Impact of COVID-19 on Agriculture

What’s in the CARES Act for Food and Agriculture

Market Intel / March 26, 2020

Credit: Cytis/ CC0 

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic that has roiled the U.S. economy, the Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. In addition to direct payments to individuals of up to $1,200, extended unemployment benefits and federal loan guarantees, the $2 trillion CARES Act provides a number of food- and agriculture-related benefits, including funding to ensure children and low-income families have continued access to nutritious, affordable food and to ensure farmers have the financial resources they need to offset the more immediate economic impacts of the virus. Today’s article reviews the food and agriculture-related provisions of the CARES act.

For the agriculture-related provisions, the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture received $9.5 billion, approximately 19% of the total food and agriculture provisions, to provide financial support to farmers and ranchers impacted by coronavirus. The funding is allocated specifically for specialty crops, producers who supply local food systems and farmers’ markets, restaurants and schools, livestock producers, i.e., cattlemen and women, and dairy farmers.

In addition to the $9.5 billion, the Commodity Credit Corporation was replenished with $14 billion – 29% of the total funding amount for agriculture. The CCC is the funding mechanism for agricultural programs such as Price Loss Coverage and Dairy Margin Coverage. The CCC bolsters commodity and income support programs, natural resources conservation programs, disaster assistance programs and most recently the Market Facilitation Program. The $14-billion replenishment is for fiscal year 2020, so that’s in addition to the second and third tranche of MFP payments, as well as farm bill payments made last fall.  This replenishment will allow USDA to develop new support programs to assist agricultural producers and potentially help agribusinesses such as ethanol plants (Ethanol Plants Pushed Toward Unprofitability).

Expand Image

Direct food- and agriculture-related provisions in the CARES Act total approximately $49 billion, or 2.45% of the $2-trillion measure. The act provides a total of $24.6 billion for domestic food programs – representing 50% of the total agricultural program funding in the bill. The act allocates $15.8 billion, or 32%, to improve access to supplemental nutrition programs in the event costs or participation exceed budget estimates. Of that total, $300 million is allocated for SNAP improvements in underserved areas such as Indian reservations or U.S. territories. In addition to enhanced funding for SNAP, child nutrition programs received $8.8 billion in additional funding – representing 18% of the total.

Combined, these four buckets represent 98% of the food- and agriculture-related provisions in the CARES Act. The remaining 2% of funding – approximately $916 million – is allocated for enhancing staffing and services in a number of key mission areas. The package includes funding for a variety of programs critical for rural America, including $100 million for USDA’s ReConnect pilot, $25 million for distance learning and telemedicine programs, $185 million to support rural critical access hospitals, rural tribal health and telehealth programs, and poison control centers, and $20.5 million to support an additional $1 billion of lending through USDA's Rural Development, Figure 2.

Expand Image


The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act provides the financial resources immediately necessary to ensure that children and low-income families continue to have access to healthy and affordable food. Additionally, the aid to farmers in this package, including funding for the CCC and the Office of the Secretary, will allow USDA to begin crafting an appropriate relief program for agriculture, including but not limited to support for specialty crop producers, producers supplying farmers’ markets, dairy farmers, and ranchers raising feeder and fed cattle. Given the sharp downturn in ethanol markets and downstream impact on corn prices across the Midwest, an aid package for these agribusinesses may also be warranted.

The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to have a long tail economically, and recovery will take time. The full extent of the economic damage to U.S. farmers, ranchers, agribusinesses and the many others involved in food production is unknown. Moreover, the ability for U.S. agricultural exports to recover and potentially meet the Phase 1 commitments is also unknown. If more resources ultimately prove necessary, our lawmakers and the administration have demonstrated their ability to make those resources available.

John Newton, Ph.D.
Chief Economist
(202) 406-3729

Share This Article

Credit: iStockPhoto 

New-crop sales of soybeans, corn, sorghum and cotton to China have been getting a lot of attention. These purchases are being closely watched and interpreted as potential signs as to whether China will be fulfilling their Phase 1 commitments, which were finalized in January 2020. Data from USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service’s U.S. Export Sales Report, released on August 13 and covering sales through August 6, back up the rumors of large sales. However, how do new-crop sales compare to previous years? To find out, we compare new-crop sales (2020/21 marketing year) to the similar week from the last five years.

Full Article
Credit: fdecomite CC BY 2.0 

On the back of COVID-19-related price shocks and a record-high cheese price, the July Class I milk price was nearly $2.60 per hundredweight, or 13%, below where it would have been prior to a 2018 farm bill change, spurring the withholding of 8-plus billion pounds of milk over two months, a 32% reduction from the prior year, from Federal Milk Marketing Order revenue sharing pools across the county. As a result, FMMO revenue sharing pools were short $527 million in June and $667 million in July, for a combined $1.2 billion. This shortfall caused record-low FMMO minimum milk prices across the U.S. that showed up in dairy farmers’ milk checks as negative producer price differentials The PPD in California, for example, amounted to nearly -$10 per hundredweight for July. Put simply, most dairy farmers are not happy. To make matters worse, public and private risk management tools were unable to protect against these record-large milk check deductions.

Full Article