More Hogs than Expected

The USDA March Hogs and Pigs report did little to help explain why numbers were high, other than to simply admit that hog inventory counts from previous surveys were too low.



Pork supplies in the first quarter of 2015 were expected to rise one percent. In reality, first quarter pork production was up five percent. This is because they were 4.5 percent more hogs that weighed about a half percent more than their year earlier counterparts. More hogs at heavier weights has pushed prices down says Chris Hurt, and that’s not the end of it.

Quote Summary - There is an even more price depressing force coming to the market as the number of hogs coming to market in the most recent four weeks has remarkably been ten percent higher than year-ago levels. Higher than expected current numbers may mean that the breeding herd expansion is larger than USDA surveys have indicated and/or that PED death losses were smaller than producers reported to USDA.

If there has been an undercount of animals, the possibility remains says Chris Hurt for higher market numbers than anticipated for the rest of the year.

As a result of the higher actual marketings in the first quarter, USDA revised last summer’s pig crop upward by nearly three percent. As always, “the proof is in the pudding” meaning that if actual winter slaughter is higher than accounted for by last summer’s pig crop, last summer’s pig crop has to be revised upward. USDA did this by increasing the estimated number of farrowings. Hurt has been wondering, based on USDA’s numbers, if the breeding herd has been expanded.

While USDA raised the size of last summer’s farrowings, the size of the breeding herd was not increased. This still leaves unanswered the question of whether the breeding herd is actually higher, which would indicate that the breeding herd has expanded more rapidly than indicated by USDA survey numbers. If the breeding herd has expanded more rapidly than future animal numbers may also be higher than indicated by the USDA counts.

More pigs coming to market in the first quarter than expected must have come from a larger breeding herd thinks Hurt. He says current marketing numbers have been averaging ten percent higher. If the marketing herd is larger, then marketing numbers could continue to surprise the market on the high side and hog prices will stay depressed.

April WASDE Big for Corn

The March 31 USDA reports resolved some questions for the corn market, but left a couple of items hanging. The April 9 supply and demand tables will give the report some true balance.



Most traders saw last week’s USDA reports as a bad sign for the price of corn. The acreage figure was on the high end of trade expectations and the grain stocks number appears to show a slower than estimated pace of consumption. University of Illinois Ag Economist Darrel Good has a different take.

Quote Summary - Taken at face value the corn stocks number implies less feed and residual usage during the first half of the marketing year than the trade expected. It is about 69 percent of USDA’s projection for the year, 5.3 billion bushels. Over the last four years the first half feed use has been 74 percent and if the market assumes the actual uses is factually 74 percent then the 5.3 billion is not reachable.

However, Darrel Good goes on, if you look at the history prior to the past four years, which he considers anomalous, first half feed usage averaged something between 65 and 68 percent - not 74 percent .

Quote Summary - If we are on that path this year, then 5.3 billion bushels is still reachable, and we might do even more given the expansion in livestock numbers. Broiler numbers are up 3 to 4 percent. The winter pig crop is 7 percent larger than last year. It mens core feed demand should be very robust the last half of the marketing year.

Clearly says the ILLINOIS ag economist the market did not interpret USDA’s Grain Stocks report in this fashion. It, he says, likely expects the April 9 WASDE estimates to show a lower feed usage number and consequently an increase in the year ending stocks for corn.

Quote Summary - Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if the WASDE number is a bit lower in the April report. They may come down 100 million bushels on the feed and residual use projection and put all of that into the projected year ending stocks number. I think that is the way the market is leaning. Unfortunately, we won’t get another real read on that until we get the June Grain Stocks report three months from now.

Between now and then the trade will mostly forget about old crop corn feed usage as it concentrates more energy on divining how the 2015 corn harvest will affect the price of corn.

USDA Extends Farm Bill Sign Up One Week

The United States Department of Agriculture has extended the farm bill sign up period, again. A month ago USDA opted to allow the two farm bill deadlines to be consolidated into one ending date. It was scheduled to close Tuesday March 31st.

The sign up period has been extended a full week says U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. The deadline is now April 7th.

The secretary reports 98 percent of farm land owners have updated information needed to calculate payments made under the new farm programs, but only 90 percent of the farms are enrolled.

Those farms not enrolled by the deadline will receive no 2014 crop year payments and the farm will default to the Price Loss Coverage enrollment option for the 2015 through 2018 crop years.
Sign up can be completed at local Farm Service Agency offices.

The Final Days of the USDA Report Data

Tuesday the Department of Agriculture will release one of its most anticipated reports of the year. It began collecting data from farmers at the beginning of this month. The crop acreage data is compiled, encrypted and transferred to Washington, D.C.

USDA contacts more than 80,000 farmers across the United States in March. It asks them a series of questions. One in the series is about which crops and how many acres of each they expect to plant this season. The agency sends all those farmers a letter to do this. Those not responding get a phone call, and then if they still don’t respond receive a face-to-face visit. The collection was completed Wednesday March 18th. Last Friday the Illinois and Missouri National Agricultural Statistics Service staffs, if the schedule went as Mark Schleusener expected, should have been reviewing the information.

Quote Summary - The last few days before publication there is an analysis period. Friday morning we are going to look at a balance sheet. We’ll add up all the corn, soybeans, wheat, hay, etcetera, and CRP. In Illinois the total is pretty constant across years with the mix of crop acres changing from one year to the next. So, we’ll make estimates on acreage in each, add them up, and compare it to previous years to see if the sum of the parts makes sense. We’ll do that Friday morning and then submit our estimates in an encrypted file to our Washington, D.C. headquarters. There will be more analysis done under secure conditions and the report comes out March 31.

This analysis is done by National Agricultural Statistic Service staff. Schleusener says the staff is primarily gifted in two area; statistics and agriculture. And he says the sum of those two qualifications is what’s required to do a good job for NASS. Schleusener serves at the NASS Illinois State Statistician.

Quote Summary - So, we are looking at what the number shows. What comes out of the computer, and how that compares to previous surveys and other factors. For instance, this balance sheet approach is a way to make sure we don’t go off-the-rails by being a little bit too high on each crop and a lot too high overall. The balance sheet makes sure we don’t go in that direction.

It gives the analysts a chance to see errors before the Prospective Plantings figures are reported up the chain or out the door. The Prospective Plantings report will be released in Washington, D.C. at noon eastern time Tuesday March 31, 2015.

Soybean Stocks Overshadowed by Prospective Plantings

March 31st traders and farmers are likely to pay a great deal more attention to the number of soybean acres USDA expects will be planted this season than the number of soybean bushels left in the United States. However, the stocks figure may hold some surprises.

Last December the United States Department of Agriculture reported a surprisingly low Grain Stocks number for soybeans. The agency counts up available bushels of most crops once a quarter; in December, March, June, and September. University of Illinois Ag Economist Darrel Good says the December 1 soybean stocks number implied a record large residual use of soybeans during the first quarter (September-November) of the 2014–15 marketing year.

Quote Summary - Some have explained this low figure by suggesting a larger number of bushels of soybean were in transport on December 1 than in previous years. This explanation was apparently favored by the market and caused March 2015 soybean futures to close 36 cents lower on the day of the surprisingly small estimate. Another possible explanation is that the size of the 2014 soybean crops has been overestimated.

This argument might be supported by higher than expected soybean prices this year given the estimated size of the surplus projected to be generated by the large 2014 crop. In addition, basis levels have been generally strong for most of the year. Basis is the difference between the price of a futures contract in Chicago and the local cash bid.

USDA’s March 1, 2015 estimate of soybean stocks may add some clarity to this debate writes Darrel Good in his Weekly Outlook posted to the Farm Doc Daily website. Expectations for the magnitude of March 1 stocks are based on the estimate of December 1 stocks, imports during the quarter, and estimates of soybean consumption during the quarter.

If the size of the 2014 soybean crop has been accurately estimated, the March 1 stocks estimate should imply a large negative seed and residual use during the second quarter of the 2014–15 marketing year. That was the case in previous years of very large implied residual use during the first quarter of the marketing year. Seed and residual use during the second quarter of the marketing year, for example, was estimated at –38 million bushels last year, –22 million bushels in 2012–13 and –42 million bushels in 2009–10. A reasonable expectation this year might be near –90 million bushels. A March 1 stocks estimate near 1.41 billion bushels, then, would be consistent with the estimated size of the 2014 crop and known use of soybeans through February.

Given this, if the USDA’s Grain Stocks report shows something substantially different than 1.41 billion bushels on hand, then it should renew the debate over the size of last fall’s soybean harvest. Such a debate, however, would not be resolved for another six months. The USDA’s estimate of the crop size is frequently revised, but not until the release of the September 1 stocks estimate. It comes on September 30th this year.

Good says, historically, implied seed and residual use of soybeans during the first half of the marketing year has not been a good predictor of the size or direction of any subsequent change in the estimated size of the crop.

The March 31 Grain Stocks Report

The reports USDA releases March 31 will set the tone of agricultural trade for three months in Chicago.



Once every quarter the National Agricultural Statistics Service takes a census of the available bushels of corn, soybeans, and wheat. It is called the Grain Stocks report. It is not exactly a survey, but rather more of an actual accounting, in his case of what’s stored in Illinois, says NASS State Statistician Mark Schleusener, “…to measure the whole supply of grains and oilseeds USDA NASS does on farm surveys. Those are done with producers to find out what they have in their grain storage bins. Off farm storage tallies bushels in the mills and the elevators using a census as of March 1. All commercial storage facilities are contacted”.

Nationwide more than 9000 commercial storage facilities are contacted for the census side of the Grain Stocks report. The survey side - that done with farmers - is sent to more than 80,000 producers with an 80 percent response rate. The goal is to get a very accurate accounting of the bushels available for use.

Where the bushels are stored changes across the season. December 1 it is stored on farm. Through the winter months these bushels slowly move to the elevators and mills and eventually, in the case of corn, the bushels are shipped down the river for export, or fed to livestock, or turned into ethanol. The bushels are used.

If you add what’s used to what’s left - the Grain Stocks number - the sum should be the total available supply for the year. However, tracking the middle usage number for corn - bushels fed to livestock - isn’t possible. That’s why USDA calls this number Feed & Residual. This season it is supposed to be 5.3 billion bushels. The question is how much of that 5.3 billion has already been consumed. There in lies the guess says University of Illinois Ag Economist Darrel Good.

Quote Summary - If the most recent pattern is being followed this year and USDA’s 5.3 billion bushel usage for the year is correct, then use for the first half the year should total 3.9 billion bushels with 1.7 of that used in the second quarter. If that is the case, the total use during the second quarter would have been 3.75 billion bushel and leave March 1 stocks at 7.45 billion.

On-the-other-hand, if the usage pattern is more like it was prior to 2010, there could be another 200 or 300 million bushels of corn accounted for in the Grain Stocks figure because it hasn’t yet been consumed. It will still be consistent with a 5.3 billion bushel usage figure for the year.

The Grain Stocks report for corn has a wide range then of acceptable figures from around 7.4 to 7.7 billion bushels. It makes the Grain Stocks number not so important, and puts a great deal more weight on the Prospective Plantings report to be released on the same date, March 31.

How USDA NASS Counts Acres

USDA has just wrapped up its survey of more than 80,000 U.S. farmers. The agency uses the information to develop the March 31st acreage forecast.

In the spring USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service division contacts farmers in hopes of learning how much of each crop they expect to plant. The agency contacts farmers across the United States. Corn and soybean farmers are of particular interest. This year more than 4000 Kansas farmers were tapped, along with around 3700 in Nebraska and about 3000 in each of the Dakotas, Iowa, and Illinois. Another 2000 farmers each were contacted in Indiana and Ohio.

Quote Summary - Our goal is to make sure we are measuring small, medium, and large farms. So, we use what’s called a stratified sample.

That’s NASS Illinois State Statistician Mark Schleusener.

Quote Summary - That is a fancy way of saying for the biggest farms, we are going to talk to all of them; for the large, but not biggest we will talk with one out of three of those and for the medium, maybe one out of ten; and for the smaller farms we might measure one out of twenty-five of those.

Each farmer surveyed is asked how many acres they operate. How much of that land they intend to plant to corn or soybeans, and how much might already be in wheat. They’re also asked about oats, sorghum, and hay. The response rate goal, and usually achievement, is an amazing eighty percent.

Quote Summary - Yes, our goal is an 80% response rate on all surveys and we use several methods of data collection. Every producer in the sample receives a letter with a planting intentions questionnaire. The letter also has instructions for reporting to a secure internet website. These are both inexpensive ways of gathering data. The people that do not respond will be called. If this doesn’t work then someone will make a farm visit for a face to face. Both these methods are more effective, in general, but also are more expensive.

The biggest problem NASS faces when taking the acreage survey is that farmers usually haven’t yet made all their planting decisions. The agency knows this and is satisfied with best estimates. The individual reports are confidential by law and the data collected is exempt from legal processes.

The data can be aggregated at the county, state, and national level. Computers flag any large acreage changes at the individual level so that an analyst can check for a data entry error or make a follow up call. The state statisticians review the total number of crop acres for any major changes - total crop acres generally remain constant - and then submit the estimates in an encrypted file to USDA NASS in Washington, D.C. There more analysis is done and the final report is produced for release March 31.

Estimated 2014 ARC County Payments

Farmers throughout the nation are deciding which of the new farm programs to take. Another piece of that puzzle was put into place when USDA released the county wide corn and soybean yields late last month. These can be used to estimate some of the 2014 farm program payments.



County wide yields as calculated by USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service along with the estimated season's average cash price - the marketing year average - can be used to forward figure 2014 ARC County payments. It is possible therefore to know

Farm Bill Sign Up Extended

USDA has extended the deadline to update base acres and yields under the new farm bill until March 31st. The original deadline for landowners to make initial decisions related to the new farm safety net was Friday February 27, 2015.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack made the announcement saying it is an important decision for producers, because the programs provide financial protection against unexpected changes in the marketplace.

The Secretary says USDA is working to ensure landowners and farmers have the time, the information, and opportunity to review their data, and to visit the Farm Service Agency to make solid informed farm bill decisions.

If no changes are made to yield history or base acres by March 31, 2015, the farm’s current yield and base will be used. A program choice of ARC or PLC coverage also must be made by that same date or there will be no 2014 payments for the farm and the farm will default to PLC coverage through the 2018 crop year.

2015 USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum

Last week the United States Department of Agriculture presented its view of the commodity markets.



Thursday USDA Acting Chief Economist Robert Johansson made a presentation on the current agricultural landscape during the 2015 USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum. Interestingly, he set the tone by showing how commodity prices have been trending downward for more than 60 years.

Yield Exclusion and Crop Insurance

When farmers go to their federal crop insurance agents in March they may have a new decision to make. The new Yield Exclusion option may allow some producers to increase their covered yields.

U.S. Soybean Production Prospects for 2015

There are lot of soybeans in the world. Last fall U.S. farmers harvested a record crop, and their counterparts in South America are doing the same right now.

Beef Expansion Is Underway

Beef Expansion Is Underway
Chris Hurt, Extension Ag Economist - Purdue University

The nation’s cattle producers are expanding the herd and they’re doing it at a somewhat faster rate than had been anticipated.

USDA, in the semi-annual update of cattle numbers, calculates the total number of cattle and calves has increased by a bit more than one percent. It is the first increase in the cattle inventory since 2007. The industry suffered high feed prices and poor pasture conditions in the Southern Plains over the intervening years. 2014 provided a series of reasons to change course says Purdue University Extension Ag Economist Chris Hurt.

Quote Summary - There were multiple incentives to expand in 2014. These were led by record high cattle prices, with finished cattle averaging near $155 per live hundredweight and Oklahoma 500–550 pound steer calves averaging $250 per hundred. The other part of the incentive was more abundant feed due to a retreating drought in the Central and Southern Plains that restored range conditions and to favorable feed crop production in 2013 and 2014 which lowered corn and protein feed costs.

The most significant expansion is underway in the beef herd where beef cow numbers are up two percent from year-ago levels. The number of beef heifers being held back to enter the breeding herd is up four percent. Significantly, the number of those retained heifers that will calve this year is up seven percent. This means 61 percent of the beef heifers that have been retained to enter the breeding herd were already bred at the start of this year. The 2014 beef cow herd expansion, thinks Hurt, is likely the beginning of a multi-year increase.

Quote Summary - It is common for the beef herd to be in expansion for four to six years. With 2014 registering as the first year of expansion, expansion could continue through most of this decade. If so, peak beef production on this cycle would not be expected until early in the next decade.

Beef supplies, however for this year, will not change much. This might lead one to anticipate prices to be near the $155 finished cattle price of 2014. However, 2014 was an exceptional year, and meat prices in general this year may be lower explains Chris Hurt. Currently, futures markets are heavily discounting cash cattle prices, suggesting 2015 average finished cattle prices in the higher $140’s. However, he expects finished cattle prices to average $150 to $157 in 2015, with prices in early spring in upper $150s and the lower $160’s and then to fall to near $150 in summer and then to end the year in the mid-$150s.

Using the APAS Sample Farm

Using the APAS Sample Farm
Jonathan Coppess, Ag Policy Specialist - University of Illinois

Farmers and landowners wanting to learn more about the new farm programs and the sign up process can visit the Farm Bill Toolbox online. It was developed by the ag economists at the University of Illinois and Ohio State. Just search Google for Farm Bill Toolbox and you’ll find a seven step decision making process. There is also a link from the Farm Bill Toolbox to USDA’s APAS (ay-pass) website.

APAS stands for Agricultural Policy Analysis System. Jonathan Coppess from the University of Illinois says the two systems are related to each other.

Quote Summary - The way we look at it is that the APAS site gives you the chance to calculate expected payments and the Farm Bill Toolbox is the education outreach and analysis. So, you may use the two in an interrelated way. In fact we often make presentations using both, jumping back and forth from the APAS Tools to the Decision Steps.

The seven Decision Steps in the Farm Bill Toolbox guide farmers and landowners through the sign up process. The APAS Tool allows them to put their own farm numbers into the programs to see how different scenarios would work over the project five year life of the new farm safety net. Those wanting a quick view can simply use a sample farm from their own county - no matter where they live in the nation.

Quote Summary - The sample farmers are very usually friendly way to get an idea what program payments might be expected in your county. You simply choose your state and county, and a projected price series - one from USDA, one from the Congressional Budget Office, or the or the FAPRI numbers - and APAS simulates a farm sized at about $500,000 in gross revenue. The models use historical values from the county and estimates payments for a farm of that size.

The APAS sample farm is a quick way to benchmark, says Coppess, the new farm programs and how they might perform in a given county under varying price scenarios and program choices. APAS estimates farm payments based on crop, price, and program choice.

Those wanting to use the APAS Tools and the Farm Bill Toolbox can find each online.

Signing Up for the Farm Programs

The time to sign up for the farm programs has arrived. Decisions will need to be made in February and January. Read on for a quick lesson in the process, and then please visit the Farm Bill Toolbox website created by the ag economists at the University of Illinois. Landowners and farmers should find the seven step decision process in the toolbox very valuable as an aid to making the new farm program choices.

The deadline for making two of the three farm program choices is the end of February. University of Illinois Ag Economists Gary Schnitkey, Jonathan Coppess, & Nick Paulson along with The Ohio State’s Carl Zulauf penned an article about the acreage allocation and yield update decisions. It follows;

Base Acre and Yield Updating Decisions: Push to the Finish
The deadline for completing base acre and yield updating decisions is February 27th (see steps 2 and 3 of “7 Steps” on Farm Bill Toolbox). Choosing between alternatives for each of these decisions is relatively straight forward:

1) For yield updating, select the highest yield for each program crop.

2) For base acre reallocation, choose the allocation that maximizes acres in program crops with the highest payments, given that the desire is to maximize program payments.

While the decisions usually are straightforward, collecting the information and completing the process will take some time. For this reason, beginning the process now seems prudent.

Landowners Officially Make the Decisions
Decisions will be made for each Farm Service Agency (FSA) farm. For each farm, there will be a landowner who owns the farm. Under rental arrangement, there also will be a producer who farms the land.

Landowners are responsible for making the base acre reallocation and yield updating decisions. While the landowner officially makes the decisions, in many rental situations producers have the proper power of attorneys to complete paperwork for these decisions. FSA has a record of whether proper power of attorneys exists for each farm. If an appropriate power of attorney does not exist and the landowner wishes the producer to complete the process, a power of attorney will need to be signed for farmers or farm managers to complete the decisions. If a power of attorney does not exist, the landowner will need to complete the process for base acre and yield updating decisions.

Collect Yield Data
If program yields are to be updated, yields are required for each year the crop was planted from 2008 through 2012. Documentation is not required at signup. However, documentation will be required if the FSA farm is audited during the life of the Farm Bill. The method of documentation will need to be indicated at signup. In many cases, crop insurance records will be used to provide documentation. These records are the actual yearly yields used to calculate Actual Production History (APH) yields. An explanation of using crop insurance records for documentation is available here (farmdocdaily December 23, 2014).

It will not be uncommon that documentation for a yield will not exist for a year. For example, a producer may have only farmed the land in 2010 through 2012 and cannot obtain documentation for 2008 and 2009.

If a yield is provided without documentation under an audit, farm program payments may have to be repaid and a fine could result. When yield documentation does not exist, a plug yield will need to be used. The plug yield equals 75% of the county average. When documentation cannot be provided, the plug yield should be used for 2008 and 2009

Plug yields for each county and crop are publicly available. FSA has this information. They can be obtained from the Payment Yield Update tool on the APAS website. The plug yields also are contained in the Base Acre and Yield Updating tool, a Microsoft FAST spreadsheet available for download at the FAST website.

Yields can be reported to FSA using CCC–859. This form is available here.

Make an Appointment with FSA
An appointment should be made immediately with FSA. If possible, yields for updating should be completed before this meeting. Bringing completed CCC–859 forms will facility the signup process.

Yield Updating Decision
Two alternatives for the program yield will exist for each program crop (see farmdocdaily April 3, 2014 for more detail):

• The current program yield. These yields were reported for each FSA farm in a letter received from FSA in August 2014.
• The updated yield equal to 90% of the average of yields from 2008 through 2012. If a year’s actual yield is below the plug yield, the plug yield will be used instead of the actual yield. If an actual yield does not exist for a year in which the crop was planted, the plug yield will be used in the update yield calculation.

Choose the highest yield. The decision can differ by crop for an FSA farm.

Base Acre Reallocation Decision
There are total base acres on each FSA farm. Landowner will be given two alternatives for dividing those total base acres into acres for each program crop (see farmdocdaily March 6, 2014 for more detail):

• Current allocation of base acres on the farm. These acres were sent to landowners and producers in a letter received in August 2014.
• Reallocated base acres. Total base acres are reallocated based on plantings from 2009 through 2012. Actual plantings were described in a letter received in August 2014. Total base acres under reallocation will equal base acres if current base acres are retained.

This decision is important as Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Coverage at the county level (ARC-CO) will make payments in 2014 through 2018 on base acres. Planted acres in those years will not influence payments.

Many individuals will wish to make the allocation that maximizes commodity program payments, suggesting that the allocation be selected that places most acres in the crops with the highest expected payments. Estimating expected payments by crop requires forecast of prices and yields in 2014 through 2018. Obviously, forecasts can be wrong and crop rankings can vary from forecast rankings. With the knowledge of potential differences, estimated expected payments per program crop by county are available in the sample farms section of APAS. These same estimates also are available in the Base Acre and Yield Updating tool (available at the FAST website).

Users can see expected payment per program crop under different price forecasts for individual counties. In most counties, however, the following ranking exists:

• Corn will have higher expected payment
• Wheat will have lower expected payments than corn
• Soybean will have lower expected payments than corn and wheat.

Corn and soybeans are only program crop: Given the above program crop ranking, choosing the acre alternative with the most corn acres likely will maximize program payments.

As an example take a farm whose current allocation is 60 acres of corn and 40 acres of soybeans. The reallocation alternative based on 2009 through 2012 plantings is 75 acres of corn and 25 acres of soybeans. Note that both alternatives total 100 total base acres. The above ranking suggests that the reallocated alternative (75 acres of corn and 25 acres of soybeans) will have the highest expected payments.

Corn, soybeans, and wheat are the program crops: When these three program crops exist, the reallocation with the lowest acres in soybeans while maximizing corn acres usually will result in the highest expected payments. Use of the Base Acre and Yield Updating Tool is advisable in these cases.

Summary
In many cases, making choices for base acre reallocation and yield updating will be relatively straightforward. Collecting yields, getting the proper power of attorneys, and signing proper election forms will take time. Beginning the process now is important. The process needs to be completed by February 27, 2015.

Reviewing the Pace of Corn & Soybean Exports

Following the January 12 USDA Crop Production and Grain Stocks reports it has becoming increasingly clear that the story in the corn and soybean markets for the foreseeable future will be the ongoing pace of consumption.



Consumption of corn produced in the United States can be tallied as corn for used for ethanol, fed to livestock, or exported. The soybean consumption numbers are derived from an item called the crush… that’s when a soybean facility crushes the bean to extract the oil and meal from it. There is also the feed and residual number, and again exports. University of Illinois Ag Economist John Newton has explored the export numbers.

He says, holding all else constant, a lower rate of corn and soybean exports relative to current USDA projections would increase carryover stocks, and could produce downward pressure on prices. USDA, as of the January reports, expects corn exports will be 1.75 billion or 1750 million bushels for the current marketing year. Newton also says right now the actual numbers suggest corn exports will need to pick up to make it to seventeen-fifty.

With nearly 40 percent of the marketing year in the books, corn exports need to accelerate in order to reach the 1,750 million bushel WASDE projection. Based on the implied GATS estimate of 602 million bushels, 1,148 million bushels need to be exported during the remainder of the marketing year to reach the WASDE projection. On a weekly basis this total represents approximately 37 million bushels per week, and would require an increase of 57 percent over the current 10-week average export volume.

Again, in order to meet the USDA projected yearly exports total of 1.750 billion bushels the pace of corn exports needs to average 37 million bushels per week from mid-January forward. Using a similar set of calculations John Newton reports cumulative soybean exports for the 2014/15 marketing year total 1.312 billion bushels, up 18 percent from last year.

Based on the FGIS totals, then, to reach the 1,770 million bushel WASDE projection it’s implied that 458 million bushels of soybeans need to be exported during the remainder of the marketing year. On a weekly basis this total represents approximately 15 million bushels per week.

While corn exports are accelerating, the pace of soybean exports from U.S. ports is slowing down. Combining the outstanding sales with the remaining balance needed, Newton expects sales could come up 42 million bushels short of the WASDE projection. He thinks soybean exports will struggle to meet the lofty 1.77 billion bushel USDA estimate, but that it is entirely possible.

RFS2 Set to Ramp up Biodiesel Usage

U.S. EPA has stalled the release of the annual usage mandates for bio fuels in the United States. These are due out each November, but neither the 2014 or 2015 figures have been released. EPA says it will put forth new numbers next spring. In the meantime, it might be important to consider just how using the default numbers would play out for the production of ethanol and biodiesel.



The United States congress set renewable fuels mandates a few years ago. It also gave U.S. EPA the power to adjust those mandates. EPA hasn’t done so for the 2014 calendar year, or for 2015. We’ll dispose of the political baggage and simply focus on the results of using the default statutes written into the law.

USDA Finalizes Farm Program Rules

by Jonathan Coppess, Gary Schnitkey, Nick Paulson, and Carl Zulauf
University of Illinois College of ACES and The Ohio State University

Thursday, September 25, 2014, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced the regulations for the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs created by the 2014 Farm Bill. Along with the regulation, Secretary Vilsack also announced the public release of the web-based decision tools that have been developed under cooperative agreements with the Farm Service Agency. This article provides more information on these items.

Background

The Agriculture Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill) revised the commodity support programs beginning with the 2014 crop year. Direct payments, counter-cyclical payments and the Average Crop Revenue Election payments were eliminated by this farm bill. In place of those support programs, three new programs were created for covered commodities or program crops. These programs are: Agriculture Risk Coverage, County Option (ARC-CO), Agriculture Risk Coverage, Individual Farm Coverage (ARC-IC), and Price Loss Coverage (PLC). The 2014 Farm Bill also provided one-time opportunities for farm owners to update the payment yields for the FSA farm and a one-time opportunity to reallocate the base acres among program crops planted on the FSA farm. Finally, the farm bill included funds for the development of web-based decision aids or tools that farmers, landowners and others could use to help sort through the program decisions required.

Discussion

The University of Illinois as the lead institution for a national coalition has worked under a cooperative agreement to develop the web-based decision tools. In addition to the web-based tools, the coalition has also created an online resource site affiliated with farmdoc and will be conducting outreach, education and training on the programs and the web-based tools. The following is an overview of the resources currently available.

(1) The Farm Bill Toolbox on farmdoc: a one-stop resource for all aspects of the farm bill program decisions, it is available here (or by entering the following web address: http://farmbilltoolbox.farmdoc.illinois.edu) provides a seven-step decision process or matrix to guide producers through the program decisions and use of the web-based tool. The Toolbox also provides one-page fact sheets and links to additional resources such as previously published articles and new articles on farm bill program issues and topics. Finally, the farmdoc team will be conducting weekly webinars explaining the programs, the web-based tool and analysis, as well as program and harvest updates. These webinars will be every Friday morning at 8:00 a.m. (CST) beginning September 26^th and continuing through the end of October. Webinars will be archived and available for review. Additional webinars are also available in the archives. For registration, more information and archives please visit the Farm Bill Toolbox.

(2) The Agriculture Policy Analysis System (APAS): available here (or by entering the following web address: http://fsa.usapas.com) this web-based application provides the ability to calculate updated payment yields for the FSA farm, calculate reallocated base acres for the FSA farm and analyze, compare and understand the program choices (ARC-CO, ARC-IC and PLC/SCO). Program analysis and information is available in two forms. First, the Sample Farms button allows for a quick program comparison and analysis based on a data-generated sample farm for your state and county, both expected program payments and per-acre, crop-by-crop payments. Producers can also select the Build Your Own Farm (BYOF) option that will allow them to input their farm-specific information and run estimates of program payments. Both options also provide a "safety net" analysis using specific revenue targets and providing the probability of reaching those revenue targets under different program scenarios.

(3) Farm Service Agency: the APAS web-based tool is also available on the FSA website, along with detailed fact sheets and other related program information (available here or by entering the following web address: www.fsa.usda.gov/arc-plc).

FSA has not announced a final deadline for making the farm program decisions (payment yields, base acre reallocation and program election), but it is anticipated that the deadline will be sometime in 2015, maybe as late as March. Producers and landowners are encouraged to wait until later in the year or early next year. More information about prices and yields will be known at that time, allowing for a more informed, better decision. With many farmers already in the fields, or about to begin harvesting, there is no immediate action needed. There is time to learn more about the programs, use the web-based tools and understand the analysis before any decision will have to be made. Updates on deadlines and program decisions will be available on the Farm Bill Toolbox and through farmdoc daily.

USDA Updates Cash Rents by County

 

In recent weeks, two sources released cash rent information for Illinois. The U.S. Department of Agriculture released county average cash rents for 2014. The Illinois Society of Professional Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers released 2014 and expected 2015 cash rents for professionally managed farmland. Expected 2015 rents point to decreasing cash rent levels on professionally managed farmland. Whether or not other cash rents follow professionally managed cash rents down is an open question.

Average Cash Rents in Illinois

The National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) - an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture - released 2014 average rents per county on September 5, 2014. A number of counties do not have cash rents reported, likely because statistically reliable rents could not be obtained with survey responses.

As can be seen in Figure 1, there is a considerable range in cash rents across Illinois. Four counties had average cash rents over $300 per acre: Logan ($308 per acre), Piatt ($303 per acre), Sangamon ($302 per acre), and Ogle ($300 per acre). Except for Ogle County, these high-rent counties are located in central Illinois. The five counties with the lowest cash rents are Johnson ($80 per acre), Williamson County ($92 per acre), Perry ($106 per acre), Saline ($107 per acre), and Franklin ($108 per acre). These counties with the lowest cash rents are located in southern Illinois. Generally, average cash rent levels are related to productivity, with counties having more productive farmland have higher cash rents than those counties with less productive farmland (farmdoc daily, September 10, 2013).

figure1.jpg

Overall, 2014 average cash rents were higher in 2014 than 2013. According to NASS, the average rent in Illinois increased from $224 per acre in 2013 to $234 per acre in 2014, an increase of 5%. This continued a string of years of large increases. Since 2006, average state rents in Illinois have increased from $132 per acre in 2006 to $234 per acre in 2014, an increase over this eight year period of 77%.

Professional Cash Rents Levels

The Illinois Society of Professional Farm Managers and Rural Appraiser released results of its annual mid-year survey. This survey asked for 2014 and expected 2015 cash rents on professionally managed farmland. These rents, along with 2013 cash rents from a previous survey, are shown in Table 1. Average rent levels are shown for four classes of farmland productivity:

Excellent - expected corn yields are over 190 bushels per acre
Good - expected corn yields are between 170 and 190 bushels per acre,
Average - expected corn yields are between 150 and 170 bushels per acre, and
Fair - expected corn yields are below 150 bushels per acre.
table1.jpg

Average cash rents decreased between 2013 and 2014. For excellent quality farmland, cash rents decreased from $396 per acre to $374 per acre in 2014, a decrease of $14 per acre.

Decreases for professionally managed farmland stands in contrast to average cash rents, which increased from $224 per acre in 2013 to $234 per acre in 2014. Farm managers follow agricultural markets, likely much more closely than land owners without management. As a result, farm managers likely set rents closer to those suggested by market conditions. Cash rents on professionally managed farmland increased faster than average cash rents between 2006 and 2013, when returns rose as a result of higher prices. Now that prices have decreased from levels experienced during 2009 through 2013, farm managers are lowering cash rents. On farmland, not managed there may be considerably more lagged relationship between changes in returns and changes in rent levels.

On professionally managed farmland, cash rents likely will continue to decline into 2015. For all quality classes, Society members indicated that rents would be lower in 2015. For excellent quality farmland, for example, cash rents are projected to decrease from $374 per acre in 2014 to $338 per acre in 2014, a decrease of $36 per acre (see Table 1). If the decrease occurs, cash rents would decrease by about 10%.

There is a considerable range in cash rents for similar productivity farmland within a small geographical area, with some rents above the average by $100 and other rents below the average by $100. Below average cash rents could continue to increase to "catch up" with average levels. At the same time, above average cash rents could decrease, as indicated by results from the Illinois Society. These two forces could counter each other, leading to stable or maybe even increasing average cash rent levels.

Projections are for much lower returns in 2014 and 2015 return (farmdoc daily, July 8, 2014). Even with decreases in cash rents projected by the Illinois Society, farmer returns would be projected to decrease because returns have decreased more than cash rents.

Summary

Rents on professionally managed farmland could decrease in 2015. Other above average cash rents could decrease as well. However, below average cash rents may remain stable or increase. Overall, rent decreases likely will not cover decreases in lower returns projected for 2014 and 2015.

Conserving Soil & Protecting Water - it's kinda what we do...

Post by Todd E. Gleason.