Expected E15 Announcement No Big Deal

President Trump at his Council Bluffs, Iowa rally Tuesday is expected to announce a waiver to allow year-round use of gasoline blended with 15% ethanol (E15). Todd Gleason reports it may make little difference in how much corn is used to make ethanol.

2019 Illinois Crop Budgets are Dismal

The numbers look bad for Illinois grain farmers next year.

That’s the only conclusion Gary Schnitkey can draw when he puts the costs up against the incomes for corn and soybeans in 2019. Schnitkey, an ag economist at the Univesity of Illinois, says fuel and fertilizer costs are expected to go up. Prices aren’t and that’s the dismal part says Schnitkey, “Probably the one thing that has changed relative to recent years is that corn is expected to be more profitable than soybeans. Again, that is largely due to our use of $3.60 for a 2019 corn price and $8.50 for soybeans. This switches the profitability around. That’s driven by trade concerns, particularly with China and what that has done to commodity prices.”

Here’s an example of the bottom line for next year’s budget. A northern Illinois farmer might expect to have $174 to split between the farmer and the landowner for corn and $143 for soybeans. This return is considerably below the cost of cash rent and roughly, says Schnitkey, near the 2005 returns.

Turner Hall Transformation | the smart classroom

Six years after more than 100 alumni, faculty, students, and friends of Illinois gathered to kick-off a 5 million dollar fundraising campaign, the University of Illinois Turner Hall transformation has been completed. 1964 ag sciences grad William Kirk and his wife, Lillian, made a $500,000 donation to seed the project.

Turner Hall West Lobby

Phase I of the Turner Hall Project transformed the crop science and soil science laboratories into 21st-century learning environments. Undergraduate courses are taught in these two labs. Donors also funded a two-story renovation of the west lobby. In total, Phase I renovated 7136 square feet. These renovated spaces allow for active learning, utilizing new technologies. The Dow AgroSciences Crop Sciences Laboratory and the Monsanto Soil Science Laboratory welcomed students for the first time in fall 2015.



Phase II construction began in 2017 and will conclude in 2018. This 38,377 square foot, three-floor renovation will fully transform classrooms on the first and second floors of Turner Hall, as well as advanced laboratories in the basement. Transformed classrooms feature new technologies, state-of-the-art equipment, new flooring, HVAC and lighting. It encompasses a new computer lab, new “smart” classroom, new conference room and student collaboration areas.

New Lab Dedicated to Commodity Crop Bioprocessing

The market for commodity crops processed into new products is expected to more than double in the next six years to some 490 billion dollars. The IBRL building on the Univesity of Illinois campus in Urbana-Champaign is investing in the future of these agricultural innovations.

The last week of September a new building was dedicated on the University of Illinois campus in Urbana-Champaign. The Integrated Bioprocessing Research Laboratory is designed to bridge the gap between discovery and commercialization. IBRL’s director, Vijay Singh, says every year some 250 invention disclosures are filed at the University of Illinois. Most are never commercialized because there isn’t a proof of concept facility to scale up new ways to process ethanol or other agricultural biofuels.



The labs in IBRL, Singh says, will do just that, “This facility is also a link joining academia with business development. With plug and play utilities and flexible equipment offerings, IBRL is agile enough to serve a variety of needs across the bioprocessing industry.”

However, it’s not just the IBRL building on the University of Illinois ag campus that creates this commercialization synergy. There’s the Food Science pilot plant, the Institute for Genomic Biology, the array of greenhouses, the energy farm where all kinds of crops are explored for biofuels, and Research Park where big data technology is fused with the hard sciences. Together, Vijay Singh believes, these create an unmatched eco-space that can drive a bio-economy in Illinois and beyond.

2019 Crop Budgets Suggest Dismal Corn and Soybean Returns

Even with cost-cutting and savings measures, University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Gary Schnitkey says, for the moment, it seems unlikely farmers will have positive returns on rented farmland in 2019. Todd Gleason has more…

Small Refinery Exemptions and Ethanol Demand Destruction

farmdocDaily article

There is widespread interest in whether small refinery exemptions (SREs) under the RFS have “destroyed” demand for ethanol in the physical market. Todd Gleason discusses the point with University of Illinois agricultural economist Scott Irwin.

Trump Trade Policy Crashes Soybean Basis

China, the number one destination for all U.S. soybeans, has stopped buying because of the President’s trade policies. Normally those bushels would be exported via the PNW (the Pacific Northwest) grain export terminals. That gate has closed says NDSU’s Frayne Olson and now all those bushels are expected to try and move through the other export gate at the Port of New Orleans.

Olson says “The challenge we have in the soybean market is that the basis levels are trying to choke off the inflow of grain. Local basis is all about what’s the inflow rate versus the outflow rate. The problem is our out-flow rate is very slow. So, the local basis level is going to continue to fall until it chokes off that inflow and where that magic number depends upon where you are.”

Fall 2019 Soybean Basis

If you look at a fall 2018 map of soybean prices across the United State you can see how grain flow is backing up into the St. Louis export terminals. The PNW can handle about 25 train loads of soybeans a day. St. Louis can manage 5. Because of this, cash prices from the Dakotas all the way to Illinois River - it feeds the export market & St. Louis - are miserably low. Those farmers east of the Illinois River are impacted, too. If the map includes Canadian export terminals you can see that farmers in far western North Dakota are getting a $1.90 a bushel less for their soybeans than their counterparts near London, Ontario. Farmers in parts of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio are getting about 60 cents less.

Soybean Exports since the Onset of Tariffs

by Todd Hubbs, University of Illinois

The evolving developments with tariffs between the U.S. and China continue to influence the outlook for soybean prices. The relationship between U.S. and competitor export prices along with the changing nature of trade flows merit monitoring during the 2018–19 marketing year.



The implementation of tariffs on Chinese goods and the subsequent retaliation led to an adjustment of trade flows in world soybean markets over the last few months. As the tariffs, went into effect, a price gap opened between Brazilian and U.S. export prices. The gap continuously widened when comparing an index of soybean prices at the port of Paranagua and New Orleans prices since early June.


This chart illustrates how the price of U.S. soybeans for export at the port of New Orleans has dropped below the price of Brazil sourced soybeans from the port of Paranagua since June of 2018.

The gap reached its broadest level late last week at approximately $1.90 per bushel difference. New Orleans prices came in near $8.50 per bushel. It is difficult to predict future changes in the spread between the two prices, but it directly relates to the tariff level in China on U.S. soybeans. The development of this price gap indicates the impact of tariffs on soybean markets and highlights switches in Chinese soybean buying this year. Brazilian soybean exports attained record levels in May with exports coming in at 453.7 million bushels. Soybean exports from Brazil continued to show strength through August with the Brazilian export pace exceeding the previous five-year average by 47.5 percent according to Brazilian export data. Meanwhile, the large drop in U.S. soybean prices led to a jump in soybean exports over the last quarter of this marketing year from the U.S.


Both U.S. and Brazilian soybean exports exceeded the five-year-averages in the month of August. However, ILLINOIS’ Todd Hubbs cautions the U.S. increase, derived from countries other than China, is likely not to make up for the expected losses in soybean trade to that nation if the Trump Administration trade row persists.

The USDA soybean export estimate for the 2017–18 marketing year currently sits at 2.11 billion bushels, an increase of 45 million bushels since the June estimate. An expectation of additional bushels added to soybean exports for the 2017–18 marketing year looks probable based on recent export reports. Census Bureau export estimates through July placed soybean exports at 2.051 billion bushels. Census Bureau export totals came in 56 million bushels larger than cumulative marketing year export inspections over the same period. As of August 30, cumulative export inspections for the current marketing year totaled 2.068 billion bushels. If the same difference in export pace continued through the remainder of the marketing year, soybean exports would total 2.124 billion bushels for the 2017–18 marketing year, 14 million bushels above the current estimate. During the last four weeks, export inspections of soybeans averaged 30.6 million bushels per week. Low soybean prices encouraged exports to destinations other than China in the previous two months.


These pie charts illustrate how the final destination of U.S. soybean exports for the month of July changed this year from the previous four years.

A detailed look at July export totals by country, the first full month under the new tariffs, provide a glimpse of how trade flows appear to be adjusting. While Chinese imports fell by 10.7 million bushels from last July, numerous countries increased soybean purchases at the lower prices. Egypt, the European Union, and Taiwan saw the highest increases over last year at 10.9, 5.7, and 8.7 million bushels higher respectively. U.S. soybean exports to China typically reach the lowest levels of the marketing year in the summer and build strength as U.S. harvest progresses. A large pullback in Chinese demand for U.S. soybeans appears set to continue indefinitely. The growth in soybean exports around the world relies on the lower prices in place since June.

A large amount of uncertainty surrounds soybean exports in the 2018–19 marketing. Currently, the USDA forecasts 2.06 billion bushels of soybean exports. Export sales for the next marketing year sit at 510.4 million bushels as of August 30, down 54.8 million bushels from last year. Sales to China came in at 46.5 million bushels, down 80 percent from the same time last year. Stronger sales figures to Mexico, Canada, and Pakistan mitigated weaker sales totals. The ability for the rest of the world to make up for typical Chinese exports in the first half of the 2018–19 marketing year, when U.S. exports to China are at the highest levels, seems unlikely. The USDA reduced the Chinese soybean import forecast to 3.491 billion bushels in the last WASDE report. Recently, the spread of African swine fever saw China indicate an even further reduction in soybean imports over the next year to 3.2 billion bushels, down 9.5 percent from last year. While decreased Chinese import projections may be optimistic, the prospect of substantial increases in U.S. and South American soybean production next marketing year under a lower export demand scenario would keep U.S. prices under pressure.

The growth of the U.S. trade deficit to China in August and the high likelihood of another round of tariffs between the two nations makes a resolution of trade issues a low probability event for the near future. U.S. exports of soybeans jumped over the last quarter of the marketing year as lower prices spurred demand around the world. A large U.S. crop with lower export demand over the next marketing year set up a bearish picture for soybean prices.

Selling Soybeans Across the Scale

This fall farmers will harvest a record sized soybean crop. USDA says about 4.7 billion bushels. They’ll need a home and farmers in North Dakota are really worried. About 2/3rds of their crop is shipped by rail to the Pacific Northwest for export to China. The Trump administration trade policies have mostly closed that market says North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp, “What I would tell you is not only have you disrupted the markets and we have taken a haircut, you may not be able to sell them which is something I’ve been talking about for a long time.” Heitkamp was speaking to farmers in Fargo at the Big Iron farm show this week.

The cash price of soybeans has tumbled across the whole of the Midwest and some elevators are telling farmers not to bring their beans to town. Those soybeans from the Dakota’s and Minnesota are going to try and find another way out of the country. That’s probably through St. Louis and down the Mississippi River. It’s a brutal cash price situation that backs right up into Illinois says Todd Hubbs, “I hope some people put in at $10 to $10.30. Now it is just a lot of damage limitation and hopefully you get a good yield and you can market some of those soybeans right across the scale, but you are looking at really low prices.”

Hubbs, a commodity marketing specialist from the University of Illinois, thinks the only other option is for farmers to store soybeans on the farm and to hope for an end to the trade dispute with China or for a weather problem in Brazil, or both. Though he admits hope is not a strategy.

Market Mitigation Signup | an interview with Gary Schnitkey

Sign up for the trade and tariff compensation package from the United State Department of Agriculture is open. Todd Gleason has more on how and when farmers and landlords should fill out the paperwork.

Marketing Corn & Soybeans this Fall

The dramatic fall in the price of corn and soybeans earlier in the year has put farmers in a unique marketing position. They must decide how much of the drop is due to the expected bumper crop size of the harvest and how much comes from the Trump Administration trade policies. University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Todd Hubbs says determining when those disputes might be settled is key to making good marketing decisions.

Great Corn Grind, but Ethanol Stocks are Building

Dan O’Brien from Kansas State University discusses the state of ethanol production and stocks. While grind has been tremendous, stocks are building, and plant profitability looks to be near breakeven.

2018 Cash Rents were up $5/acre in Illinois

University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Gary Schnitkey discusses the surprise $5 an acre cash rent increase seen in the state wide 2018 survey numbers and how farm economics look going into the 2019 growing season.

by USDA NASS
see the 2018 USDA Land Values Survey

Agricultural Land Values Highlights

The United States farm real estate value, a measurement of the value of all land and buildings on farms, averaged $3,140 per acre for 2018, up $60 per acre (1.9 percent) from 2017 values.


Regional changes in the average value of farm real estate ranged from an 8.3 percent increase in the Southern Plains region to 1.4 percent decrease in the Northern Plains region. The highest farm real estate values were in the Corn Belt region at $6,430 per acre. The Mountain region had the lowest farm real estate value at $1,140 per acre.


The United States cropland value averaged $4,130 per acre, an increase of $40 per acre from the previous year. In the Southern Plains region, the average cropland value increased 4.7 percent from the previous year, while in the Lake region, cropland values decreased by 0.6 percent.
The United States pasture value increased by $40 per acre (3.0 percent) from 2017 values. The Southern Plains region had the highest increase from 2017 at 5.6 percent. The Pacific region remained unchanged at $1,650 per acre.


Cropland value: The value of land used to grow field crops, vegetables, or land harvested for hay. Land that switches back and forth between cropland and pasture should be valued as cropland. Hay land, idle cropland, and cropland enrolled in government conservation programs should be valued as cropland.

AirScout Precision Agriculture Startup

A startup on the south end of the University of Illinois campus is using thermal imaging to help precision agriculture become prescription agriculture. Todd Gleason has more on how AirScout is helping farmers take advantage of their precision-guided equipment.

The Trump Administration, Ethanol, & the RFS

During a U.S. Senate hearing, Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler answered questions about ethanol, biofuels, the RFS, and small refinery waivers. He appears to be holding the same line Scott Pruitt took during his time at the helm of the agency with some notable differences.

Breeding Barley to Make Budweiser

You might think of Anheuser Busch as a beverage company producing great American beers like Budweiser. However, as Todd Gleason reports from Idaho Falls, Idaho, it is a highly integrated agricultural company.

Trade Tariff Farmer Compensation Package

The Trump Administration’s has a $12 billion dollar plan to compensate farmers for damages done so far by the trade dispute with China and other nations. Here’s what’s known, so far, about how the plan will work.

The largest part of that money will be paid out to soybean producers, though direct payments will also be made for other commodities including corn, wheat, sorghum, cotton, dairy, and pork. USDA Chief Economist Rob Johansson told reporters on the line the initial damage calculation has already been made, “We’ve calculated what the damage is to producers facing these illegal tariff actions. We are working out the specific details and will be working it out as a rule making action in a couple of weeks and that will have our estimated rates. As the Secretary mentioned, this will be playing out over time and we do look to allowing for the Administration to successfully negotiate a deal here with our trading partners. And so, the program will be flexible to allow that.”

Again, Johansson says the financial damage part has already been calculated, though he also says specific details have yet to be published and or worked out. Should the trade disputes be settled the program is meant to flexible.

This was not said, but it makes sense that a farmer who harvests and sells soybeans prior to the settlement would get a payment, one who sells after the settlement may not.

Assistant Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs, Brad Karmen says FSA, the Farm Service Agency, will be responsible for the sign up, “So we are going to allow producers, we are talking about a September sign-up, and it will probably go for many months. So, producers will have time to visit there FSA count y office. And in order to run this program we need producers to harvest their crop. So, producers that harvest their crop, like wheat for example which in on the list and many of those producers have harvested already. They may be able to get their payment earlier than somebody like corn or soybeans that doesn’t harvest until October. But we need producers to harvest so that we know their production in order to calculate a payment.”

Recapping then… the the bulk of the $12 billion dollars is intended to compensate soybean farmers for damages to their market. The initial calculation has, it appears, already been made but may be tweaked. Sign-up will be done at local FSA offices. Payments will begin once producers provide actual production figures to the FSA. And, the program may change or end prior to payments being made should the Administration settle trade disputes.

As of July 12th, U.S. farmers were expected to produce 4.3 billion bushels of soybeans this season.

A R C vs P L C | #farmbill18

The farmdocDaily team has written an article projecting future farm safety-net payments. Unless the conference committee members change ARC-Co (ark-county) dramatically, most corn farmers will choose P-L-C this time around.



excepts from the farmdocDaily article
by Gary Schnitkey, Jonathan Coppess, Nick Paulson, & Carl Zulauf

The House and Senate have respectively passed their versions of a 2018 Farm Bill. Now a conference committee will attempt to work out the differences. Both include the Agricultural Risk Coverage at the County Level (ARC-CO) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) farm safety net programs first made available in the 2014 bill. The House version eliminates a third program— ARC at the individual farm level (ARC-IC) — while the Senate leaves it in.

ARC-CO pays when county revenue (county yield x marketing year average price) is below a revenue guarantee. The revenue guarantee equals .86 times a benchmark yield times a benchmark price. Benchmark yields and benchmark prices are Olympic averages of the five previous prices (eliminate the high and low equals). When county revenue is below the ARC guarantee, a shortfall is calculated that equals the guarantee minus harvest revenue. The shortfall cannot exceed 10% of the benchmark price times the benchmark yield. The ARC payment equals 85% times the shortfall. In each year since the 2014 Farm Bill has been implemented, payments have been reduced by a 6.8% sequester amount. Prices since 2014 have been below $4.00, and the benchmark price has declined. The benchmark price will be $3.70 in 2018, compared with a high of $5.29 in 2014. The benchmark price cannot go below $3.70 since the $3.70 reference price is a floor on the benchmark price.

Price Loss Coverage (PLC) is a price program. It makes payments when prices are below the reference price ($3.70 for corn). Each FSA farm has a PLC yield. The yield used in calculating payments is the average county yield, as reported by the Farm Service Agency. A per bushel shortfall is calculated when the MYA price is below the reference price equal to the reference price minus the higher of the MYA price or loan rate ($1.95 for corn). For example, the MYA price was $3.36 in 2016. Per bushel shortfall was $.34 ($3.70 reference price – $3.36 MYA Price), which is multiplied by the PLC yield and the payment acre factor of 0.85 and the sequester factor of (1 – 0.068).

The Senate ARC-CO version modifies the 2014 ARC-CO version in two ways; the benchmark yield will be trend adjusted; and an actual yield below 75% of the t-yield will be replaced by 75% of the t-yield. Both of these modifications have potential to raise benchmark yields, benchmark guarantees, and ARC payments.

The Senate PLC program is exactly the same as the 2014 PLC program.

The House PLC version uses an effective reference price in calculating per bushel shortfalls. The effective reference price equals .85 times the Olympic, five-year average of MYA prices as long as that average is between the current reference price ($3.70 for corn) up to 1.15 times the reference price ($4.26 for corn). If the average is below the $3.70 reference price, the $3.70 reference price is used. If the average is above $4.26, the $4.26 price is used. The House PLC program always has an effective price that is at least as great as the Senate PLC program.



The projection made in its April 2018 baseline allows calculation of CBO’s projections of per acre ARC-CO and PLC payments. On a national per base acre basis, ARC-CO is expected to make payments of $11 per acre for corn produced in the 2019 marketing year (see Table 2). For the 2019 marketing year, PLC is projected to pay $38 per corn base acre. In each year of the projected life of the 2018 Farm Bill, PLC is projected to pay more than ARC-CO. Over the 2019 to 2023 period, PLC is projected to pay an average of $29 per corn base acre compared to $9 per corn base acre for ARC-CO.

The Senate version of ARC-CO would result in higher payments for ARC-CO than those shown in Table 2 because the use of trend-adjusted yields and floors of 75% of t-yields will result in higher yield benchmarks and ARC guarantees. CBO’s estimate of program outlay changes for the Senate version suggests modest increases in spending of an average $20.5 million per year for marketing years from 2019 to 2023 (see Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimates of S. 3042). The $20.5 million is applicable to all program crops. However, even if all the $20.5 million were applied to corn, expected payments would increase by $1.35 per corn base acre. This increase would leave expected payments for ARC-CO near $12 per base acre, still well below those for PLC. It is unlikely this increase would change any decisions by farmers as to which program to elect.

Turning to PLC, the House alternative will have at least as high of payments as shown in Table 2 for the Senate version because the House version has the potential escalator provision for reference prices. CBO estimates the impacts of the effective reference price mechanism to be minor for corn, with PLC payments for corn increasing $5 million for the ten fiscal years from 2019 to 2028 (CBO, https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress–2017–2018/costestimate/hr2.pdf). This $5 million total increase would work out to be less than an increase of $1 per corn base acre. The reason for this low estimate is that MYA prices are not expected to get high enough to cause the effective reference price to exceed the reference price.

Given the choices in the House and Senate versions, most farmers and land owners would choose PLC over ARC-CO for use on corn base acre. This assumes that prices remain at levels currently forecast. It also assumes that farmers and land owners make choices based on highest expected payments from the program.

Jul 23 | USDA Weekly Crop Progress Reports

Around the nation, USDA reports 81% of the corn crop is silking. The rolling 5yr-avg is 62%. 18% of the crop has entered the dough stage, the 5yr-avg is 8%. The corn crop is in slightly better condition than last week as is the soybean crop. It now stands at 70% good or excellent with 44% of the crop setting pods. The 5yr-avg is about half that amount. Winter wheat harvest is 80% complete.

A Commodity Markets Interview with Todd Hubbs

The commodity markets seemed to have found a bottom for the moment. Todd Gleason has more on what may be next with University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Todd Hubbs.