimated 13 percent of households that included a working-age adult not in the labor force due to a disability, and had incomes at least three times the Federal poverty line ($22,113 for a family of four), were food insecure. About 9 percent of households in that income range with an adult with a non-work-preventing disability were food insecure. In comparison, about 4 percent of households in that income range with no working-age adults with disabilities were food insecure. This chart appears in the May 2013 Amber Waves feature article, “ Disability Is an Important Risk Factor for Food Insecurity.”

U.S. honey production dropped 1.3 million pounds, or 1 percent, to 147.1 million pounds in 2012, continuing a declining trend since 2000. Despite a 5.3-percent increase in honey-producing bee colonies in the United States last year, the national average yield per colony fell by 6 percent, with the major honey-producing States of California and Montana largely responsible for the yield and production declines. Diminished U.S. bee colony populations associated with colony collapse disorder are a key factor in declining U.S. production. With a smaller domestic harvest, the average producer price of honey climbed 10.5 percent to $1.95 per pound in 2012, while the average retail price of natural honey rose 7.8 percent to $5.55 per pound. Lower domestic output and lower prices for imported honey also have led to continued growth in honey imports, with imports growing nearly 8 percent and accounting for nearly 70 percent of domestic use in 2012. This chart appears in Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook: April 2013 (SSSM-296).

As it has done with every decennial census since 1950, in late February 2013, the Office of Management and Budget announced the latest delineation of metropolitan areas in the United States. ERS uses this delineation as the foundation for its Rural-Urban Continuum Codes and Urban Influence Codes, which further identify each county by size of metro core (for metro counties), or degree of urbanization and proximity to metro areas (for nonmetro counties). Generally, nonmetro counties that grew rapidly over the previous decade are reclassified as metro. In the latest update, 113 nonmetro counties (with just under 5.9 million people) switched to metro status while 36 counties (with just over 1 million people) no longer qualified as metro, resulting in a net nonmetro population "loss" of 4.8 million from reclassification. The 1,976 counties now classified as nonmetro include 15 percent of the U.S. population (46 million people) and 72 percent of the Nation’s land area. This map is found on the ERS topic page, Population & Migration, updated May 2013.

In 2011, traditional foodstores—supermarkets, grocery stores, and specialty food stores—accounted for 69.9 percent of U.S. food-at-home sales, down from 76.8 percent in 2000. Much of the sales share loss by traditional foodstores came from supercenters and warehouse clubs capturing more of the food-at-home market. Over the last 11 years, warehouse clubs and supercenters’ share of food-at-home sales grew from 7.1 to 16.0 percent. More recently, dollar stores and drugstores have expanded their food offerings and increased their share of at-home food sales. Nonstore food sales—such as mail order, home delivery, and direct sales by farms, processors, and wholesalers—made up a smaller share of total at-home food sales in 2011 than in 2000, and mass merchandisers’ share dropped from 1.7 percent in 2000 to 0.6 percent in 2011. This chart appears in the Retailing & Wholesaling ERS topic page, updated March 2013.

The current Agreement on Agriculture of the World Trade Organization (WTO) limits how much members can spend on trade-distorting support. Members notify this spending as the aggregate measurement of support (AMS), commonly called the “amber box.” The U.S. limit, or ceiling, is currently $19.1 billion, reduced from a starting point of $23 billion in 1995. For developed countries, the AMS includes support for specific commodities (product-specific support) that totals more than 5 percent of the value of production of that commodity, and support generally available to producers (non-product specific support) that totals more than 5 percent of the country’s total value of agricultural production. For the United States, only a small number of commodities have been supported above the 5-percent minimum (or de minimis) level, and general support has never risen above that level. Even so, during several years of low commodity prices, U.S. program support led to AMS totals close to the WTO ceiling. In recent years, however, high commodity prices have reduced program spending, and an AMS has been notified to the WTO for only a few commodities. This chart is based on data found on the U.S. WTO Domestic Support Reduction Commitments and Notifications topic page on the ERS website.