Posts

Mar 29 | USDA Stocks & Acreage








- Dale Durchholz, AgriVisor LLC
- Greg Ginder, FCStone
- Mike Zuzolo, GlobalAnalytics.net
- Lance Honig, USDA NASS












Pre-Season Tar Spot Checklist for Corn

   Corn farmers in northern Illinois and across the corn belt have been dealing with a new disease. Todd Gleason has more on Tar Spot and what producers can do to mitigate its impact.

Tar spot is a relatively new disease of corn in the Midwest. It has been showing up on field corn in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and Florida says University of Illinois Extension Plant Pathologist Nathan Kleczewski, "That's where it is found right now. But in terms of severity, where we have seen it the most and the pressure is the highest, if you would take the lower portion of Lake Michigan and draw a section around there, that is where we've had the greatest severity right now. That is where we've had the most pressure."

Kleczewski says this is because tar spot likes nighttime lows in the 70's and a lot of humidity. Here's a pre-season checklist for farmers in these areas concerned about the disease, "We do know that hybrids have different tolerance to this disease. They are all susceptible but some are less susceptible than others. And if you can get information from seedsman as to the tolerance rankings, go with something that is less susceptible if it fits your production needs."

 Wisconsin Extension Plant Pathologist Damon Smith has a list of some corn hybrid tolerances to tar spot. That list can be found on the Badger Crop Doc website. The address is badgercropdoc.com.

The Economic Advisability of Lowering 2019 N Rates on Corn



by Gary Schnitkey, Agricultural Economist - University of Illinois
read farmdocDaily article

Spring field operations will soon begin, and nitrogen applications on corn will commence. More nitrogen will be applied this spring than is typical because wet weather limited fall applications. University-recommended nitrogen application rates in Illinois are between 140 and 180 pounds of actual nitrogen per acre for corn-following-soybeans. For farmers applying above those rates, application reductions seem prudent this year. If a farmer is uncomfortable lowering to the University-recommended rates, experimenting by leaving strips in fields seems prudent.

Why Consider Lowering Nitrogen Application Rates in 2019?

Two economic factors suggest urgency in lowering nitrogen rates this year. First, net incomes on Illinois farms could be extremely low in 2019. Projections indicate average income on grain farms enrolled in Illinois Farm Business Farm Management (FBFM) could be -$55,000 per farm if prices maintain their current levels and yields are not exceptional (see farmdoc daily January 15, 2019). This average income would be the lowest since FBFM began collecting consistent income data starting in the 1970s. Although higher yields or higher prices could result in higher incomes, it seems more reasonable to expect very low incomes in 2019. Given these low incomes, reducing costs is crucial, particularly if those costs do not increase revenue.

Second, nitrogen fertilizer prices in 2019 have been increasing and will be above levels of the last three years (see Figure 1). On March 14th, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) — an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture — reported an average anhydrous ammonia price in Illinois of $615 per ton, which is $97 per ton above the 2018 March average price of $518 per ton. The 2019 price also is above prices in March in 2016 and 2017 (see Figure 1). A higher nitrogen price suggests lowering applications, particularly given that the 2019 expected corn price is roughly at the same level as in 2017 and 2018.



Maximum Returns to Nitrogen (MRTNs) in Illinois

“Maximum Return to Nitrogen” (MRTN) rates are available from the Corn Nitrogen Rate Calculator, a website maintained by universities in Corn Belt states. MRTNs give the nitrogen rate that, over time, will produce the highest economic return for nitrogen use. Many nitrogen rate trials provide the basis for determining MRTNs (see the “About” section of Calculator for more detail).
Table 1 shows MRTNs from the Corn Nitrogen Rate Calculator for northern, central, and southern Illinois. These rates are shown for “corn-following-soybeans” and “corn-following-corn.” MRTNs also are given where the source of nitrogen is anhydrous ammonia and 28% nitrogen solution. Note that the rates in Table 1 include all sources of nitrogen, and credits should be given for nitrogen in DAP (see Using the N Rate Calculator).



Take Central Illinois as an example in interpreting the table. For corn-following-soybeans, MRTN rates are 174 pounds of nitrogen per acre for anhydrous ammonia and 163 pounds of nitrogen per acre for 28% nitrogen solution. Those rates are pounds of nitrogen applied per acre and not the amount of ammonia or solution applied. For anhydrous ammonia, the 174 pounds of nitrogen results in an application of 212 pounds of anhydrous ammonia (212 = 174 / .82 analysis of ammonia). For nitrogen solution, the application is 582 pounds per acre of 28% nitrogen solution (582 = 163 / .28).
Prices used in the calculations of MRTN rates in Table 1 are \(3.70 per bushel for corn, $610 per ton for anhydrous ammonia, and $280 per ton for 28% nitrogen solution. Lower MRTNs result for 28% because nitrogen costs more in 28% than in anhydrous ammonia. The costs per pound of nitrogen in anhydrous ammonia is $.37 per pound ($610 price / (2000 pounds x .82 analysis)) compared to .50 per pound cost for 28% (\).50 = $280 / (2000 pounds x .28)).

PCM and Rates

Precision Conservation Management (PCM) is a farmer service program led by the Illinois Corn Growers Association in partnership with over 30 partners. The mission of PCM is to increase conservation practice adoption using farm business management principles. With 200 farmers enrolled in its 16-county service area, PCM represents about 200,000 acres of farmland in Illinois.
Farmers enrolled in PCM provide detailed production records geo-linked to fields, with data provided including nitrogen applied and yields. Data from 2015 through 2017 have been analyzed and suggest that many farmers apply above MRTN rates, with some exceeding 200 pounds of nitrogen per acre. In 2015 through 2017, higher than MRTNs did not lead to higher yields.
Costs of Over-applying

Applications of nitrogen above MRTNs have additional costs. Given the nitrogen prices above, every 10-pound application of actual nitrogen applied above the MRTN has a cost of $3.70 per acre for anhydrous ammonia and $5.00 per acre for 28%. For anhydrous ammonia, 1.0 additional bushel of corn is needed to compensate for the higher nitrogen costs. For 28%, 1.35 bushels of corn are needed to cover the costs of 10-pounds of additional nitrogen.

Costs increase as pounds of over-applications increase. Take a application that is 50 pounds above the MRTN. For 28%, this application will have an additional cost of $25 per acre. A farm with 1,000 corn acres would have $25,000 higher costs, and $25,000 less net income.

The MRTN takes into consideration many trials, and higher yields will occasionally occur at rates above MRTNs. Over time, however, profits should be maximized at rates near the MRTN (see N rate Calculator Updated). The $25 per acre costs would have to have an addition of 6.8 bushels to cover the cost if the yield above the MRTN was obtained each year. This break-even yield goes up if the yield does not increase each year. For example, the 6.8 bushels increase to 13.6 bushels per acre if the additional application only increases yield in 50% of the years. The break-even yield further increases to 27.0 bushels per acre if the yields respond only in one in four years.

Experimentation

The MRTNs in Table 1 may be considerably below the nitrogen rates used on many farms. Over time, applying above the recommended rate will result in lower profits. Given this fact, lowering applications to the MRTN rate seem prudent. If cutting applications to the MRTN seem extreme, experimentation may be warranted. Placing strips in fields at MRTNs may provide evidence that those rates do result in the most profit.

Farmers Unlikely to Make Big Acreage Switch to Corn

The scuttlebutt in the trade, even in the numbers released by USDA at its February Agricultural Outlook Forum, is that the economics will push farmers to plant a lot more corn acres this year.

Ag Economist Gary Schnitkey has updated budgets for corn and soybeans across the state. He knows USDA increased its expectation for corn acres around the nation by about 3 million acres but says he does not expect a big shift to corn in Illinois, “What we find is that corn is projected to be more profitable than soybeans. This is the first year in a while that has happened. However, our budgets do not suggest shifting to more corn production. Particularly corn-after-corn is less profitable than soybeans. So, it is status quo for the central Illinois area with a 50/50 corn/soybean rotation being more profitable for 2019.”

This holds for northern and central Illinois. Southern Illinois still has a regionalized economic bias to plant soybeans. Soybeans make more money there says Schnitkey, “However, the big thing right now is the upcoming USDA Prospective Plantings report and whether we will see shifts from soybean to corn which some people are expecting. These budgets would say in the heart of the corn belt, or in the corn belt in general, that you won’t see shifts from soybeans to corn. So, you have to see those shifts from someplace else and there are limited opportunities there.”

USDA in its February Outlook meeting projected U.S. farmers would plant about three percent more corn acres this season than last and almost five percent fewer soybean acres. The agency will release an official estimate of acreage March 29th.

Feb 23 | WILLAg Newsletter

Changes are coming!

The agricultural sector is caught up in a storm of change. Political and economic forces have been squeezing trade on the global front and U.S. farmers have been leaning into the winds. We take up a few of these topics in this edition of the WILLAg Newsletter.
  • Trade with China
  • Profile of USTR Lighthizer
  • USDA Ag Outlook Forum
  • Corn Acreage in 2019
  • Expected Corn vs Soybean Returns
  • 2018 Ethanol Plant Losses
We’ll also explore these topics, marketing prospects, the price of farmland, and the weather during our March 5 All Day Ag Outlook. Hopefully, you can join us at the Beef House in Covington, Indiana. The cost is just $30 and includes Beef House coffee and rolls in the morning and Beef House lunch at the noon hour.

Tickets are available online or by calling 800–898–1065.

Hope to See You There!
Todd E. Gleason, Farm Broadcaster
University of Illinois Extension | WILLAg.org





Trade with China

Friday the Chinese trade delegation gathered in the Oval Office with President Trump. A letter from President Xi was read out loud. It urged a continued push toward a final trade deal. The only firm detail to come out of the week’s worth of talks in Washington was a commitment to purchase 10mmt of soybeans. USDA issued an official release on the announcement. It did not include a timeline for the purchases. CNBC reported the Chinese had offered to guarantee purchases of $1.2 trillion dollars of U.S. goods. Again, there was no timeline issued and this point has not been confirmed by any other outlet, the White House, or the Chinese.

During the week the trade discussions in Washington, D.C. pointed to five MOU’s. These Memorandums of Understanding included one on agriculture and were how U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer had decided to break down the issues in order to tackle them; agriculture, non-tariff barriers, services, technology transfer & intellectual property.

President Trump during the Oval Office meeting Friday pushed aside the MOU’s. He interrupted Trade Representative Lighthizer in front of the Chinese. Lighthizer was trying to explain how the MOUs would build the foundation of a trade deal. Mr. Trump stopped him and said, “I disagree. I think that a memorandum of understanding is not a contract to the extent that we want.” Lighthizer agreed that the term MOU would not be used again.

The important point in this exchange is likely not the MOU discussion. The President interrupted and corrected his lead trade negotiator in front of the Chinese delegation. Clearly, if a trade deal is to be struck it can only be done one-on-one between Presidents Trump and Xi. They may meet next month at Mar-A-Lago.

Mr. Trump has long focused on closing the trade gap with China. The other issues have not been of very much importance to him although he does mention China stealing and intellectual property rights. A trade deal with China is one of the President’s campaign promises. The dazzling $1.2 trillion number CNBC reported might be very enticing to a man who has had a habit of fulfilling his campaign promises.

If it is completed in this fashion, without enforcement mechanisms or real intellectual property rights protections, then as President Trump has said recently Democrats won’t go along. Republicans are likely to stay mum as the deal sets idle in Congress and simply becomes a presidential election year rallying cry. Presidents negotiate trade deals. Congress approves them.



Profile of USTR Lighthizer

NPR profiled Trade Representative Lighthizer this week. Please take six minutes to listen. It’ll be worth your while to know a whole lot more about the man leading the trade negotiations with China.




USDA Ag Outlook Forum

This week USDA put on its 95th Annual Agricultural Outlook Forum. It provides some initial numbers the trade uses to project the 2019 growing season into the markets until official USDA reports are issued. The first supply and demand report for the 2019/20 growing season will be issued in May. The March 29 Prospective Plantings report will provide survey results of what farmers think their acreage mix will look like this year. Here you will find some of the powerpoint slides U.S.D.A. Chief Economist Robert Johansson presented in the opening session and the full supply and demand tables presented Friday morning.


You may watch the full opening session of the 2019 USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum. It took place in Washington, D.C. February 21 and 22.





























Corn Acreage in 2019

read farmdocDaily article

The number of acres of corn planted this spring will be a key factor in determining where the price of corn goes. University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Todd Hubbs took up the issue in this week’s farmdocDaily article.

He starts with a historical graph. It shows the principal crop acres in the United States and how those have changed since 1997. Both corn and soybean acreage have increased. Combined they’re up about 10 percent over the past two decades.



Illinois’ Todd Hubbs uses that history to help put the number or corn and soybeans acres into perspective, “When we look at the harvest month corn to soybean futures price ratio this year it has been about 2.37. There is a definite signal in this graph from about 2006 to 2018 that if you are above 2.4 in that ratio, there will be less corn acreage. If you are below 2.3 there will be more corn acreage. We are, today, sitting right in between those. We’ve seen problems with field work in large parts of the corn belt. We’ve seen fertilizer and other input costs go up on corn. So, the idea that we are going to see a massive increase in corn acreage could happen, but under the current price structure we might not see the kind of corn acreage we think we are going to see.”



Hubbs says he used the 2019–20 futures prices to forward calculate a seasons average cash price for new crop corn. His calculation points to $3.81 per bushel. He then figured a stocks to use ratio that would fit that number, “I think an 11% stocks to use ratio in 2019–2020 would give us $3.81. If consumption is constant at 14.8 billion bushels from this marketing year to the next, that would put corn acreage around 91.7 million at a national trend line yield of 174.6 bushels to the acre.”

Finally, Hubbs says there isn’t a lot of weather premium priced into new crop corn futures. He also says there isn’t much of premium built in for a possible trade deal with China. Hubbs thinks that may be just as bullish for corn as it is for soybeans. Right now he thinks the 2.37 soybean/corn ratio feels high if the expectation is for a substantial increase in corn acreage.



Expected Corn versus Soybean Returns in 2019



by Gary Schnitkey, University of Illinois
see full farmdocDaily article and video

Two factors have changed between the planning periods in 2018 and 2019. First, expected soybeans prices are lower in 2019 as compared to 2018. A reasonable way of forming expectations of cash prices at harvest is to use current bid prices for fall delivery of grain. In 2018, fall delivery prices for soybeans in the month of February averaged about $9.80 in East-Central Illinois. In 2019, fall delivery prices are roughly $.75 per bushel less at $9.05 (see Table 1). At the same time, fall delivery prices for corn are roughly the same at $3.70 per bushel. An $.75 decline in soybean price reduces expected soybean returns by $45 per acre given a soybean yield of 60 bushels per acre ($45 = .75 lower price x 60 bushels yield).



Second, costs have increased, with a primary contributor being increases in nitrogen fertilizer prices. Throughout much of 2018, anhydrous ammonia prices were in the low $500 per ton range (see Table 2). So far in 2019, anhydrous ammonia prices have averaged $607 per ton in January and $613 in February (see Table 2). Fall applications of nitrogen were limited in 2018 due to wet soil conditions, leading many farmers to have to price nitrogen in 2019. These farmers likely will pay around $100 per ton more for anhydrous ammonia in 2019 as compared to 2018. If 220 pounds of anhydrous ammonia are applied per acre, leading to an application of 180 pounds of elemental N (180 = 220 pounds x .82 N analysis of anhydrous ammonia), nitrogen fertilizer costs would increase in 2019 over 2018 levels by $11 per acre ($100 price increase per ton x 220 pounds of anhydrous ammonia per acre / 2000 pounds per ton).



The decrease in soybean price increases the relative profitability of corn. The increase in nitrogen fertilizer price decreases the relative profitability of corn, partially offsetting the impacts if the soybean price increase.

2019 Corn and Soybean Budgets
Table 3 shows 2019 corn and soybean budgets for high-productivity farmland in central Illinois (see farmdoc for 2019 Crop Budgets). These budgets incorporate price and cost changes between 2018 and 2019. Two notes about these budgets:
  • Yields are 213 bushels per acre for corn-after-corn and 63 bushels per acre for soybeans-after-corn. These are trend yields. In recent years, yields in Illinois have been above trend. Corn yields averaged 20 bushels above trend from 2014 to 2018 (farmdoc daily, January 3, 2018) while soybean yields have averaged 6.5 bushels above trend (farmdoc daily, December 11, 2018).
  • Prices used in budgets are $3.60 per bushel for corn and $8.50 per bushel for soybeans. The corn price is near fall delivery bids while the budgeted soybean price is about $.55 per bushel below the fall delivery bid. The lower budgeted soybean price reflects a general pessimism about soybean prices resulting from expected large supplies relative to demand (see farmdoc daily, January 28, 2019). This lower soybean price will decrease soybean profitability relative to corn, suggesting more of a shift to corn than a higher soybean price.


Operator and land returns are $188 per acre for corn and $180 per acre for soybeans, suggesting that corn will be more profitable than soybeans. However, this difference in profitability does not suggest a large shift in acres to corn. Most farms in central Illinois have a corn-soybean rotation, necessitating a move to corn-after-corn to grow more corn. Corn-after-corn returns are projected at $137 per acre, which are less than the $180 per acre soybean-after-corn return. These lower corn-after-corn returns suggest maintaining a corn-soybean rotation.

Other Budget Values Operator and land returns shown in Table 3 were recalculated for two different scenarios. First, a $9.00 soybean price was used to calculate soybean returns. The $9.00 price is close to fall bids. Given that corn prices do not change, operator and land returns for corn remain the same as those shown in Table 3:
  • corn-after-soybeans: $188 per acre, and
  • corn-after-corn: $137 per acre,
while soybean returns increase to:
  • soybeans-after-corn: $211 per acre, and
  • soybeans-after-two-years-corn: $229 per acre.
As would be expected, this price scenario increases soybean profitability relative to corn. Current forward bids do not suggest a shift to corn from a profitability standpoint.

The second scenario maintains the corn and soybean prices at $3.60 and $8.50, respectively, but increases corn yields by 20 bushels per acre and soybean yields by 6 bushels per acre. This scenario reflects a situation where budgets are more optimistic than trend yields due to high yields in recent years. In this case, operator and land returns are:
  • corn-after-soybeans (233 bushels per acre): $260 per acre
  • corn-after-corn (223 bushels per acre): $209 per acre
  • soybeans-after-corn (69 bushels per acre): $231 per acre
  • soybeans-after-two-years-corn (71 bushels per acre):$248 per acre
Higher yields increase returns and also increase the relative profitability of corn. However, corn-after-scorn is less profitable than soybeans-after-corn. These projections do not suggest that growing more corn would be more profitable than maintaining soybean acres given that both crops have above trend yields at 2013–2018 levels.

Summary and Conclusions
Current fall delivery prices do not suggest that switching to more corn away from soybeans will result in higher profitability on high-productivity farmland in central Illinois. Due to high relatively corn yields, central Illinois is one of the most profitable areas to grow corn relative to soybeans, If central Illinois budgets do not suggest a switch to corn, budgets in less productive areas likely will not suggest a shift from soybeans to corn.



2018 Ethanol Plant Losses
see full farmdocDaily article

University of Illinois Agricultural Economist and noted ethanol industry specialist Scott Irwin wrote an article detailing the financial losses the industry experienced last year. Use the link above to read the full article. Here’s the paragraph Irwin penned on the potential implications for ethanol going forward.

“The ethanol industry in 2018 experienced its first losing year since 2012, thereby ending a run of five consecutive years of positive returns. The estimated loss for a representative Iowa ethanol plant in 2018 was -$2.2 million. While large, the 2018 loss was still far less than the -$6.7 million loss in 2012. The evidence points to overproduction as the driving force behind the low prices and financial losses experienced by ethanol producers during 2018. The fortunes of the U.S. ethanol industry are unlikely to improve until production and use are better balanced. This will require shuttering some production capacity, additional demand, or some combination of the two. The most optimistic scenario is additional demand for U.S. ethanol exports as part of a trade deal with China.” - Scott Irwin, University of Illinois

President Trump's Oval Office Remarks on Trade with China

Trump | Oval Office Remarks February 19, 2019

Q How confident are you that it will be finished by March 1? Or are you considering extending that deadline?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, they are very complex talks. They’re going very well. We’re asking for everything that anybody has ever even suggested. These are not just, you know, “let’s sell corn or let’s do this.” It’s going to be selling corn but a lot of it – a lot more than anyone thought possible. And I think the talks are going very well – with China, you’re referring to?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And the talks are going very well.

Our group just came back and now they’re coming here. I can’t tell you exactly about timing, but the date is not a magical date. A lot of things can happen.

The real question will be: Will we raise the tariffs? Because they automatically kick in to 25 percent as of – on $200 billion worth of goods that they send. So I know that China would like not for that to happen. So I think they’re trying to move fast so that doesn’t happen. But it’s – we’ll see what happens.

I can only say that the talks with China on trade have gone very, very well. In the meantime, our economy is very strong. We’re doing well.

I don’t know if you noticed, but deficits seem to be coming down. And last month it was reported, and everybody was surprised, but I wasn’t surprised. We’re taking in a lot of money coming into our Treasury from tariffs and various things, including the steel dumping. And our steel companies are doing really well. Aluminum companies also. So we’re very happy about that.

I think that it’s – they’ll be coming very shortly. They’re going to have very detailed discussions on subjects that have never really been even discussed by people that sat in this chair and they should have been. Very important subjects. And I think we’re doing very well. Okay?

Corn Acreage in 2019

read farmdocDaily article

The number of acres of corn planted this spring will be a key factor in determining where the price of corn goes. University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Todd Hubbs took up the issue in this week’s farmdocDaily article.




He starts with a historical graph. It shows the principal crop acres in the United States and how those have changed since 1997. Both corn and soybean acreage have increased. Combined they’re up about 10 percent over the past two decades.



Illinois’ Todd Hubbs uses that history to help put the number or corn and soybeans acres into perspective, “When we look at the harvest month corn to soybean futures price ratio this year it has been about 2.37. There is a definite signal in this graph from about 2006 to 2018 that if you are above 2.4 in that ratio, there will be less corn acreage. If you are below 2.3 there will be more corn acreage. We are today sitting right in between those. We’ve seen problems with fieldwork in large parts of the corn belt. We’ve seen fertilizer and other input costs go up on corn. So, the idea that we are going to see a massive increase in corn acreage could happen, but under the current price structure we might not see the kind of corn acreage we think we are going to see.”



Hubbs says he used the 2019–20 futures prices to forward calculate a seasons average cash price for new crop corn. His calculation points to $3.81 per bushel. He then figured a stocks-to-use ratio that would fit that number, “I think an 11% stocks to use ratio in 2019–2020 would give us $3.81. If consumption is constant at 14.8 billion bushels from this marketing year to the next, that would put corn acreage around 91.7 million at a national trend line yield of 174.6 bushels to the acre.”

Finally, Hubbs says there isn’t a lot of weather premium priced into new crop corn futures. He also says there isn’t much of premium built in for a possible trade deal with China. Hubbs thinks that may be just as bullish for corn as it is for soybeans. Right now he thinks the 2.37 soybean/corn ratio feels high if the expectation is for a substantial increase in corn acreage.

RIVIAN | All Electric Pickup Truck

Rivian Automotive LLC expects to build an electric plug-in pickup truck and SUV starting in 2020. Todd Gleason talks with Michael McHale about the startup company and its plans to produce the vehicles in Normal, Illinois. They also take up the impact electric vehicles are having on the automotive industry and potentially ethanol made from corn.

SCO: An Insurance Option Available to More Farmers


Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) was introduced in the 2014 Farm Bill but was limited to acres where Price Loss Coverage (PLC) was the commodity title program choice. More farmers likely will be choosing PLC for the 2019 and 2020 marketing years, leading to more acres being eligible for SCO. SCO may be attractive to those farmers who find the costs of Revenue Protection (RP) at an 85% coverage level too high. Farmers interested in SCO should discuss eligibility options with crop insurance agents.

by Gary Schnitkey

SCO Background
SCO is available to farmers who choose PLC for receiving commodity title payments. SCO is not available when Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) is chosen (farmdoc daily, June 16, 2015). ARC was selected on over 90% of the base acres in corn and soybeans under the 2014 Farm Bill. As a result, SCO was not an option for most Midwest farmers. Similar to the 2014 Farm Bill, the 2018 Farm Bill again gives a choice between PLC and ARC. More farmers likely will choose PLC for 2019 and 2020, increasing the acres eligible for SCO.
SCO provides protection in a band from 86% down to the coverage level of an underlying COMBO product. If, for example, a farmer selects a 75% Revenue Protection (RP) product, SCO could be purchased from 86% to the 75% RP coverage level (see farmdoc daily, December 17, 2014; April 24, 2014).

The SCO band of coverage is based on county revenue given that the underlying Combo product is RP. That is, county revenue must fall below 86% of expected revenue before SCO makes a payment. As a result, the RP-SCO combination provides mixed coverage: Farm-level coverage is provided from the RP coverage level downward while county-level coverage is provided between 86% to the coverage level of the RP product.

The primary disadvantage of the RP-SCO combination is that the county-level coverage may not match losses on a farm. Sometimes a farm may have a loss while SCO will not trigger a payment. Conversely, it is possible for the farm not have a loss while the county-based SCO product triggers a payment.

Premiums under RP-SCO Combinations
The primary advantage of using SCO is lower farmer-paid premium. The costs of a RP-SCO combination usually will be lower than an 85% RP product when RP is purchased at less than 85% in the RP-SCO combination. Compared to RP 85%, the RP-SCO premium usually is lower for two reasons. First, county yields typically are less variable than farm yields, resulting in fewer payments for a county product than for a farm-level product at the same coverage level. Lower payments then result in a lower premium. Second, the premium assistance under SCO often is higher than for RP. SCO has a subsidy rate of 65%. For a product with an expected payment of \(1, the SCO farmer-paid premium will be about $.35 (\).35 = $1 expected payment x (1 – .65 subsidy rate)). The 65% subsidy rate is higher than all subsidy levels for basic and optional units when the coverage level is above 50% (see Table 1). The 65% SCO subsidy level also is higher than the subsidy level at an 85% coverage level given enterprise units.



Table 2 shows examples of RP-SCO combinations for Sangamon and Saline Counties in Illinois. Sangamon County is a relatively low risk county while Saline County has higher risk. Premiums are shown for corn (Panels A and B) and soybeans (Panels C and D). Relationships of premiums are the same for both counties and crops.



Take corn in Sangamon County as an example. An RP 85% product has a farmer-paid premium of $21.35 per acre (see Panel A of Table 2). SCO for an RP with an 85% coverage level has a $.79 premium. For an 85% RP coverage level, the RP-SCO combination has a $22.14 per acre premium. An RP-SCO combination with an 80% RP coverage leave has a $14.02 per acre premium, with $11.03 premium from RP 80% and $2.99 from SCO from 86% to 80%. RP-SCO combinations have lower farmer-paid premium as the RP coverage level is decreased. A $22.14 combined premium result for an 85% coverage level, $14.02 premium results for an 80% coverage level, a $9.43 premium results for a 75% coverage level, and so on.

Who Should Consider SCO Farmers purchasing RP at 85% coverage levels likely will not find SCO an attractive alternative. The SCO band from 86% to 85% coverage will provide little additional coverage. Any reduction of RP coverage level with an SCO band results in a crop insurance payment structure that is less correlated with losses on the insurance unit.

Farmers purchasing lower coverage levels could find SCO useful, particularly if the lower coverage level is selected so as to result in a lower farmer-paid premium. The farmer-paid premium for RP approximately doubles from the 75% coverage level to 80% coverage level. For example, soybean RP premium in Sangamon County goes from $2.93 per acre at a 75% coverage level to $5.78 at an 80% coverage level. Premiums again double from the 80% coverage level to the 85% coverage level. For soybeans in Sangamon County, RP premiums increase from $5.78 at an 80% coverage level to $11.68 at an 85% coverage level. A farmer currently at a 75% coverage level could include SCO for $2.53 additional premium, with the $5.46 premium for the RP-SCO combination being less than for a stand-alone RP 80% premium ($5.78) and RP 85% premium ($11.68). The addition of SCO to a RP 75% coverage level would improve coverage, providing county-level coverage above the 75% coverage level of the RP.

USDA Reports Provide Little Support for Corn and Soybeans

by Todd Hubbs, University of Illinois

The USDA finally released a set of highly anticipated reports on Friday. The results projected lower ending stocks for corn and soybeans during this marketing year. Despite lower ending stock forecasts, the results disappointed and produced a somewhat bearish outlook. The following discussion recaps developments in corn and soybean crop fundamentals coming out of the reports and price implications moving forward.



Corn ending stock projections for the 2018–19 marketing year came in at 1.735 billion bushels, down 46 million bushels from the December forecast. Reduced corn production in 2018 drove ending stocks lower despite a 165 million bushel reduction in total use during the marketing year. Corn production is down 1.4 percent from the November forecast at 14.4 billion bushels. The harvested acreage estimate of 81.7 million acres is down from the November forecast of 81.8 million acres. Average corn yield of 176.4 bushels per acre is 2.5 bushels lower than the November forecast. December 1 corn stocks came in at 11.952 billion bushels. Total disappearance came in near 4.62 billion bushels during the first quarter of the marketing year, up from last year’s first quarter use by approximately 280 million bushels. Despite the lower domestic supply numbers and stronger first quarter use, lower consumption forecasts in key categories provide little support for corn prices.

The WASDE report forecast for U.S. corn during 2018–19 lowered corn use projections for feed and residual use, ethanol crush, and other food and industrial uses. At 5.375 billion bushels, the projection for corn feed use and residual moved lower by 125 million bushels. The ethanol use forecast decreased by 25 million bushels to 5.575 billion bushels. The lower ethanol use reflected the slowing ethanol production levels over the last month. Food, seed, and industrial use other than ethanol saw the consumption forecast lowered 15 million bushels on reduced corn use for high fructose corn syrup, glucose, and dextrose. Corn export forecasts maintained the 2.45 billion bushels forecast in December. The potential for increased corn usage seems increasingly dependent on continued economic growth and the resolution of the current trade impasse.

World ending stocks for corn increased by almost 40 million bushels from December forecasts. The increase focused on stronger production in key growing areas. In particular, Argentine corn production forecasts totaled 1.81 billion bushels, up from last year’s 1.26 billion bushels. Brazil’s corn production forecast stayed at 3.72 billion bushels this year. In total, Brazil and Argentina production forecasts exceed 2017–18 production estimates by 1.04 billion bushels. Projections of corn exports from Argentina and Brazil sit at an additional 492 million bushels each above last marketing year. Given the increase in South American production, the evolution of crop conditions in the region bears monitoring as we move into 2019.

The forecast for soybean ending stocks fell to 910 million bushels. Despite the 45 million bushel reduction to ending stocks, the current projection remains record high. Soybean production came in 56 million bushels lower than the November forecast at 4.54 billion. The harvested acreage estimate of 88.1 million acres is down from the November forecast of 88.3 million acres. Average soybean yield of 51.6 bushels per acre is 0.5 bushels lower than the November forecast. While the expected reduction in soybean production materialized, consumption continues to exhibit strong crush levels and weak exports this marketing year.

The WASDE report increased the soybean crush forecast by 10 million bushels to 2.09 billion bushels. The change in the crush projection reflects strong crush numbers through January. Soybean exports saw the forecast lowered by 25 million bushels to 1.875 billion bushels. Considerable uncertainty remains in export potential in 2019 as the sporadic nature of trade talks with China unfold. Total use fell by 15 million bushels on weaker export projections to 4.092 billion bushels. The consumption for this marketing year holds the potential for deterioration if the trade war escalates and increased competition out of South America materializes.

World production forecasts for the marketing year decreased by 301million bushels to 13.26 billion bushels on the smaller U.S. and Brazilian crops. The Brazilian soybean production forecast decreased by 183.72 million bushels over the December forecast to 4.3 billion bushels. Reports out of Brazil indicate this number may fall further before the final crop estimate is complete. The Argentinian soybean production forecast fell slightly to 2.02 billion bushels on reduced acreage. The Brazilian soybean export forecast dropped by 55 million bushels reflecting the decreased crop production levels. Forecasts for Brazil and Argentina soybean exports sit at 3.15 billion bushels over the marketing year, up from last marketing year’s estimate of 2.88 billion bushels.

While the ending stock projections for both crops fell, the USDA maintained price projections for the marketing year at the December mid-point ranges for corn and soybeans at $3.60 and $8.60 respectively. Barring a resolution to the trade issues with China or a significant deterioration in the South American crop, soybean prices are untenable at current levels. Corn prices appear set to remain flat and range bound until the March Prospective Planting reports provide an initial indication of crop acreage in 2019.

Backyard Maple Syrup Production Workshop Feb 2

register by January 30th

The fourth annual backyard maple syrup production workshop will be held on Saturday, February 2, 2019 from 10am–3pm at the Dixon Springs Agricultural Center, located at 354 State Highway 145 N, Simpson, IL 62985. This program is free and open to the public.

We are offering an expanded program this year! From 10-noon come learn the basics and see firsthand the entire process of backyard maple syrup production. Following a free lunch at noon, we will have maple syrup experts on hand to discuss scaling up production and advanced techniques and demonstrating equipment from 1pm to 3pm.

During the morning session, the University of Illinois Extension will provide some activities for kids, including taste testing of real maple syrup!

Program Schedule
* 10:00am to Noon - Maple syrup basics, kids activities, field tour
* Noon to 1:00pm - Lunch (provided)
* 1:00pm to 3:00 pm - Advanced techniques and equipment demo

You can choose to come to the morning session, the afternoon session or both! Register by January 30th.

For more information: Chris Evans cwevans@illinois.edu , 618–695–3383

University of Illinois College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences United States Department of Agriculture. Local Extension Councils Cooperating provides equal opportunities in programming and employment.

If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in this program, contact Dixon Springs Ag Center at 618–695–2441.

January Crop Report Yield Expectations

The January USDA reports have been delayed until further notice because of the government shutdown. It is expected once these numbers are released the changes in the national yields for corn and soybeans could be positive for price.

The last time USDA updated corn and soybean yields was in the month of November. Both crops saw a drop in predicted yield for the 2018 harvest. This drop has been since complicated by harvest problems. Todd Hubbs from the University of Illinois says history can sometimes be a guide to how the January Crop Production report might change. More often than not when the yields from October to November go down, the U of I commodities specialist says they drop again in January, “And what you see is when you see a yield change from November to October that is negative, we tend to see a similar change from January to November. Now it doesn’t always hold, but if that were to materialize we probably see a corn number around 177.2 bushels to the acre. I think it might be a little bit higher than that, but even if it is if we lose half to one bushel out of the current projection of 178.9, then that is really supportive for corn prices moving forward.”

Hubbs says a similar pattern holds for soybean yields. On average he says that’s been about a quarter of a bushel per acre… a little better than that actually… and if it came to fruition this year it would put the 2018 soybean yield at 51.8 bushels to the acre. That would clearly be supportive to price says Hubbs, even though the trade issues with China are continuing, “We could also see some acreage come out of both corn and soybeans as harvest was really tough in some places. Particularly out in Kansas and the southern plains. This has more implications for winter wheat seedings than it does for anything else. Right now, by my projections, I think winter wheat acreage will be down by one-point-five percent from last year’s 32.5 million acres. This may have implications for both corn and soybean acreage in the southern plains as we move into 2019 and think about what kind of acreage we will have.”

The implication being a potential increase in corn or soybean acreage in that area. USDA says it will announce the date for the release of the January reports once the government shutdown has ended.

January Crop Report Yield Expectations

The January USDA reports have been delayed until further notice because of the government shutdown. It is expected once these numbers are released the changes in the national yields for corn and soybeans could be positive for price.

The last time USDA updated corn and soybean yields was in the month of November. Both crops saw a drop in predicted yield for the 2018 harvest. This drop has been since complicated by harvest problems. Todd Hubbs from the University of Illinois says history can sometimes be a guide to how the January Crop Production report might change. More often than not when the yields from October to November go down, the U of I commodities specialist says they drop again in January, “And what you see is when you see a yield change from November to October that is negative, we tend to see similar change from January to November. Now it doesn’t always hold, but if that were to materialize we probably see a corn number around 177.2 bushels to the acre. I think it might be a little bit higher than that, but even if it is if we lose half to one bushel out of the current projection of 178.9, then that is really supportive for corn prices moving forward.”

Hubbs says a similar pattern holds for soybean yields. On-average he says that’s been about a quarter of a bushel per acre… a little better than that actually… and if it came to fruition this year it would put the 2018 soybean yield at 51.8 bushels to the acre. That would clearly be supportive to price says Hubbs even though the trade issues with China are continuing, “We could also see some acreage come out of both corn and soybeans as harvest was really tough in some places. Particularly out in Kansas and the southern plains. This has more implications for winter wheat seedings than it does for anything else. Right now, by my projections I think winter wheat acreage will be down by one-point-five percent from last year’s 32.5 million acres. This may have implications for both corn and soybean acreage in the southern plains as we move into 2019 and think about what kind of acreage we will have.”

The implication being a potential increase in corn or soybean acreage in that area. USDA says it will announce the date for the release of the January reports once the government shutdown has ended.

Dissecting Collin Peterson's Farm Bill Preview

Last Monday Minnesota Congressman Collin Peterson held a press conference in Moorhead. There in his home state, Mr. Peterson spent twenty-four minutes detailing the Farm Bill conference agreement. University of Illinois Agricultural Policy Specialist Jonathan Coppess listened to the discussion and has this review with farm broadcaster Todd Gleason.

Corn Exports are On Pace

Each Friday over the past three weeks December corn futures closed lower. These lower weekly thresholds have come despite a very good export pace.

USDA projects this marketing year U.S. corn exports will top two-point-four-billion bushels. So far that doesn’t look too bad says University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Todd Hubbs, “We are definitely on pace. We’ll above last year’s pace, but everybody needs to remember we got off to a sluggish start last year and it really picked up in the second-half of the marketing year. We’ve seen a little bit of weakness recently, but we are still within the 2.45 billion bushels in my opinion.”

Hubbs is okay with USDA’s corn-used-to-produce ethanol figure, too. Although he says that’ll depend on ethanol exports as plant margins are really tight. He’s hopeful the corn-used-for-feed number will look better in January. That’ll depend a lot on the December Grain Stocks report. Still he says, “Right now, from the November projections, we are on track. There is a lot of uncertainty left in that. But when we look at the corn prices over the last few weeks, it is definitely related to the soybean prices and the bearishness in the (crude) oil market. I think both of those things are holding down corn prices.”

Not that if those two items were solved corn would rally substantially. It would come up, but still be capped by the available supply and some thought that USDA’s export target is a bit robust. Todd Hubbs thinks of it this way. The market has a done a good job of front loading U.S. corn exports and it is very unlikely the second half of the 2018/19 marketing year will be a repeat of last season’s stellar pace.

Nov 18 | WILLAg Newsletter

November 18, 2018

This Tuesday you are invited to Normal, Illinois for the Farm Assets Conference. I’ve seen parts of the presentations that will be made and fully expect this to be an impactful event. The tickets are $40. Our doors open at 9:30am at the Marriott Hotel and Conference Center. If you arrive by 8am the Illinois Corn Growers Association will provide you with breakfast and you may attend their annual meeting prior to the Farm Assets Conference.

purchase your ticket by noon Monday
http://www.farmassetsconference.com

I’ve been traveling the last couple of weeks and thought you might find these three articles from the farmdocDaily website interesting.

Todd


Financial and Risk Management Decisions for 2019
Gary Schnitkey and Krista Swanson
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics
University of Illinois

With planning for next year’s crop underway, this article makes suggestions related to financial and risk management for grain farms. Projections for extremely low income in 2019 set the overall backdrop for these decisions. Suggestions include: 1) building working capital in 2018, 2) forgoing investments in capital items, 3) conducting 2018 tax planning, 4) preparing 2019 cash flows, 5) beginning marketing the 2019 crop, 6) discussing the economic situation with landowners, and 7) considering acreage allocations for 2019.

Income Backdrop
Currently, the most significant factor impacting longer-run income outlook on Midwest grain farms is the trade dispute with China. Events associated with this dispute caused large declines in cash and futures prices for both corn and soybeans (see farmdoc daily, October 11, 2018). Cash corn prices fell from near $3.70 in March to $3.20 in October. Cash soybean price fell from near $10 in March to near $8 in October.

Moreover, projection of prices in the future have declined, particularly for soybeans. Cash fall delivery prices for 2019 are $3.70 for corn and $8.90 for soybeans. The $8.90 fall delivery price for soybeans is about $.80 per bushel lower than average prices farmers received from 2013 through the early part of 2017.

Soybean price declines lower expectations for 2019 net incomes on farms, particularly if the trade dispute continues. Current corn and soybean prices, along with cost increases, suggest extremely low returns for 2019 (farmdoc daily, August 7, 2018). While there are a number of events that could change this outlook (farmdoc daily, October 30, 2018), planning for low 2019 incomes seems prudent.

While 2019 incomes are projected to be low, net incomes in 2018 will be above-average on many grain farms. Higher than average incomes in 2018 results from:

Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments (see farmdoc daily, August 28, 2018). Farmers will receive MFP payments for crops produced in 2018. Currently, farmers can receive a “first” payment of $.005 per bushel for corn and $.825 per bushel for soybeans. There is a high chance of a second payments on 2018 production at the same level as the first payments. If both payments are made, MFP payments could add about $50 of income per tillable acre on a typical Illinois farm.

Exceptional yields (see farmdoc daily, September 5, 2018). State-wide yields are projected by the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) at record levels for 2018. Many farms had exceptional yields.

Pre-harvest hedging. Many farmers priced grain in the spring prior to the decline in prices (see farmdoc daily, October 11, 2018). Hedging will postpone the impacts of lower prices on income into 2019.

While average incomes will be above-average in 2018, a great deal of variability in incomes will exist. Prices farmers receive will vary based on timing of pricing decisions. There are some areas that did not have exceptional yields and some farmers did not price much of the 2018 crop in the spring.

The farmers in these situations will face lower income.

Management Decisions
Given this income backdrop, the following suggestions are made.

Build working capital: The above-average incomes in 2018 should be saved and used to build working capital. Any increase in working capital at the end of 2018 will be useful in offsetting low and negative 2019 incomes.

If possible, obtaining a current ratio of 2.0 and having working capital per acre of over $300 per acre seems prudent (see farmdoc daily, October 23, 2018).

Forgo investments in capital items: Building working capital requires eliminating all but the most necessary capital investments.

Conduct 2019 tax planning: Above-average 2018 incomes and low capital investments could result in large 2018 tax liabilities. Most farmers file taxes on a cash basis. A potential way to lower 2018 tax liabilities is to shift 2018 revenue into 2019 by foregoing sales of crop and by delaying the receipt of MFP payments until 2019. Prepaying 2019 expenses in 2018 could also lower 2018 tax liability.

Shifting more than a usual amount of 2018 tax income into 2019 has a downside in that 2019 taxable incomes could be higher than expected. The outlook for significantly lower incomes in 2019 is due to yields at trend levels, lower prices, and higher costs. If this turns out not to be the case, 2019 tax liabilities could be larger than expected (see farmdoc daily, October 30, 2018, for a discussion of items that could change 2019 outlook).

Prepare a 2019 cash flow: Cash flows for 2019 operating year should be prepared. In preparing these cash flows, use cash bids for fall delivery prices and higher costs (see Revenue and Costs for Illinois Crops, for estimates of cost increases). Current prices for 2019 fall delivery are near $3.70 per bushel for corn and $8.90 per bushel for soybeans.

Two sets of yields should be used in cash flow projections

Five-year average yields, and Approved yields from crop insurance records (the yields that have been trend adjusted).

On many farms, the five-year average yields will be higher than the approved yields by 20 or more bushels per acre for corn and 5 or more bushels per acre for soybeans.

On many farms, the five-year yields will result in negative cash flows and some erosion of working capital. The lower approved yields may result in serious cash shortfalls.

Plans should be made on how to deal with the resulting cash flow from only obtaining the APH approved yields. If enough working capital exists, operating notes can be maintained at current levels.

Otherwise, contingency plans that may involve refinancing debt and selling assets need to be considered.

Begin marketing the 2019 crop: Futures prices on Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) contracts for fall delivery are near $4.00 per bushel for corn (December contract) and $9.35 per bushel for soybeans (November 2018). Current basis between fall futures contracts and cash delivery prices is large. Current cash prices for fall delivery are near $3.70 for corn and $8.90 for soybeans.

Pricing some of the 2019 crop should begin: Current CME futures prices on the December 2019 contract can be compared to projected prices for crop insurance in recent years. These projected prices are based on settlement prices of December contracts and are comparable to the December 2019 CME price. For corn, current futures prices are near levels that have occurred in recent years. A $4.00 future price for 2019 would be slightly above recent projected prices: $3.86 in 2017, $3.97 for 2017, and $3.96 for 2018. Over the past five years, the projected price averaged $4.11 per bushel.

For soybeans, the current $9.30 price level on the November 2019 contract is well below the projected price levels in recent years. Projected prices for crop insurance from 2014 through 2018 have averaged $10.06. Projected prices were $10.19 in 2017 and $10.16 in 2018.

Pricing soybeans at levels below those in recent years may be physiologically difficult. Many farmers have a hope that the trade dispute with China will end and soybean prices will rebound. This is a real possibility. However, there are possibilities were soybean prices could be lower. One scenario which will result in lower prices is a continuation of the 25% tariff on U.S. soybeans moving into China, good yields in South America, and another excellent yielding year in the United States. There are significant down-side price risks for soybeans, suggesting that a modest level of pricing grain may be prudent.

Discuss the economic situation with landowner: The trade dispute with China has considerably darkened the price outlook for the future. Farmers may have built soybean prices in the high $9 range into longer-run budgets. Until a resolution to the trade dispute occurs, building soybean price expectations around $9 per bushels seems prudent (see farmdoc daily, August 2, 2018 for more of a discussion).

Many landowners may wish to maintain cash rental arrangements. Preparing the landowner for a possible decline is warranted. Use of variable cash leases in this situation seems appropriate.

Consider 2019 allocations to corn and soybeans: Budgets for 2019 likely will indicate that corn will be more profitable than soybeans in 2019. This may not suggest shifting acres, particularly for those farms that have a well-established rotation. If switching is being considered, hedging more than a usual amount of corn production may be warranted. If there are large shifts from corn to soybeans, corn prices could decrease.

Summary The above management responses are defensive and are built on an expectation of longer-run lower prices caused by a continuing trade disputes with China. In addition, cost increases play a role in the management suggestions. Obviously, expectation of low incomes can turn out to be incorrect for a variety of reasons. Still, conserving cash flow now seems to have little downside for most farmers if 2019 incomes turn out to be better than expected.



What to Expect from USMCA (or NAFTA 1.01)
Yujun Zhou, Kathy Baylis, Jonathan Coppess, and Qianting Xie
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics
University of Illinois

After more than a year of talks, the US, Canada, and Mexico struck a new trade deal to replace NAFTA, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA. The agreement is still waiting for approval in Congress. After the Democrats took control of the House in the midterms last week, that approval is now in question.

Regarded as “the most important trade deal we’ve ever made” by President Trump, the USMCA is the replacement of the old NAFTA deal, which he described as “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere” (Brinkley, Oct 8, 2018). Since NAFTA was signed more than 25 years ago, there are some updates to the agreement that are arguably needed. The way countries trade with each other has transformed significantly since then. New components of trade, including digital commerce, should be addressed in the regional trade deals.

However, most of the old agreement remains intact. The new NAFTA doesn’t change the old tariff structure or the zero tariffs policy on most manufacturing and agricultural goods. There are large sections of the old NAFTA which were not touched. The most significant changes, including digital trade, were previously negotiated as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, from which the current administration withdrew in 2016 (Pethokoukis, Oct 17, 2018).

This article reviews the changes in USMCA and evaluates its impacts on the various parties associated with the trade agreement.

Overview of changes The first change in the country of origin rules: automobiles must have 75 percent of their components manufactured in Mexico, the US, or Canada to qualify for zero tariffs (USTR, Oct 1, 2018). It used to be 62.5 percent under NAFTA. The increased portion means that fewer cars or car components will come from suppliers elsewhere in the world. Consequently, it would impact car parts made in countries like Germany, Japan, and China. Shifting supply lines can take decades and, along with increased costs based on lack of infrastructure, consumers end up paying more (Pethokoukis and Barfield, Oct 17, 2018).

The second change is on labor provision or minimum wage. Forty to forty-five percent of automobile parts have to be made by workers whose pay averages at least $16 an hour by 2023 (USTR, Oct 1, 2018). Mexico has also agreed to pass laws giving workers the right to union representation, extend labor protections to migrant workers, and protect women from discrimination. The countries can also sanction one another for labor violations. These rules demonstrate a key U.S. ambition to benefit American workers through rebalancing the manufacturing sector (Wingrove et al., Oct. 2, 2018).

The minimum wage will not bind in Canada and U.S., but it is about three times the current typical manufacturing wage in Mexico (Long, Oct. 1, 2018). Considering that the change doesn’t happen until 2023 and with possible inflation involved in the process, the effect on Mexico’s workers may not be as significant as it seems. More automation may be the substitute for workers as a result. This is a novel effort to set a minimum wage in a specific sector through a trade agreement. Usually, minimum wages require a domestic process and, in the US, often at the state level. It is unclear what precedent having minimum wages imposed by a trade agreement sets for future labor or trade law (Pethokoukis and Barfield, Oct 17, 2018).

The third big issue is the dairy market. To get an agreement, Canada agreed to open a small portion (3.59 percent) of its dairy market to farmers in the United States (Wingrove et al., Oct. 2, 2018). This concession follows similar concessions to the EU (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement or CETA) and pacific country trade partners under the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the successor to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which cumulatively means that Canada has opened up about 10 percent of its dairy market (CBC News, Oct 04, 2018). Also, as part of the deal, Canada will give up its unique pricing system of Class 7 milk that sets unusually low domestic prices of ultra-filtered milk (an ingredient used to increase protein content in cheese and yogurt) (Skerritt et al., Oct. 2, 2018). By allowing for low prices of this ingredient, the Canadian policy effectively subsidized Canadian dairy processors and made the imports of ultra-filtered milk uncompetitive (Wingrove et al., Oct. 2, 2018). Canada’s concessions will boost the amount of milk, cheese, and cream that the U.S. can export without paying the tariff.

As a result, Trudeau agreed to compensate the Canadian dairy farmers to soften the blow (CBC News, Oct 04, 2018). Considering the 500 billion dollars of annual trade flows going between these two countries, the dairy market is relatively small: in 2017, Canada imported around 368 million dollars of dairy products from the U.S. while exporting 112 million dollars (Skerritt et al., Oct. 2, 2018). President Trump, however, had insisted on changes to U.S. access to Canada’s dairy market as a symbolic gesture on behalf of American farmers.

A significant new section in the new NAFTA is the digital trade section. When WTO and NAFTA were negotiated in the early 1990s, the internet was relatively new and far less critical. The digital trade section covers trade rules in the digital economy, including prohibiting duties on music and e-books, and protections for internet companies, so they’re not liable for content their users produce (Kirby, Oct 3, 2018). The deal also extends the terms of copyright to 70 years beyond the life of the author (up from 50). It also extends the protection period of pharmaceutical drugs from generic competition.

Key Democratic Demands The current consensus is the USMCA will not be passed easily (Alemany, Nov. 15, 2018). Generally speaking, news reports indicate that Democrats are in favor of the changed labor requirements (Byrd H. Nov. 13, 2018), but remained concerned about the ability to enforce the deal. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi released a statement on USMCA saying without enforcement, the deal could just be rebranding NAFTA (Alemany, Nov. 15, 2018). Second, labor activists have demanded a change in the clause regarding minimum hourly wages for Mexican autoworkers since the current deal does not include an adjustment for inflation. They fear the that the $16 wage may not be enough to curb the movement of jobs flowing out of the U.S. (Wasson and Mayeda, Nov. 14, 2018).

There are also concerns about the steel and aluminum tariffs, which remain in place for Canada and Mexico despite the new agreement (Byrd H. Nov. 13, 2018). Some of the newly elected Democrats in the House Representatives came from the Midwest, for example, “where the pain from the president’s tariffs is being felt the most” and they would be expected to push for the removal of the tariff in the USMCA debates (Alemany, Nov. 15, 2018).

Summary In summary, there are significant updates to NAFTA in the automobile and dairy industry, but other changes are relatively minor. There is also little evidence that it will significantly alter trade balances among the three countries (Martin Feldstein, April 25, 2017). Although U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer remains “very confident” in ultimately getting the votes needed to pass the USMCA, it appears unlikely to happen in a lame duck session; passage will be up to the new Congress where the concerns on the steel and aluminum tariff adds uncertainty.



Nitrogen Loss Reduction Practices: What Do They Cost?
Laura Christianson
Department of Crop Sciences
University of Illinois

Subsurface tile drainage networks significantly underpin agriculture across the US Midwest with Illinois alone possessing nearly 10 million tiled acres. However, nitrogen that leaves Midwestern fields in tile drainage water can impair local water bodies used as drinking water sources and is known to contribute to the hypoxic zone (or, “dead zone”) that forms seasonally in the Gulf of Mexico. Growing global food and biofuel demand combined with increasing societal pressure for clean water mean the agricultural community must be offered workable solutions to meet productivity goals in ways that don’t result in nutrient-impaired waters.

A variety of agricultural conservation practices are available to reduce the amount of nitrogen leaving fields and travelling downstream. The practices are generally grouped into three categories: management practices that can be done in-field, structural practices that can be built at the edge of a field, and land use changes (Table 1). While each individual practice is valuable, the nitrogen removal effectiveness will be site specific and the acceptability of each individual approach will differ between producers. No given conservation practice will be capable of addressing drainage water quality concerns in entirety; as such, a suite of approaches used across the landscape will be required.

As substantial investments in drainage systems continue to be made across the Midwest, there is an increasing need to provide relevant decision making information to agricultural producers and landowners so they can assess the best way to better incorporate conservation practices into the local landscape.

Each practice’s effectiveness for reducing nutrient loss in terms of a “percent effectiveness” can be compared. For nitrogen loss through tile drains, research shows that practices addressing the drainage system itself tend to be more focused and have relatively high practice efficiencies. For example, woodchip bioreactors and wetlands are rated at 25% and 50%, respectively, in the Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy, meaning they keep one quarter and one half, respectively, of the nitrogen that would otherwise move downstream from doing so. The most effective practices for reducing nitrogen loss through tile drains tend to be land conversion practices which require switching production to perennials like pasture or bioenergy crops (90% N loss reduction). While Table 1 presents average values, nitrogen loss reduction effectiveness of any practice can vary by soil type, topography, landscape position, and weather.

Another way to compare these practices is cost efficiency, both in terms of dollars per acre and dollars per pound of nitrogen that is being kept from moving downstream (Table 1). While the land use change practices are the most effective in terms of percent nitrogen loss reduced (90%), they do no tend to be some of the most cost effective practices. However, beyond the cost efficiencies listed in Table 1, it’s very important to note that some practices provide additional benefits beyond reducing nitrogen loss in tile drainage. For example, there is evidence that long-term use of certain cover crops can improve soil health, and constructed wetlands are known to provide pollinator habitat and can be of interest to hunters for providing wildlife habitat.



To compare these practices based on cost, a few additional considerations include:
  • When do the major costs of the practice occur? Constructed edge-of-field practices like constructed wetlands or bioreactors have high up-front costs, while other practices like cover crops are implemented annually, and thus have repeatable costs occurring every year.
  • What is the lifetime of the practice? Continuing with the above example, a constructed wetland can have a design life of greater than 100 years, but it may not be reasonable to assume a cover crop will be done in a given field consecutively for 100 years.
  • Are there other benefits of the practice, beyond water quality improvement, that are important? The practice of cover crops, for example, is typically not done solely to reduce nitrogen loss in drainage water.
  • Are there local or seasonal price differences for costs of these practices?
  • Are government incentives or cost-share programs available to assist with the cost? There may also be local funds available in certain watersheds through conservation groups or watershed planning processes.
In summary, all the recommended nutrient loss reduction practices are unique in how they work, how well they work to reduce nutrient loss, ease of implementation, and cost. While no single practice will be suitable for every acre across the US Midwest, every single acre needs at least one new conservation practice.

2018 Farm Assets Conference

November 3, 2018

Dear Subscriber,

I hope your harvest season has gone well. As it winds down please consider making a trek to Normal, Illinois for the 2018 Farm Assets Conference. This is a pivotal year for agriculture. Things from this point forward will be different. Changes are coming rapidly. We’re going to address some of the possibilities.

Please come and listen. Please come and ask questions. Personally, I use these events as learning experiences to help tailor the daily WILLAg radio programming. It is a direct reaction to the questions you ask.

The cost is only $40 and we’ve put together a fantastic agenda. Do scroll down to find out more. The 2018 Farm Assets Conference is in Normal, Illinois at the Marriott Hotel and Conference Center on November 20th. Our doors open at 9:30am. The Illinois Corn Growers Association annual meeting precedes it at 8:00am.

buy your tickets now

Todd E. Gleason, Farm Broadcaster
University of Illinois Extension | WILLAg.org
tgleason@illinois.edu or (217) 333–9697





Farm Assets Conference
9:30am (doors open) - 4:00pm
Tuesday, November 20, 2018

BUY TICKETS ONLINE or 800–898–1065

Marriott Hotel and Conference Center
201 Broadway Avenue
Normal, Illinois 61761

get directions

PLEASE NOTE - The Illinois Corn Growers Association’s annual meeting is held just prior to the Farm Assets Conference in this same venue. It begins at 8:00am. Contact ICGA for more details.

8:00 am | Illinois Corn Growers Association Annual Meeting

9:30 am | Farm Assets Registration Desk Opens

10:30am | The Supply Chain Wants You - premiums & contracts
- Angie Slaughter, Vice President Procurement - Anheuser-Busch InBev
- Rickette Collins, Sr. Director Global Supply Chain - McDonald’s Corporation
- Ken Dallmier, President and COO - Clarkson Grain Company
- Brad Allen, AgriEdge Specialist - Syngenta

Noon | Lunch

1:00pm | Agriculture at Research Park
- Laura Weisskopf Bleill, Associate Director, University of Illinois Research Park

1:15pm | Trade, Tariffs, Grain Flow, Policy, & the Farm Economy
- Gary Schnitkey, University of Illinois
- Jonathan Coppess, University of Illinois
- Bruce Sherrick, ILLINOIS TIAA Center for Farmland Research

2:15pm | Break

2:30pm | WILLAg Commodity Marketing Panel
- Pete Manhart, Bates Commodities
- Bill Mayer, Strategic Farm Marketing
- Merrill Crowley, Midwest Market Solutions
- Wayne Nelson, L and M Commodities
- Todd Hubbs, University of Illinois



Media Registration
Members of the press should contact Lindsay Mitchell lmitchell@ilcorn.org or (309) 557–3257 at the Illinois Corn Growers Association to register for the Farm Assets Conference.



The Supply Chain Wants You - premiums & contracts
“The Supply Chain Wants You” will focus on how large corporations are reaching all the way through the supply chain to the farmer and will cover the direct impact on premiums paid for commodities and production practices. Panelists will project what the next 5 to 10 years may look like on farms in Illinois and in other parts of the Midwest, discuss how it impacts decisions to get bigger and what it means to stay medium-sized. The panel includes representatives from McDonald’s, Clarkson Grain, Anheuser Busch, and Syngenta.
  • Angie Slaughter, Vice President Procurement - Anheuser-Busch InBev
  • Rickette Collins, Sr. Director Global Supply Chain - McDonald’s Corporation
  • Ken Dallmier, President and COO - Clarkson Grain Company
  • Brad Allen, AgriEdge Specialist - Syngenta
Agriculture at Research Park
Research Park at the University of Illinois is home to 120+ companies, employing 2,100 people in high-technology careers. At any given time more than 800 student interns are working in these companies gaining valuable work experience while making real contributions to internal corporate R&D and product development programs. It is the birthplace of successful agricultural start-ups like Granular & Agrible and houses office space for many corporations including ADM, AB InBev, Caterpillar, CME Group, Deere & Company, Dow AgroSciences, and Syngenta.
  • Laura Weisskopf Bleill, Associate Director, University of Illinois Research Park
Trade, Tariffs, Grain Flow, Policy, & the Farm Economy
The flow of grains and other goods across the planet has been intentionally interrupted by the Trump Administration in an effort to create a more fair and balanced trading schematic. We’ll examine the short and long term effects, exploring how these changes project into future crop rotations, export routes, U.S. farm policy, and the health of the farm economy. The farmdocDaily team from the University of Illinois will guide our discussion.
  • Gary Schnitkey, University of Illinois
  • Jonathan Coppess, University of Illinois
  • Bruce Sherrick, ILLINOIS TIAA Center for Farmland Research
WILLAg Marketing Panel
Commodity analysts are the bedrock of WILL Radio’s agricultural programming. During our final session of the day, we’ll tie all the other panel discussions into a meaningful look at commodity prices. Our experts will try to help lay out a road map of how old crop corn and soybean prices may change over the winter months while exploring pricing opportunities for the 2018 crop. We’ll also dip into an early discussion of new crop pricing as U.S. and global acreages shift to counter changes in trade route distributions across the planet.
  • Pete Manhart, Bates Commodities
  • Bill Mayer, Strategic Farm Marketing
  • Merrill Crowley, Midwest Market Solutions
  • Wayne Nelson, L and M Commodities
  • Todd Hubbs, University of Illinois