Posts

Adding the Costs of Conservation to a Farm Lease


Farmers and landowners alike are wanting to try more conservation practices. Todd Gleason reports the timing and amount of nitrogen applications along with the use of cover crops can all be written into a farm lease.

farmdoc farm lease page link

(1) Soil Health and Conservation Addendum

The Soil Health and Conservation Addendum is for a landowner who seeks to reach clear understanding with the farm-tenant about practices on the land under lease. The addendum is a fillable pdf and the parties can negotiate the specific provisions to include in the addendum, memorializing the agreement by selecting the specific provisions. The provisions and fillable pdf are designed to be additive: each selected provision will be incorporated in the lease agreement.
Included among the provisions that can be selected are those for tillage practices and cover crop practices. There are also specific provisions pertaining to other conservation efforts that may be present on the farmland, such as ditches, vegetative buffers, terraces or other erosion control measures. The addendum also includes general options that address soil health and conservation efforts for the farmland. Finally, the addendum provides options for the parties to agree to adjustments in the annual rent based on the provisions for soil health and conservation selected above. All of these are only options and the parties are free to adjust or revise the provisions as they consider best and all are again advised to discuss with legal counsel before completing.


(2) Nutrient Management Addendum

Similarly, the Nutrient Management Addendum is a fillable pdf that provides for selecting basic provisions that can be incorporated into any lease. Among the options are those pertaining to adherence to the Maximum Return to Nitrogen (MRTN) for nutrient application on the land subject to the lease, as well as for requiring specific application practices such as split application. Options also include for soil testing, adoption of nutrient management plans and the application of manure, such as an agreement to avoid application on frozen ground.
This addendum also provides options for the parties to agree to adjustments in the annual rent based on the provisions for soil health and conservation selected above. All of these are only options and the parties are free to adjust or revise the provisions as they consider best and all are again advised to discuss with legal counsel before completing.


(3) Conservation Habitat Addendum

This addendum provides specific options pertaining to wildlife habitat on the farmland that is subject to the underlying lease. This addendum provides for general descriptions of the critical area and options for agreeing to basic maintenance or integrated pest management practices. The addendum also provides space for the parties to agree to any adjustments to the rent due to the conservation habitat on the farmland subject to the lease. Again, these options create or alter legal rights and both the landowner and the farm-tenant are advised to consult with their respective legal counsel before completing the addendum.

Tidbits from the ILLINOIS Fam Tax School

Farmers generally try to get their taxes in order before the end of the year. This season they may need to consider MFP and Prevented Plantings payments and how to best make charitable contributions.

The tax implications of the MFP payments are that the money is taxable in the year it is received. One-half of the MFP payment has already been or will be delivered shortly. It is expected 25% will be delivered in a second check in November. And if needed the third check, another 25% of the total, is likely to come in January. The first two checks are taxable in 2019, and the final portion would be taxable in 2020.

Another payment farmers may not be used to dealing with involves the Prevented Planting portion of crop insurance says Bob Rhea, “Those payments are either taxable when received, or under certain circumstances, could be delayed until 2020 the year after the disaster occurred. So, they should visit with their tax professional as they determine, especially as we near year end, whether those should be taken as 2019 income or used under the election to be treated as 2020 income.”

Rhea presented during this fall’s ILLINOIS Farm Tax School Seminars. He reminded the tax preparers in attendance that farmers also have a unique way to make charitable contributions, “IRS has prescribed some specific steps to validate a contribution with grain. One of those is that the grain must be delivered to the charity. The charity must be the owner of the grain in inventory, and the producer should notify the charity that he has provide x-number of bushels in their name at a certain location. The charity then, from that point, takes the risk and makes the sale and handles the cash proceeds from there.”

In simple terms the producer delivers grain in the name of the charity to the grain elevator, notifies the charity, and the charity then makes the sale.

Have Soybean Prices Put in a Low


The price of soybeans may have put in a seasonal low but there are a lot of factors at play. Todd Gleason has more on what farmers should do with University of Illinois Agricultural economist Todd Hubbs.

September 16, 2019
by Todd Hubbs, University of Illinois

Last week’s price rally in the soybean market relied on the prospects of easing trade tensions with China. The potential for soybean prices to maintain recent momentum depends on developments in trade negotiations and production prospects for both the U.S. and South America.



USDA’s September soybean production forecast came in at 3.633 billion bushels, down 47 million bushels from the August forecast. Yield per harvested acre fell by 0.6 bushels per acre to 47.9 from the August forecast of 48.5. Compared to the August forecast, yield prospects for the top ten states in soybean acreage increased in Missouri and Kansas. Yield prospects declined in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, and South Dakota. North Dakota, Nebraska, and Ohio saw no change in expected yield from August.



The crop production report showed the lowest pod count for the 11-states in the objective yield survey since 2012. At 1,561 pods per 18-square feet, this year’s pod count led to an implied pod weight near 0.35 grams per pod. A pod weight at this level is the highest in a decade and led to speculation about potential lower pod weights in this late-planted crop. Over the last five years, pod counts increased from the September forecast to the final yield estimate. Pod weights over the same period fell in four out of the five years.

In conjunction with the lower production forecast, total supply for the 2019–20 marketing year dropped an additional 65 million bushels, to 4.658 billion bushels, on lower beginning stocks. Soybean crush and export estimates for the 2018–19 marketing year increased by 20 and 45 million bushels, respectively. The USDA left the 2019–20 soybean export forecast 1.775 billion bushels and the crush forecast at 2.115 billion bushels. Ending stocks for the 2019–20 marketing year fell to 640 million bushels, down 115 million bushels from the August projection. While expectations of strong crush levels remains in place for the next marketing year, the prospects of maintaining higher soybean prices fall on exports or production issues. The recent thaw in trade negotiations between China and the U.S. came as a rare positive development this year and prompted the rally in prices last week.



Soybean exports for 2018–19 came in down approximately 390 million bushels from the previous marketing year. Exports to China, using export sales data on accumulated exports, fell 544 million bushels from the previous marketing year and 835 million bushels from the 2016–17 marketing year. At around 490 million bushels, U.S. soybean exports to China have not been this low since the 2006–07 marketing year. The recent announcement of lower tariffs on soybeans and pork look to support soybean prices, but clarity on the level of tariff reductions and a guarantee of following through by Chinese buyers remain lacking. For the current marketing year through September 5, outstanding sales and accumulated exports total 39.3 million bushels. Recent reports place Chinese purchases in the range of 29.5 million bushels (804 thousand metric tons). Additional purchases may total between 37 – 110 million bushels. This amount of buying remains a long way from the levels of export needed to support prices in the long-term but provides a positive development on the trade front.

New agreements with Argentina and Russia on meal imports combined with an expanded emphasis to rebuilding the hog herd decimated by African swine fever point towards China preparing for an extended fight in the trade war. Additionally, Chinese soybean production sits at a forecast level of 628 million bushels, up 8 percent from last year. The lull in the trade fight may allow China to backfill soybeans and pork to alleviate domestic pressures and settle in for a protracted battle. While Chinese buying of South American soybeans may cool in the near term, the potential for U.S. soybean exports to remain at reduced levels from pre-trade war totals in the 2019–20 marketing year continues as a high probability. Soybean production prospects in South America will continue to be crucial over the next few months, particularly if the trade war rekindles.

The forecast of South American production for the 2019–20 marketing year came in at 7.03 billion bushels, up 2.4 percent from last year’s estimate. The projected size of the Brazilian soybean crop increased by 220 million bushels to a production level of 4.52 billion bushels. The soybean production forecast for Argentina decreased 84 million bushels from last year’s estimate to 2.032 billion bushels. Some early season dryness in southern Brazil and Argentina merits monitoring. A continuation of the current dryness may delay planting in some areas. However, it remains too early to forecast any definitive change in soybean production in those regions.

If production issues do not materialize, the status of the trade war will be paramount. Current U.S. crop prospects point to maintaining some of the recent price gains. A failure of trade negotiations in October may push prices back to ranges seen in early September. Marketing soybeans on price rallies associated with trade negotiations and weather may be prudent. The uncertainty related to production levels and trade remains exceptionally high.

MFP Impact on 2019 through 2023 Incomes and Financial Positions

read farmdocDaily post

Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments in 2019 of $50 per acre will reduce financial erosion on farms. Still, incomes for 2019 are projected to be over $100,000 lower than 2018 incomes.

2019 Northern Illinois Crop and Prevent Plant Budgets in July

by Gary Schnitkey, University of Illinois
link to farmdocDaily article

Overall, projections suggest low returns for corn, soybeans, and prevent plant acres in Northern Illinois, an area that has been hard hit with wet weather, delayed planting, and prevent planting. Corn and soybean returns are projected to be lower than any year going back to 2000, even after including significant Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments and estimates of crop insurance payments at an 85% coverage level. Corn prevent planting returns are higher than corn returns given current estimates of harvest-time prices, although both results in a loss on average cash rented land. Soybean returns are expected to be better than soybean prevent plant returns, which are very low. As with corn, both soybean scenarios result in a loss on average cash rented land.


Current projections of prices and yields result in negative returns for Northern Illinois, an area that has experienced a large amount of wet weather that has caused delayed and prevented planting. These negative returns are based on a significant-sized MFP payment. There could be some upside, most likely for farmers who have planted. Higher returns than those presented in this paper could result if corn and soybean prices increase significantly from current levels. Still, all of this projections suggest negative incomes for farmers in water-logged areas.



Northern Illinois Budgets

Parts of northern Illinois are among the hardest hit regions of the nation with heavy rainfall, and therefore large amounts of prevent plant acres. In DeKalb County, for example, visual impactions on June 27th suggest many fields still are unplanted and much of the planted corn at V2, a very early vegetative stage of growth. Progress in LaSalle County is even worse. As a result, northern Illinois budgets are depicted in this article (see Table 1).

Revenue in Budgets

Budgets shown in Table 1 are based on purchasing Revenue Protection (RP) crop insurance at an 85% coverage level. As shown later in this article, lower coverage levels will result in lower revenue estimates, particularly for prevent planting acres. A Trend-Adjusted Actual Production History (TA-APH) yield of 205 bushels per acre is used for corn and a 62 TA-APH is used for soybeans. Crop Progress Reports from the National Agricultural Statistical Service suggest that over half of the corn in Illinois was planted in June, and half the soybeans were planted after June 9th. As a result, we assume that some of the planting occurred after the final planting dates (June 5 for corn and June 15 for soybeans), resulting in reductions in crop insurance guarantees from their original levels. We assume an average planting date of June 8 for corn and June 20 for soybeans, resulting in a 3% reduction in the corn crop insurance guarantee and a 5% reduction in the soybean crop insurance guarantee.

Yields are estimated at 165 bushels per acre for corn and 50 bushels per acre for soybeans. Both of these yields will result in RP insurance payments at the 85% coverage level. Given late planting assumptions, crop insurance payments will occur when yields are below 169 bushels per acre for corn (169 = 205 TA-APH x .85 coverage level x (1 – .03 late planting reduction)) and 50 bushels per acre for soybeans (50 = 65 TA-APH x .85 coverage level x (1 – .05 late planting reduction)). At these coverage levels, lower yields will have very little impact on return projections, as higher crop insurance payments will offset lower crop revenue.

Harvest prices used to determine crop insurance payments are $4.50 per bushel for corn and $9.20 per bushel for soybeans, above the current level of the December 2019 Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) corn contract price and the November 2019 CME soybean contract price. Settlement prices of those contracts during October are used to set revenue for crop insurance guarantees. In recent days, both corn and soybean prices have fallen. Using current futures price levels would result in lower returns for corn and soybeans planting.

At this point, the $4.50 estimated harvest price is above the $4.00 projected price for 2019. Higher corn harvest prices will result in higher returns because both crop revenue and crop insurance proceeds will increase with higher harvest prices. The soybean harvest price of $9.20 is below the $9.54 projected price for 2019. Higher harvest prices will increase crop revenue but the difference will be offset by a reduction in crop insurance proceeds. Total returns for soybeans should not be expected to increase until CME soybean futures prices exceed the projected price of $9.54.

A $.30 basis is used for corn and a $.40 basis is used for soybeans, resulting in cash prices at harvest of $4.20 for corn ($4.50 harvest price – .30 basis) and $8.80 for soybeans ($9.20 harvest price – .40 basis). Crop revenue will be based on these cash prices, with pricing assumed at harvest. Many farmers priced grain in the spring. Since prices are now higher than in the spring, those farmers who pre-priced grain, often viewed as a sign of “good marketing”, could have lower returns this year.
Crop revenue from the market is forecast at $693 per corn, equaling the $4.20 cash price times a yield of 165 bushels per acre. Soybean crop revenue from the market is projected at $440 per acre, equaling a 50 bushel per acre yield times an $8.80 per bushel cash soybean price.

USDA has not announced payment rates for the Market Facilitation Program (MFP). Hence, MFP payments must be estimated. Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments are estimated at $50 per acre for corn and soybeans. The same rate is used per acre for corn and soybeans as USDA announced that all MFP-eligible planted crops will receive the same per acre payment. In recent press reports, USDA has suggested that cover crops must be planted to be eligible for MFP payments on prevent planting farmland (The Hagerstorm Report, July 1, 2019). In previous reports, USDA said that a minimal-MFP payment would be received if a cover crop that was harvestable (USDA Press Release, June 10, 2019). A $30 per acre MFP is used in prevent planting return estimates on this article. This estimate recognizes that USDA wishes to encourage cover crop planting, but there may be limits to the size of the MFP payment on prevent planting farmland. The prevent planting MFP could be of the incorrect size relative to the MFP payments for corn and soybeans.

Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) commodity title program payments are built in at $10 per acre. These projections are for the 2019 crop year. As of yet, final details of commodity title choices have not been released by USDA, although sign up for 2019 programs is scheduled to open in September. Estimates in Table 1 are based on choosing ARC at the county level over Price Loss Coverage (PLC). At prices used in forecasts, PLC is not projected to make a payment. Current price and yields estimates suggest that soybeans are likely to have higher ARC payments than corn. ARC payments are the same for all budgets as commodity title payments are made on program acres and not planted acres.

Crop insurance proceeds coincidentally are both $18 per acre, based on the 85% RP policies more fully described above.

The prevent planting payment for corn is $383 per acre (.55 prevent plant payment factor x .85 coverage level x 205 TA-APH yield x $4.00 projected price). The prevent planting payment for soybeans is $302 per acre (.60 prevent planting payment factor x .85 coverage level x 62 TA-APH x $9.54 projected price).

Non-Land Costs

Non-land costs for corn and soybeans come from 2019 Illinois Crop Budgets for northern Illinois with two modifications. Fertilizer costs are lower under the assumption that farmers reduced nitrogen applications. Drying costs for corn have been increased to $50 per acre to reflect likely higher drying needed for late harvesting.

Prevent planting costs for both corn and soybeans are calculated given planting of cover crops ($18 per acre of seed) and one application of pesticides ($15 per acre). Machine hire, machine repair, and fuel are built into budgets to cover these operations. Machinery depreciation is $65 per acre for corn and $56 for soybeans. Machinery deprecation for cover crops is at $45 per acre, lower than that for soybeans. To a large extent, depreciation is a fixed cost. Simply owning the machinery inventory will result in costs. As a result, there is a significant depreciation charge included for prevent planting farmland.

Land Costs

Land costs are included in the budgets at $253 per acre, the average rent projected for northern Illinois farmland. Land costs will vary depending on ownership structure and rental arrangement. Owned land will have financial costs related to property tax (approximately $50 per acre) and interest if mortgaged (about $20 per acre on average). Property tax and interest costs do not include any cash flow requirements related to principal payments on land loans. The cost of share-rent farmland, typically 50% of gross revenue minus 50% of direct cost, will be lower than cash rent in 2019.
Farmer Return

The farmer return is the amount remaining after paying all financial costs and land costs. Estimates in Table 1 are for cash rent farmland at the average cash rent.

The farmer return for corn is -$93 per acre. This net return is the lowest for corn going back to 2000 (see Figure 1). The next lowest return occurred in 2015, when farmer return was -$61 per acre. Corn has had negative farmer returns in 2009 (-$21 per acre), 2014 (-$43 per acre), 2015 (-$52 per acre), 2016 (-$31 per acre), 2017 (-$61 per acre) and 2018 (-$57 per acre). Thus, negative returns in 2018 will be the sixth year of negative returns to corn.



The farmer returns for soybeans is -$93 per acre. Similar to the corn, the soybean net return is the lowest net return of any year going back to 2000. The next lowest return is -$8 per acre in 2002. The negative returns projected for 2019 would be only the third time since 2000 that soybeans have a negative return.

If 2019 projections hold, both corn and soybeans will have negative farmer returns in 2019. This will be the first year in the nineteen-year period that both corn and soybeans have negative returns in the same year (see Figure 1). Furthermore, note that returns estimates include $50 of MFP payments. Without these payments, farmer losses would be over $100 per acre. Increases in MFP payments are possible, but MFP payments would have to exceed $143 per acre before farmer returns for planting crops are positive.

The farmer return to prevent plant corn is -$15 per acre. This prevent plant return is higher than the -$93 return for corn, but still is negative. This example assumed cover crops are planted, making it eligible for a MFP payment, the corn prevent plant return includes an estimated MFP payment of $30 per acre. A higher payment would increase returns, and a lower return would decrease returns

The net return for prevent plant soybeans is -$113 per acre. This is a disastrously low level.

Overall, net return projections point to negative net incomes for Northern Illinois farms in 2019. As covered in the following sections, there is some hope for higher returns in both corn and soybeans.

Difference in Corn Returns from Projections

In Table 1, farmer returns for corn are projected at -$93 per acre. Differences in yields and prices will cause farmers returns to vary from that projection. In Table 2, the -$93 per acre projection for a $4.50 harvest price and a 165 bushel per acre yield is highlighted and in a box. At a 165 bushel per acre yield, positive farmer returns result if the harvest price is over $5.25 per bushel. Given a $.30 basis, the $5.25 harvest price results in a cash price at $4.95. Even at lower yields, a $5.25 harvest price results in positive returns as crop insurance covers the lower yields.



Higher yields could also result in positive farmer returns. For example, positive returns result at a 185 bushel per acre yield if harvest price is above $4.75. At the 205 TA-APH yield, harvest prices need to be at $4.25 per bushel for positive returns.

The following two points summarize the yield and price relationships:

Harvest prices above $5.25 per bushel likely will result in positive farmer returns if RP is purchased at 85% coverage If yields are close to the TA-APH yield, marketing the crop at prices above $4.00 per bushel will result in positive returns The above relationships are based on an estimated $50 per acre MFP payment. A lower MFP payment will cause break-even prices and yields to increase, and vice versa.

Difference in Soybean Returns from Projections

In Table 1, farmer return for soybeans is projected at -$93 per acre. Positive returns for soybeans could result if harvest prices are above $10.40 per bushel (see Table 3). Given a $.40 basis, a $10.40 harvest price would result in cash prices above $10 per bushel. As yields approach the TA-APH (62 bushels per acre) harvest price has to exceed a lower threshold of $10.20 per bushel ($9.80 cash price).



Higher yields will not increase soybean returns at an 85% RP coverage level without price increases. The projected price for soybeans is $9.54. As long as the projected harvest price is below $9.54, increases in prices will increase crop revenue but reduce crop insurance payments, resulting in no change to overall farmer returns.

Similar to corn, the above soybean profitability relationships are based on a $50 per acre MFP payment. Lower MFP payments will result in higher break-even prices, and vice versa.

Difference in Prevent Planting Payments from Projections

Net returns from prevent planting are projected at -$15 per acre for corn and -$113 per acre for soybeans. Changes in prices and yields will not influence the prevent planting returns. Three items on the revenue side could change projections shown in Table 1.

First, the MFP payment could differ from the $30 per acre values shown in Table 1. Again, USDA has not announced these rates, so the values in Table 1 are estimates.

Second, payments related to recently passed ad hoc disaster assistance could increase prevent planting returns. The legislation indicates that payments can be 1) based on the higher of the projected and harvest prices and 2) compensate farmers up to 90% of losses. There is considerable discretion in how USDA implements this legislation and appropriation limits total disaster assistance payments to $3 billion. Not all of the appropriations will be targeted at prevent planting acres. The legislation also covers losses in 2018 and 2019. All of this suggests low per acre payments.

Third, a farmer could sell forages from prevent planting acres. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) relaxed foraging stipulations on prevent plant acres for this year only (see farmdoc daily, June 25, 2019). After September 1, cover crops can be grazed, hayed, or made into baleage and silage, a needed relaxation for requirements given the challenges that dairy and livestock producers will face this year in meeting forage needs. However, only a very small number of grain producers in predominately grain areas like Illinois will be able to sell forages to dairy and livestock producers.

There simply are not livestock producers close enough for most grain farmers to have an economical market for forages produced from cover crops.

Given current estimates, taking prevent planting payments will be a losing financial proposition, particularly for soybeans. On most farms, prevent planting was taken because it was simply impossible to plant crops, or because the prospect of planting results in much lower returns than taking the prevent planting payment.

Impacts of Lower RP Coverage Levels

Many farmers take RP at an 85% coverage level and the returns presented above use RP 85% coverage levels. In 2018, 55% of the corn acres insured in LaSalle County, Illinois were at an RP 85% coverage level (see 2019 Crop Insurance Decision Tool, available for download in the farmdoc website). Still, many farmers have lower coverage levels.

Table 4 shows the impacts of lower coverage levels on farmer returns. For corn, farmer returns decline from -$93 per acre at an 85% coverage level to -$106 per acre at an 80% coverage level. No crop insurance payments occur at 80% and lower coverage levels given the yield and price estimates shown in Table 1 and used in this analysis. Return increases as coverage levels are reduced from 80% (-$106 per acre) to no insurance (-$87 per acre). These returns increase, though still significantly negative, because the insurance premium is declining. Farmer returns for soybeans show the same relationship as crop insurance payments are not occurring at 80% and lower coverage levels.



Coverage level has a more pronounced effect on prevent planting net returns. For corn, the prevent planting net return is reduced from -$15 per acre at an 85% coverage level to a -$128 per acre at a 55% coverage level. Lowering the coverage level reduces the prevent planting payments, thereby resulting in the lower returns.

June Acreage Report Heightens Uncertainty

by Todd Hubbs, University of Illinois Extension
link to farmdocDaily article and video

On June 28, the USDA released the Acreage and Grain Stocks reports. While the Grain Stocks report provided support for both corn and soybeans, the Acreage report indicated higher than expected corn acres and lower than expected soybean acres. The acreage numbers injected a substantial amount of uncertainty into both markets that appears set to stay in place throughout the summer.


The 2019 June USDA Acreage Report rocked the corn market. University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Todd Hubbs explores those numbers in this interview with ILLINOIS Extension Farm Broadcaster Todd Gleason.

A dramatic drop in principal crop acreage provided one of the many surprises in the Acreage report released on Friday. Driven by much lower soybean and wheat acreage, total principal crop acreage came in at 309.3 million acres, down 6.1 million acres from the March Prospective Planting report. Principal crop acreage estimates decreased by 10.3 million acres from 2018 totals. Significant increases over last year’s acreage occurred in corn (2.57 million acres) and barley acreage (314,000 acres). The vast majority of crops witnessed acreage decreases from last year. Soybean acreage led the way with a 9.2 million acre decrease. Wheat acreage came in down 2.19 million acres.

An extraordinary year for corn production took another unexpected turn on Friday. Corn producers reported they intended to plant 91.7 million acres of corn this year. Corn planted acres came in 1.1 million acres lower than March planting intentions, but well above expectations due to delayed planting. When compared to March planting intentions in major producing states, the June survey revealed higher corn acres in Kentucky (220,000 acres), Kansas (200,000 acres), and Nebraska (300,000 acres). Acreage lower than March intentions in South Dakota (1.2 million acres) and North Dakota (350,000 acres) offset gains seen in other areas of the western Corn Belt. Surprisingly, the major producing states in the eastern Corn Belt saw slight to no changes from the March intentions.

The USDA reported 16.7 percent of the corn acreage (15.3 million acres) remained unplanted as of the survey period and indicated an intention to re-interview 13 of the 18 major corn-producing states in July for the August production report. The prospect of considerable prevented planting acreage in the eastern Corn Belt places the 91.7 million acres reported in the June report in question. The shift out of soybeans and most feed grains may indicate an expansion of the base corn acreage intended for planting in 2019. A lack of clarity about prevented planting acreage reported in the June survey window remains a concern and points toward further downward revisions in the August Crop Production report.

The corn stocks report provided some positive news for corn use. June 1 corn stocks came in at 5.2 billion bushels, nearly 103 million bushels lower than last year and 130 million bushels smaller than the average trade guess. Estimation of total disappearance during the quarter is 3.41 billion bushels. Estimated third quarter feed and residual use come in at 1.13 million bushels. Estimates of feed and residual use during the first three quarters of the marketing year sits at 4.615 billion bushels. To reach the projected 5.3 billion bushels of corn projected for feed and residual this marketing year, feed and residual use in the fourth quarter must equal 685 million bushels. Based on current stocks estimate, it appears feed and residual use this year is on track to hit the current USDA projection.

Soybean producers intended to plant 80 million acres of soybeans. The soybean acreage intentions came in below market expectations. Soybean planted acres fell by 4.6 million acres from the March planting intentions. At the time of the survey in early June, producers indicated that 41.2 percent of the intended soybean acreage (33 million acres) remained unplanted. Soybean acreage came in lower than last year’s totals in every state that reported in the June survey. The most substantial adjustments came in South Dakota (1.25 million acres), North Dakota (1 million acres), Iowa (900,000 acres), and Minnesota (900,000 acres). The substantial drop in soybean acreage may indicate issues with planting, but the large totals left to plant place the soybean acreage estimate in question as well. USDA plans to re-interview 14 of the 18 major soybean-producing states in July.

The June 1 soybean stocks estimate indicated a record 1.79 billion bushels, up 571 million bushels from last year. The stocks estimate came in 71 million bushels below market expectations. To meet the current USDA projection for soybean ending stocks, 720 million bushels of use is necessary for the fourth quarter. Despite the continued uncertainty in trade negotiations and record stocks, June 1 soybean stocks are neutral for soybean prices as soybean consumption maintains a pace to meet USDA projections for the marketing year.

Corn futures prices saw a dramatic drop with the release of the Acreage report. Soybean prices drove higher on the lower supply expected under reduced acreage. Uncertainty regarding corn and soybean acreage looks to continue through the August production report. If the corn acreage total ends up at the reported level in the June Acreage report, the prospect for corn yield moves to the forefront of supply expectations this year. By re-interviewing many major producing states for both corn and soybean acreage, USDA may be signaling revisions to come.

Managing Prevented-Planting Fields | an interview with Emerson Nafziger

by Emerson Nafziger, Extension Agronomist - University of Illinois
link to The Bulletin post

With a lot of acres of corn and soybeans still unplanted as we move into the second half of June, prevented planting (PP) is unfortunately going to be a major part of the story of the 2019 cropping season in Illinois. Here we’ll look at goals and options for managing acres on which the intended crop—corn or soybean—does not get planted.


Emerson Nafziger, University of Illinois Extension Agronomist, on how to manage Prevented Planting acreage this summer.

The main goals of managing PP acres will be: 1) providing a vegetative cover in order to keep the soil in place and to prevent “fallow syndrome”; 2) to prevent or manage weeds so they don’t reseed the field; and 3) to take up nitrogen, including that from any N-containing fertilizer (including DAP/MAP), and any N that will be released from soil organic matter during the growing season. We also need to find ways to keep costs down, given that the PP insurance payments leave little room for adding expenses to these acres. This may not be the best time to invest in expensive cover crop seeding mixes. With high demand this year, such seed—and seed of some less exotic cover crops as well—will be expensive, and some may not be available.

We have not seen “fallow syndrome” very often in Illinois, but there was some in 1994 in fields that were flooded for most of the season in 1993 and did not produce crops or even weeds that year. The symptoms include stunting and purpling that indicate phosphorus deficiency. Plants growing in fields host a type of beneficial fungus (VA mycorrhiza) that assists in the uptake of P; these fungi seem to die off when there aren’t any plants, and they come back slowly the next year. We don’t expect to see this in every field, and it’s more likely to show up where water stood for a long period of time this year. The best prevention is to have plants present sometime during this season to help maintain these fungi. Just about any plant with roots will work, including weeds, but a cover crop species we choose to plant will be preferable to weeds.

Having plants present to take up N is more to keep the N from leaving the field this year than it is to make it available for next year’s crop; it’s not clear how much N captured in crop biomass this season will become available to next year’s crop. But mineralization takes place in every field once soils are aerated, regardless of whether the previous crop was corn or soybean. Grasses with deep roots are the best way extract N from deeper in the soil, and to keep this N out of tile drainage water.

We won’t try to reiterate here the complex rules regarding PP certification, but will only deal with managing these fields to provide cover. It appears that any species will work as cover, as long as the rules regarding what’s done with the cover after the season are followed. That means no harvest of grain (or silage) at all, and harvest by grazing or by making hay only after November 1. Every decision on what to plant should be tested with your crop insurance agent beforehand.

PP corn

Where corn was the intended crop in 2019 and soybean is planned for 2020, using a small grain as a cover crop this summer is an option. Winterhardy cereal rye and wheat won’t form heads until after a period of temperatures in the 30s, so probably not until next spring. They should emerge and provide quick cover, but these are cool-season crops, and when they remain low-growing and don’t send up stems with heads, they likely won’t stay very healthy or grow vigorously through a normal summer season.

Spring oats or spring wheat might do a little better than winterhardy wheat or rye. These tend not to tiller much at high temperature, but they will set seed. It can’t be harvested as grain; check the rules on whether it can simply be left to have the seed shatter out in the fall once it’s ripe. That may reseed the cover crop, but these plants won’t survive the winter. None of these are likely to grow roots as deep as when they grow in cool weather, but they should provide decent cover. With the 2019 oats crop in Illinois planted late and not exactly thriving, it will be difficult to find seed locally. Spring wheat seed will have to come from states north and west of Illinois.

Grain from a bin or an elevator, including from this year’s harvest, might work as seed for small grains, since this is not a “crop” in the usual sense. With wet weather this spring, we anticipate that some harvested grain will have diseased kernels that lower its market price, which may provide an incentive for using it as cover crop seed. Test germination, and if germination is low, increase the seeding rate to plant about at least 15 viable seeds per square foot, using a drill. While drilling will usually produce better stands and require less seed, broadcasting 20–25 live seeds per square foot might work. Shallow tillage with a vertical-tillage implement before or after broadcast seeding will probably improve stands.

Sorghum-sudangrass hybrids and forage sorghum produce a lot of residue and are good at taking up soil N. These species grow well in high temperatures, and they tolerate dry soils. If they won’t be grazed (after November 1), it’s probably better to limit their growth to lower the amount of residue present next spring. Lack of adequate N will limit growth in most fields, and delaying planting until mid-July or so can also help. If there is still a lot of growth, plants can be mowed in September so the residue can start to break down this fall. Some sorghum-sudangrass hybrids are male-sterile, and these species don’t produce much seed in any case. There is no danger of having plants of these species overwinter.

In fields that haven’t had herbicides applied that would prevent their growth, species such as radish, turnip, rapeseed, buckwheat, and forage grasses and legumes could be used on PP corn acres. None of these will be as effective as a well-rooted grass crop at taking up N, and those that grow slowly after emergence will generally not provide good cover early, and they won’t compete with weeds very well. Their seed tends to be expensive, and those with very small seed (such as clovers) can be difficult to establish in mid-summer without specialized equipment.

It may be possible to plant corn on PP corn acres, as long as care is taken not to produce corn grain. Ways to assure this include planting it later than July 15, drilling or planting it in rows no more than 15 inches apart, and planting at least 70,000–80,000 seeds (roughly a bushel) per acre. Lack of N will also help keep seeds from forming or filling, as will very late (September) pollination, which should mean failure of the crop to mature. Some seed companies may offer treated seed that they won’t be keeping over at a price low enough to make this an option. It may also be possible to take seed out of a bin of non-GMO corn grain to use for this. Make sure such seed will germinate, and check to make sure the planter is dropping enough seeds. By the time frost kills them, corn plants should not have formed seed that is mature enough to germinate the next spring. If grain begins to form and seeds begin to fill despite these measures, the corn can be mowed with a stalk chopper to prevent formation of viable seeds.

Soybean PP

Management of PP soybean acres has the same goals as those for PP corn acres, but management changes some if these fields will go back to corn again in 2020. Undisturbed corn stalks have by now broken down to some extent, but they still provide some cover, and keeping some of the stalk material on the soil surface will help preserve moisture and to keep soil in place as a cover crop gets started. The presence of high-C residue from the previous corn crop means that there will be less net mineralization in these acres because some mineralized N will be tied up as microbes break down residues. Even so, good root growth from a cover crop will help to take up N and to keep it from leaving the field.

It is possible to use the growing season that remains in 2019 to produce a leguminous crop that can fix N to supplement the N supply for next year’s corn crop. Such a crop should provide good early growth in order to take up N present as the over crop is getting established. Clovers are small-seeded forage legumes that can work, although seed costs might be high and these species may be incompatible with any herbicides that were applied before planting was prevented. Planting them into corn residue will also be challenging, although no-till drilling may work if seed can be placed well. Broadcasting into corn stalks without tillage is not likely to result in good stands. Red clover is more widely available than more exotic clovers, but supplies of all of these might be limited this year. Sweet clover has larger seed and will grow aggressively once it’s established. It will usually provide more dry matter by spring, and will also be more difficult to control before planting the next crop, compared to other clovers. Hairy vetch also grows vigorously, but its seed is expensive and it may not overwinter very well; this species will work in southern Illinois but is probably not a good choice in central and northern Illinois.

Another legume that can provide fairly rapid cover and that is widely available is soybean. As with corn used as a cover crop, soybean should be planted late, in narrow rows and at a high seeding rate (80 to 90 lb of seed per acre, if germination is at least 80%), to provide fast cover and to keep seed production to a minimum. It is not clear that GMO soybean seed can be used to plant for any purpose except commercial grain production. In cases where treated soybean seed cannot be returned to the dealer, the seed company might be asked if use as cover crop seed this year is allowable. There is no other good use for this seed, and it will probably not remain viable if stored until next year.

Using bin-run non-GMO soybeans as cover crop seed for this should be possible; check with your seed dealer to make sure. Non-GMO soybeans are typically marketed as such, and so are likely to be limited in supply now, unless producers have them in their own bin. Later-maturing varieties would make more vegetative growth and be less likely to set and fill viable seeds than normal-maturing ones, but that would add the expense of finding and transporting such seed. All told, soybeans may not be as obvious a choice as they appear to be at first glance, especially if leftover seed can’t be used for this purpose.

Soybeans used as cover should not be allowed to set and fill viable seed. That’s both to avoid complications from planting a crop following prevented planting of the same crop, and also because the maturing crop may have more residue than desired. Mowing plants off at about stage R5 (beginning seedfill) should work to control growth and prevent seed formation while still allowing capture of some fixed N. A crimper-roller might also work. Soybean plants this size can be difficult to control with herbicides, and mechanical control that leaves the residue on or near the soil surface is probably a better option.

A small grain such as wheat or oats can also be used as a cover for PP soybean acres, although that means foregoing the fixation of nitrogen. These will probably be quite N-deficient when planted into corn stalks, and while this will limit the amount of cover they produce, they should make enough growth to provide fair cover by late fall. If winter wheat or rye is used, they should be terminated in the early spring so they don’t interfere with early growth of the corn crop that follows.

If P and K fertilizers were applied in preparation for this year’s crop that didn’t get planted, their availability for next year’s crop should not be affected as long as the soil stays in place. If MAP or DAP will be applied this fall, a green cover crop present at the time of application should take up some of the N in these P-fertilizer materials, and to preserve it from loss if application is made while soils are still warm. If P and K couldn’t be applied for this year’s crop, PP provides an opportunity to sample soils if needed, and to get these nutrients applied this fall. Late planting will mean late harvest of corn and soybeans this year, which will allow for timely fall work on PP acres.

Corn Acreage and Stocks | an interview with Todd Hubbs

by Todd Hubbs, University of Illinois
link to farmdocDaily post

Corn futures prices rallied about $0.90 per bushel since the beginning of May. The rally reflects expectations that planted acreage will fall well short of March intentions and on yield concerns associated with wide-ranging late planting. Demand weakness continues to emerge in the export market, but supply issues look to overwhelm any decrease in demand. The release of USDA’s Grain Stocks and Acreage reports on June 28 looks to set the tone for summer corn prices.


The end of the month USDA Grain Stocks and Acreage reports are less than two weeks away. Todd Gleason talks with University of Illinois ag economist and commodity marketing specialist about the projected numbers and how farmers should set this self up for marketing this year’s corn and soybean crops.

The reduction in corn planted acreage by three million acres and corn yield by 10 bushels per acre in the June WASDE appears to be a harbinger of things to come this year. The June estimate of planted acreage of corn is generally expected to be far less than intentions of 92.8 million acres reported in March. The only question remaining is the scale of acreage loss. The magnitude of prevented planting acres this year looks to eclipse the previous record of 3.6 million acres in 2013 by a wide margin. As of June 9, 14.5 million acres remained unplanted in the 18 states reported in the Crop Progress report. The amount of prevented planted acreage in those estimates remains uncertain, but the prospect of planting more than 14 million acres of corn after June 10 seems daunting.

Additionally, some acreage may have been switched to soybeans due to delayed corn planting over large areas of the Corn Belt. Recent wet weather brings soybean acreage planting into question as well. However, the prospect of a new round of Market Facilitation Payments provides a strong incentive to plant soybeans in the second half of June if weather permits. The June acreage estimate will probably not be changed until FSA certified acreage data becomes available in October. The final acreage estimate released in January tends to be less than the June estimate. Since 1996, the final estimate averaged 626 thousand acres less than the June acreage report in years when prevented planting acreage exceeded one million acres. This year may see a substantial drop from the June acreage estimate due to the uncertainty about planting during the survey period.

While the supply situation looks increasingly supportive of corn prices, current levels of corn use show weakness; particularly in the export market. The estimate of June 1corn stocks will reflect the recent decrease in consumption and reveal the pace of feed and residual use during the third quarter of the marketing year. The expected size of June 1 stocks can be calculated based on consumption data that are currently available and on the assumption that feed and residual use is on pace with the USDA projection of 5.3 billion bushels for the year. Based on the USDA’s Grain Crushings and Co-Products Production reports for March and April and on the EIA weekly estimates of ethanol production during May, corn used for ethanol production during the third quarter of the marketing year is estimated at 1.347 billion bushels. Corn used for other domestic industrial products is estimated at 362 million bushels.

Cumulative export inspections during the first three quarters of the marketing year totaled 1.549 billion bushels. Through April, Census export estimates exceeded export inspections by 149 million bushels. If that margin continued through May, exports during the first three quarters of the year totaled 1.698 billion bushels and indicated exports during the third quarter at 566 million bushels.

For the marketing year, the USDA projects feed and residual use of corn at 5.3 billion bushels. Feed and residual use during the first half of the year totaled 3.487 billion bushels. Use during the last half of the year needs to equal 1.813 billion bushels for total use to reach the USDA projection. Third and fourth quarter feed and residual use vary substantially over time. Feed and residual use near 954 million bushels during the third quarter this year sits close to the center of the range based on the historical data. With March 1 stocks of 8.605 billion bushels and imports during the quarter of 8 million bushels, the estimates of consumption during the quarter point to June 1 stocks of 5.384 billion bushels, 79 million larger than stocks of a year ago. A deviation from June 1 stocks less than 100 million bushels from the current estimate will not engender much price movement. The Acreage report on June 28 should overwhelm any information in the stocks report.

Uncertainty about corn acreage looks to remain in place through the summer. Weakening demand should not be a hindrance to a continued price rally since the supply situation is quite dismal. Strengthening corn basis and futures prices point to marketing strategies involving delayed pricing of the new crop. Price objectives need to be set to take advantage of current corn market dynamics. Managing crop price risk can be accomplished with a variety of marketing strategies. It is essential to have a marketing strategy since supply shocks provide a limited time frame to take advantage of pricing opportunities. The strategy probably should include plans for pricing some of the 2020 crop.

Corn Yield Implications of Late Planting

University of Illinois Extension Agronomist Emerson Nafziger discusses the impact of late corn planting and how farmers should set about nitrogen applications this spring. He was interviewed May 1, 2019 by Todd Gleason.

The following summary is taken from a May 1, 2019 University of Illinois farmdocDaily article written by agricultural economists Scott Irwin and Todd Hubbs.

“The impact of late planting on projections of the U.S. average corn yield is an important question right now due to the very wet conditions so far this spring through much of the Corn Belt. We estimate that the relationship of late planting with corn yield trend deviations is highly non-linear, with a largely flat segment up to 10 percent above average late planting and then a steeply sloped segment for late planting that is 10 percent or more above average. This nicely matches the curvature of planting date effects on corn yield estimated in agronomic field trials (e.g., farmdoc daily, May 20, 2015; Nafziger, 2017). The key then for 2019 is whether late corn planting will be 10 percent or more above average, where the negative impact on corn yield is relatively large. Specifically, when late planting is 10 percent or more above average the chance of corn yield being below trend is 83 percent and the average deviation from trend yield is –6.1 bushels per acre. We analyze topsoil surplus moisture patterns in analog years to 2019 and the analysis suggests late planting this year is likely to be at least 10 percent. The implication is that there is a significantly elevated probability of a below-trend corn yield in 2019 and that present projections of U.S. average corn yield should likely be reduced to 170 bushels per acre or less. It is important to recognize that good summer weather conditions can offset the projected negative impact of late planting on the national average corn yield, but history indicates the probability of this happening is not very high if wet conditions in the Corn Belt persist through mid-May.” - Irwin and Hubbs, University of Illinois

Crop Insurance Loss Ratios in 2018


Gary Schnitkey from the University of Illinois discusses crop insurance loss ratios for 2018, the current outlook for payments in 2019, and the strategic economic models he’ll be developing for soybeans.

by Gary Schnitkey, University of Illinois
link to farmdocDaily article

Most 2018 payments on Federal crop insurance products have now been entered into the Risk Management Agency’s (RMA’s) record system and losses for 2018 can be stated accurately. Similar to 2016 and 2017, low losses again occurred in 2018. Losses were particularly low in Illinois and, more generally, the eastern Corn Belt.

Background on Loss Ratios

This article presents loss ratios, which equal payments on crop insurance policies divided by total premium paid on crop insurance policies. A loss ratio of 1.0 means that crop insurance payments are equal to total premium. Ratios above 1.0 indicate that payments exceed premium, which occurs with some regularity. On the other hand, loss ratios below 1.0 indicate that payments are less than premium. Given the way RMA sets premiums, loss ratios should average slightly below 1.0 over time. Given the high correlation of losses across policies in a year, variability in aggregate loss ratios will occur from year to year.

Data reported in this article come from the Summary of Business which is available from the RMA website. Data were downloaded in late April of 2019. Some changes to loss ratios will occur over time as more loss data become available. However, 2018 loss performance will not materially vary from loss ratios presented here.

Loss Ratios in 2018

For all insurance products, the 2018 loss ratio was .69, indicating that crop insurance payments were less than total premium. Overall, 2018 was a low loss year, continuing a string of low loss years that have occurred since 2013 (see Figure 1). Loss ratios exceeded 1.0 in the drought year of 2012 when the overall loss ratio was 1.57. Payments also exceeded premium in 2013 when the loss ratio was 1.03. Since 2013, loss ratios have been below 1.0 in each year: .91 in 2014, .65 in 2015, .42 in 2016, .54 in 2017, and .69 in 2018. These low loss years correspond to relatively high yielding years in corn and soybeans (farmdoc daily, April 16, 2019).



The overall loss ratio is highly influenced by the performance of corn and soybeans, as these two crops account for 56% of total premium. In 2018, corn policies had 32% of total premium while soybeans had 23%. In 2018, loss ratios were .43 on corn and .56 on soybeans. Since 2014, both crops have had low loss ratios. Corn loss ratios were .46 in 2015, .27 in 2016, .37 in 2017, and .43 in 2018. Soybean loss ratios were .55 in 2015, .21 in 2016, .30 in 2017, and .56 in 2018.
2018 Loss Ratios by County

Many counties in the Corn Belt had very low loss ratios, as would be expected given that corn and soybeans have very low loss ratios. Figure 2 shows loss ratios by county for all policies in that county. Loss ratios below .4 predominated in a stretch of counties beginning in eastern Iowa, going through Illinois, Indiana, and ending in Ohio. Low loss ratios also were in western Corn Belt counties including Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska. In contrast, there was a concentration of counties along the Iowa-Minnesota border that had higher loss ratios above 1.0.



Other sections of the country had higher loss ratios. Loss ratios above 1.2 predominated in North and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, northwest Missouri and eastern Kansa, and western Texas.
Summary

Overall, loss ratios were low in 2018, continuing a string of years since 2014 that have had low loss ratios. Low loss ratios occurred primarily because of low losses on corn and soybean policies in the Corn Belt.

It Still Takes Two Weeks to Plant the American Corn Crop

Most people take for granted that the farmers can plant their crops way faster today than ever before. While it is true today’s equipment can plant a single acre of corn much faster, it still takes about the same amount of time to plant the whole crop.



It’s an illusion and pretty simple math says University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Scott Irwin, "This is a situation where your eyes can deceive you. So, you drive out in the countryside and you have a friend that is a farmer. They have a big planter and can plant their individual farm, in these particular cases, clearly much faster than they used to (be able to plant them). I don’t disagree with that individual anecdotal observation. The problem is that this doesn’t necessarily add up to the whole."



Sure, the equipment can get over a single acre way faster but each piece of equipment is going over way more acres than used to be the case. Consequently, it takes about the same time to plant the whole U.S. corn crop today as it did forty-years ago says Irwin, "It is a near constant, there is some variation from year to year, but on average it looks like it takes a minimum of 14 good field days to get the U.S. corn belt planted with basically everyone able to, and willing to, run flat-out."

In 1980, for instance, Illinois farmers were able to plant about one-million acres per day. Last year, running flat-out that figure was approximately the same.

Good Yields! Yes but a Warning | an interview with Gary Schnitkey



by Gary Schnitkey, University of Illinois
read farmdocDaily article

On a national basis, corn and soybean yields were near record-breaking levels in 2018, with exceptional yields in central Illinois and the eastern United States contributing heavily to those near-record U.S. yields. Other areas had below-trend yields. The county yields for corn and soybeans presented in this article illustrate these facts. Much higher U.S. yields are possible if all areas have exceptional yields. However, all areas including Illinois should not expect above-trend yields in every year.

Corn Yields

The 2018 corn yield for the United States was 176.4 bushels per acre, just .2 bushels below the record yield of 176.6 bushels per acre set in 2017 (all yields in this article are from QuickStats, a website maintained by the National Agricultural Statistical Service). From a national standpoint, corn yields were excellent in 2018.

Contributing to these high yields were counties having average yields above 220 bushels per acre. Several of these counties were in the Northwest U.S. and Nebraska where irrigation often is used in corn production (see Figure 1). In predominately non-irrigated counties, there were a concentration of counties in eastern Iowa and extending through central Illinois with over 220 bushels per acre average yields (see Figure 1). Three counties in this region, all in Illinois, had average yields over 240 bushels per acre: Douglas County (246.0 bushels per acre), Piatt (241.8), and Warren (241.7). Eleven counties – again, all in Illinois – had average yields between 230 and 240 bushels per acre: Macon (239.9), Sangamon (236.4), Logan (236.2), Tazewell (235.4), Effingham (235.2), Coles (234.2), Stark (234.0), Moultrie (233.9), Hancock (233.9), Christian (232.9), and Mercer (231.3). Eighteen counties had yields between 220 and 230 bushels per acre: 6 counties in Iowa and 12 in Illinois.



High yields are a measure of good growing conditions, but it does not take into consideration the inherent productivity of soil. Yield deviations from trend consider an area’s productivity. For each county, a 2018 trend yield was calculated using linear regression to fit a straight line through actual county yields from 1972 to 2017. The straight line then was extended to give the 2018 trend yield which represents the expected yield given approximately average growing conditions. A yield deviation then equals the actual yield minus the trend yield. A yield deviation of 20 bushels per acre means the actual 2018 yield is 20 bushels higher than the trend yield, an indicator of a very good yield. Conversely, a –20 yield deviation indicates that the county yield is 20 bushels below the trend yield, an indicator of poor growing conditions.

As would be expected, eastern Iowa and central Illinois had yields with positive yield deviations, with many counties having yield trends above 30 bushels per acre (see Figure 2). Note that yield deviations paint a broader area of excellent yields. That area includes southern Illinois, central and southern Indiana, western Ohio, western Kentucky, and parts of central Tennessee.



Other areas did not fare as well. Counties along the Iowa-Minnesota border had below-trend yields (see Figure 2). Other regions of poor yields in include Colorado, eastern Kansas and western Missouri, Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana, North Carolina, and New York.
Soybeans Yields Similar to corn, soybeans almost had a record-breaking yield. The average U.S. soybean yield for 2018 was 51.6 bushels per acre, .3 bushels below the record yield set in 2016 of 51.9 bushels per acre.

There were many areas of exceptional soybean yields (see Figure 3). Twenty-nine counties had average county yields over 70 bushels per acre. Three of these counties were in Nebraska: Gosper (75.2 bushels per acre), Dawson (73.2), and Buffalo (70.6). The remaining 26 counties were in Illinois. Three Illinois counties had average county yields over 80 bushels per acre: Sangamon County (82.3 bushels per acre), Morgan (81.6), and Douglas (80).



Yield deviations suggest that central and southern Illinois had exceptional growing conditions in 2018 (see Figure 4). Excellent growing conditions continued into Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Other areas did not have as productive of a year. Yields were below trend along the Iowa-Minnesota board, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and in North and South Dakota.



Commentary The U.S. had near-record yields for corn and soybeans in 2018. Above-trend yields in central and southern Illinois, central and southern Indiana, western Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee where large contributors to the near-record U.S. yields.

The examination of county yields suggests two warnings. Illinois farmers should note that many several areas in the country had below-trend yields in 2018. Therefore, the 2018 experience indicates that below-trend yields are still possible. Illinois farmers should not plan on having above-trend yields in every year. It is entirely possible that the area of below-trend yields centered along the Iowa-Minnesota border in 2018 could occur in central Illinois. At the same time, Iowa and Minnesota could have above-trend yields. If that reversal occurs in 2019, there would be large, negative incomes on many Illinois farms.

Somewhat counter to the first warning, the second warning is for the possibility of much larger national corn and soybean supplies. It is possible that all areas of the U.S. have above-trend yields. That is, the western Corn Belt could have had above-trend yields at the same time the eastern Corn Belt has above-trend yields. If this occurs, national yields would be record-breaking, resulting in falling corn and soybean prices, leading to very low farm incomes.

Apr 10 | CONAB Updates Corn S&D Table

@Conab_Oficial reports Brazil's second-crop corn acreage is expected to be up 6.1% from last year. An early soybean harvest and good weather are the contributing factors. The 2nd crop corn harvest is expected to be 26.4% larger than last season's climate hampered crop.



Brazil's 2018/19 ending stocks are expected to rise to 15.3mt or approximately a 2-month supply with total yearly demand at 93.5mt. @Conab_Oficial notes new crop corn supply may yet grow as production conditions are "very positive". Exports are set at 31mt.



On price - @Conab_Oficial is concerned domestic usage will not increase because the 62.5mt already includes livestock feed usage that has levelled off and it is not known if domestic corn ethanol increases will materialize as new plants have yet to come online.

...a good part of the 1st crop corn writes @Conab_Oficial has not been marketed. When taken with a big second crop corn harvest it cautions a low price scenario.

Brazil's counterpart to USDA @Conab_Oficial notes early season conditions in the United States, should the over-abundant rainfall continue, could cause a switch to soybean acres here and a lower @CMEGroup futures price.

USDA Reports Provide Surprises for Corn


Friday’s USDA reports surprised the corn market. Todd Gleason has more on how more corn acreage than expected this year coupled with more corn leftover from last year than expected will influence prices.

by Todd Hubbs, University of Illinois
read farmdocdaily article
watch post-USDA report webinar with Todd Hubbs and Scott Irwin

The USDA’s quarterly Grain Stocks report and annual Prospective Planting report delivered surprises to the corn market. A greater than expected corn stocks number combined with higher than expected planted acreage of corn gave very bearish news to corn prices. Soybean stocks and acreage came in neutral to slightly positive for soybean prices.

March 1 corn stocks came in at 8.605 billion bushels compared to an average trade guess of 8.335 billion bushels. The stocks estimate suggested feed and residual use of corn during the first half of the 2018–19 marketing year came in eight percent lower than last marketing year. Lower feed and residual use materialized despite a sizable livestock herd and reduced production of distiller’s grains on weakening ethanol grind. A higher stocks estimate suggests the potential for underestimation of the 2018 crop size and supports the notion of declining demand for corn during the second quarter of the marketing year.

Corn producers reported intentions to plant 92.8 million acres of corn this year, 3.66 million more than planted last year. The reported corn acreage exceeded trade expectations by 1.4 million acres. The intention to increase corn acreage is widespread throughout the Corn Belt. Acreage is up 400,000 acres in Iowa, 200,000 in Illinois, and 150,000 in Indiana. Significant increases in corn acreage intentions showed up in the Northern Plains with North Dakota intending to plant 900,000 additional acres and South Dakota up 700,000 acres. Overall, the top ten corn producing states increased acreage by 2.05 million acres. If the intention to plant 92.8 million acres materializes, harvested acreage for grain may be close to 85.4 million acres. A U.S. average yield near 174.6 bushels per acre leads to a projection of production in 2019 of 14.9 billion bushels. Corn production at this level exceeds current marketing year use projections by 300,000 bushels. Corn use is expected to be higher in the 2019–20 marketing year, but the current implication of slowing use in the current marketing year and a larger crop next year is higher ending stocks.

The soybean stocks report appears neutral for soybean prices. March 1 soybean stocks estimates indicated 2.72 billion bushels, which came in above trade expectations by 33 million bushels. The stocks estimate implies seed and residual use of soybeans during the first half of the marketing year at 203 million bushels. Seed and residual use is up from last year and at the highest levels since the 2014–15 marketing year. The implications for soybean use this marketing year remain at previous levels and continue to rely on a resolution to trade issues.

Soybean planting intentions indicated farmers plan to plant 84.6 million acres of soybeans, down 4.6 million acres from last year. The soybean acreage intentions came in 1.55 million acres below of market expectations. Intentions to reduce soybean acreage spans most major production regions. In major producing states, the intention to plant fewer soybean acres is indicated by 300,000 fewer acres in Illinois, 600,000 in Iowa, and 500,000 in Minnesota. If 84.6 million acres are planted, harvested acreage could be close to 83.6 million acres. At a U.S. average yield of 49.4 bushels per acre, 2019 production projects to 4.13 billion bushels, 88 million bushels larger than current marketing year use projections. Without a significant change in soybean use over the next year, ending stocks appear set to increase slightly.

In addition to the allocation of acreage to corn and soybeans, the magnitude of total principal crop acreage shows a 4.2 million acre decrease from 2018. The USDA estimates that acreage planted to principal crops totals 315.4 million acres. The planned reduction in total planted acreage from that of a year ago showed up in feed grain crops other than corn. Sorghum acreage is projected to be 555,000 acres lower than a year ago at 5.18 million acres. Wheat acreage decreased two million acres to 45.8 million acres. Oat acreage declined by 191,000 acres. Acreage of oilseeds other than soybeans is projected to fall by 15,000 acres. Harvested acreage of hay is expected to increase by 215,000 acres.

The surprise in March 1 stocks and acreage created a bearish scenario for corn prices. The large corn stock number influences the consumption of corn in the feed and residual category directly during the current marketing year. An expectation of reduced feed and residual use is prudent moving forward. Without a resolution to the trade dispute, growth in ending stocks in both corn and soybeans appears feasible over the next year. Planting intentions confirmed the belief that farmers would switch to corn production in 2019. Depending on field conditions during the planting season and the changing price relationship between crops, the possibility of greater soybean acreage than reported in March exists. The June Acreage report will provide more clarification.

Managing Nitrogen for Corn in 2019

by Emerson Nafziger, University of Illinois

The fall of 2018 and so far in 2019, there have been limited opportunities to apply nitrogen fertilizer. Average rainfall through the first 25 days of March ranged from a little less than normal in the northern half of Illinois to an inch or more above normal in south-central Illinois. But temperatures have averaged 3 to 4 degrees below normal, which slowed drying. There were several days in the first week of March when it was frozen on the surface and a considerable amount of P and K went on. This was followed by an inch or more of rain (which had been forecast) in many areas, and it’s likely that some of the nutrients—those in MAP/DAP and potash are soluble—moved from higher to lower parts of fields, or off of fields altogether. While it’s good to get P and K applied before spring work starts, we really should consider holding off the next time soils are frozen and substantial rainfall is forecast before a thaw.

N rate

Results from the on-farm trials coordinated by Dan Schaefer of the IFCA and funded in part by the Illinois Nutrient Research & Education Council (NREC) showed that at about two-thirds of Illinois sites in 2018, the N rate needed to maximize the dollar return to N was higher than we have typically seen. We think that the slow start to mineralization during the cool weather in April 2018 might have meant more dependence on fertilizer N. Yields were also higher than we’ve usually found, which meant that the crop took up more N than usual.

Adding the 2018 data to the database used by the N rate calculator to calculate best (MRTN) rates for N in Illinois, and taking out some older data, resulted in an increase in the MRTN values compared to the previous (2018) version for corn following soybean. With N priced at $615 per ton of anhydrous ammonia ($0.375 per lb of N) and corn at $3.75 per bushel, the calculator gives MRTN rates for corn following soybean of 166, 180, and 192 lb N per acre for northern, central, and southern Illinois. These rates are 11 lb higher than the 2018 rates in northern and southern Illinois, and 5 lb higher in central Illinois. Those are modest changes because the 2018 data is added to a lot of existing data, but they illustrate how generating and adding new data keeps the guideline N rates responsive to research-based changes.

MRTN values for corn following corn did not change very much, in part because there weren’t as many trials in 2018, and in part because trials over the over the past several years have shown that corn following corn has required less fertilizer N than we found in many previous trials. It’s not clear why that is the case, but as we found with corn following corn, rates are responding to research findings to stay linked to what today’s corn crop needs.

Remember that the MRTN rates (and ranges) generated by the N rate calculator include all of the N that gets applied, not just to the main application. A 3-year, NREC-funded trial at two sites that we finished in 2018 showed that N rates from DAP applied in either the fall or in the spring produced the same yield response to N as spring-applied UAN. This means that we should be able to take full credit for N from MAP or DAP, providing these are applied after soils cool in the fall (about November 1 or later) or any time before planting in the spring. If these P fertilizers are applied before soils cool in the fall, some of the ammonium will convert to nitrate and be subject to loss. It’s reasonable to subtract maybe 20 to 30% of the N from P fertilizers that are applied in early October, before soils start to cool down.

N timing

In about 90 percent of on-farm trials comparing N rates applied as ammonia in both the fall (with N-Serve) and the spring, we have found little or no difference in yield responses to N rate. That’s been the case in our N-tracking trials as well: we generally find nearly all of the fall-applied N still present in the soil at planting (although most of it is usually in the nitrate form by then), and we have rarely found a yield advantage to applying 200 lb N in the spring compared to 200 lb N in the fall. Tile-drainage studies do show a little more N loss from fall-applied compared to spring-applied N, though, and we have found in a few cases either higher yields with spring-applied N or similar yields produced with lower rates of spring-applied N.

We have also found in a few trials the opposite—that fall-applied N can sometimes give higher yields or need less N to produce the same yield as spring-applied N. This is more likely when N rates needed to maximize the return to N are not unusually high, and when spring-applied N is applied at or after planting, with some delay in how soon the crop’s roots can reach the application band to start taking up N. That is, having the N dispersed in the soil after application under better (drier) soil conditions in the fall may sometimes be an advantage compared to application into wetter soils in the spring. Wet fall weather like we had in 2018 likely means less chance of seeing such an advantage in 2019. We did not get many trials established last fall to make the comparison.

There is no reason to expect that the delay in N application in most Illinois fields so far this season will lower yield potential, but it will be important to keep a couple of things in mind as the planting season approaches. The main lesson we’ve learned from our N timing and N form studies over the past five years is that corn plants need to have a substantial amount of N available in the soil near the row after plants emerge and before their nodal (main) root system starts to develop.

Table 1 shows yield averages from 15 site-years over the past four years (2015-2018) at four Illinois sites where corn followed soybean. The highest yields (those followed by an “a”) all came from treatments with 100 or 150 lb of N applied at planting, and applied in a way that we think made N available to the plants soon after emergence. Among the treatments with all 150 lb N applied at planting, broadcast SuperU (urea with both urease and nitrification inhibitors incorporated) and ESN (polymer-coated urea with extended release) produced the highest yields. Those that included N applied between the rows—especially NH3 with or without N-Serve, which would have been accessible to the roots only once the roots grew out to the band, yielded a little less. Adding nitrapyrin (Instinct) to UAN injected between the rows lowered yield a little, and those that had UAN surfaced-applied all yielded less: these may have lost some N or the N might have moved too slowly from the surface to the root zone to maximize yield.

Treatments with 150 lb N split into 100 lb at planting and 50 lb applied in-season generally yielded a little more than applying all of the N between the rows at planting (Table 1.) Applying 50 lb N as broadcast UAN at planting (to mimic the use of UAN as herbicide carrier at or after planting) then 100 lb as UAN injected at stage V5 did not yield very well, possibly because some of the N might have been lost, but more likely because there wasn’t enough N near the root system when it was needed, before sidedress. Otherwise, most of the treatments with 100 lb injected at planting followed by 50 lb as urea with Agrotain broadcast at V5 or V9, or as UAN dribbled in-row at V5, V9, or at tassel (VT) stage did well. Waiting until V9 and dribbling all 150 lb N as UAN at V9 was the lowest-yielding treatment, likely due to development of N deficiency (whether visible or not) that lowered yield potential in earlier stages. Injecting all of the N mid-row at V5 yielded as well as injecting 100 lb at planting and 50 at V5, which is counter to the idea that the crop needs more N early. We don’t know the reason for this.


Table 1. Corn yields with different forms and timing of 150 lb N/acre in corn following soybean. Data are averaged over 15 sites, with 3 or 4 sites per years for 4 years, 2015-2018. Averages followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 10% (error) level.

Another piece of evidence that the crop needs a good supply of N relatively early to avoid lowering yield potential comes from a part of the same N form and timing study reported in Table 1. Averaged across 18 site-years, applying 100 lb N at planting yielded 13 bushels more (214 versus 201) than applying 50 lb at planting plus 50 lb (as injected UAN) at sidedress, stage V5-6. At rates of 150 and 200 lb N/acre, applying 50 lb at planting then the rest at sidedress yielded about 3 bushels less than applying all of the N at planting. At the 200-lb rate, applying all of the N early yielded significantly more than the 50+150 split at two sites, and the split N yielded significantly more than the all-early application at one site.

In another set of trials, 200 lb N as fall-applied ammonia with N-Serve yielded an average of 5 bushels more than 50 lb N as injected UAN at planting followed by 150 lb N as injected UAN at sidedress. The 50-150 split-sidedress treatment yielded more than fall-applied N at most sites in 2015, when June was very wet, but the 50-150 split yielded less than fall-applied N at most sites in both 2017 and 2018. This shows that applying some of the N at sidedress can bring yields up close to those from all-early application of the same rate, but keeping back most of the N to apply in-season is more likely to decrease yields than to increase yield compared to applying all of the N before planting, including in the fall. If we do sidedress, we need to apply at least half of the N where the roots of small plants can get access to it in order to prevent early-season deficiency that can result in lower yields.

We also noted that when we get really wet soil conditions in June after the crop has started to grow, like we had in 2015, split-sidedress N can outperform all-early N. Under these conditions, the crop may well need more N than we have (or would have) applied. In order to respond to added N under wet conditions, the crop needs to have its root system active, which won’t be the case if it’s still standing in water or saturated soils. Also, if the lower leaves have started to die off, the plant may not be able to take up and utilize added N. Even then, a period with the roots under low oxygen conditions may not yield fully, even if soil conditions improve. It’s important to get supplemental N applied as soon as possible so that the crop can take it up as soon as it’s able. Dropping urea (perhaps with urease inhibitor) from the air is expensive, but might be in order, especially if a planned sidedress application wasn’t made before it got wet.

N form and additives

Different forms of N fertilizer need to be applied in a way that assures crop safety and maximizes the chance that the N will be available to the crop when the crop needs it. Anhydrous ammonia is usually the N source with the lowest cost (per pound of N) and at 82% N, using ammonia means less volume to store and transport. But it requires injection to depth in the soil, and so is more costly to apply. It also needs to be handled very carefully to prevent accidental release into the air. Once in the soil, it spreads (in soils not too dry or too wet) several inches out onto the soil and, by desiccating soil microbes, it limits microbial activity that converts ammonium to nitrate; that is, ammonia partially sterilizes the soil, in the process limiting its own conversion to nitrate for a period of time. Conversion to nitrate makes N mobile in the soil, and nitrate is subject to loss by leaching and denitrification. This isn’t permanent: these microbes grow back quickly in the presence of so much N, and eventually reach levels higher than before the ammonia was applied.

We normally use a nitrification inhibitor such as N-Serve or CENTURO (new from Koch Agronomic Services) when applying ammonia in the fall. The later we apply ammonia in the spring the less likely it is that a nitrification inhibitor will be needed to help keep N in the (immobile) ammonium form, and thus in rooting zone. As a biological process, nitrification is slow in cool soils, which usually means it’s slow through most of March. Illinois State Water Survey data show that at Bondville, just west of Champaign, 4-inch bare soil temperatures have been in the low 40s for the past two weeks. On average over the past five years, 4-inch soil temperatures have reached and then stayed above 50 degrees by about April 14 at this site, and it’s averaged about May 10 before soil temperature reaches and stays above 60. Nitrification is slow when temperatures are in the 50s, and begins to speed up once soil temperatures reach 60 and above. If we are able to plant more or less on time this year so that N uptake begins to accelerate in late May, and if we add in the effect of the NH3 itself in suppressing microbial activity, it’s unlikely that applications of ammonia made after April 1 will need the further delay in nitrification provided by nitrification inhibitor.

Because cool soils are slow to dry, applications of ammonia in the spring are usually done when soils are wetter than ideal. That doesn’t mean we should abandon this form of N, but applying it on wet soils means more soil compaction, and with the diameter of the ammonia band very small when application is into wet soil, its concentration is high. If the soil dries out after application, there is some danger than NH3 will begin to move up in the soil, and may damage seeds or roots. Using RTK to apply the band 6 to 8 inches away from where the row will be planted can eliminate such damage, but that means applying in the direction of the rows instead of on an angle. Tilling after ammonia application can also help disperse the band and will usually lower or eliminate the risk of ammonia injury on seedlings.

Dry urea has the advantage of being quick and easy to broadcast-apply with flotation equipment, and has the additional advantage of being safe to apply after crop emergence. If spread on the soil surface and worked in with a tillage pass before planting, it is relatively safe from loss by volatilization, which is breakdown into carbon dioxide and ammonia, which can be lost to the air. If surface-applied without incorporation, using a urease inhibitor will help decrease volatilization. Getting a half inch or more of rain will move most of the urea into the soil, where any volatilized ammonia will be quickly dissolved in soil water. Urea doesn’t “self-sterilize” the soil to limit nitrification like ammonia does, though, so with warm surface soil temperatures, nitrification will begin soon after the urea is dissolved and in the soil (as ammonium). In the results in Table 1, SuperU (from Koch), which has both urease and nitrification inhibitors, produced the highest yields of any of the forms and application methods used in that study. Urea with the urease inhibitor Agrotain yielded 5 bushels less, presumably because of some loss (or movement below the root zone) of N following nitrification; urease inhibitor has no effect on the nitrification process once the N is on the ammonium form.

N application

Application methods are discussed several places above for different N forms, so only a few additional things will be noted here. Most application methods are not new, but there have been some innovations in recent years that offer more options. One big issue 15 or 20 years ago, perhaps related to aerial imaging that showed colors patterns in corn fields, was that of uneven distribution of NH3 across the knives on toolbars. A number of engineering improvements since then have diminished, if not eliminated, this problem, and as long as older manifolds have been replaced, it’s not a major issue now.

Application depth of NH3 has some influence on back-pressure and distribution, and on how safe the ammonia is from release into the air. Under normal soil conditions (not too wet), releasing NH3 5 or 6 inches deep is a safe depth, but if it’s wet, that will place it deep enough so that roots of small plants may not get access to it as soon as they should. This can be overcome to some extent by application of some of the N in more-available forms, such as 2 x 2 placement with the planter. This should be done with enough of the N (50 lb or more) to support early growth. In-furrow application of starter fertilizer or broadcasting 10 to 15 gallons of UAN 28 (30 to 45 lb of N) with herbicide helps, but unless soils are warm enough so that mineralization has kicked in by the time plants are at the 2-leaf stage (normally 20 to 25 days after planting), these applications may not provide enough N in time to maximize yield potential.

While most in-season (or at-planting) applications of UAN solution have traditionally been made by shallow injection, the recent advent of near-row dribble (Y-Drop®) technology and similar equipment, in at least one case with the ability to apply both between-row injection and near-row dribble at the same time, offers a different option for placement. One advantage promoted for near-row dribble is the ability to apply N to corn of different sizes, from small plants to tassel stage or even beyond, using high-clearance equipment. This equipment has been promoted to some extent on the idea that “spoon-feeding”—applying N before and several times during the rapid growth/N uptake stages—can better match N to the crop’s needs, with less potential for loss, thereby maximizing yields. We have not found such an approach to be effective: as detailed above, we seldom (with some exceptions) find a yield advantage to keeping any of the N back for a single in-season application. And, we see no effective way to adjust N rates with later applications to end up lowering rates, thereby increasing N efficiency. We know beyond doubt that most soils are very effective as reservoirs for N, and this means that there is simply no yield advantage for breaking one or two N applications, including a major one at or soon after planting, into three or four applications. Without a yield advantage, the added application costs will lower returns.

As a way to apply in-season N, however, near-row dribble has some advantages over mid-row injection. Corn’s nodal roots grow down at an angle from the lower stem where they originate, so placement closer to the row means placement at less distance down to the root system. Dribbled UAN is also shaded a little more by the row so may be less prone to volatilization under high temperatures in direct sunlight. One question has been whether a near-row (or injected) UAN application made in-season will benefit from the addition of a urease inhibitor (like Agrotain) or even of a nitrification inhibitor (like Instinct). Injected UAN should never need a urease inhibitor, and if it’s dry and expected to continue to be dry, some consideration might be given to changing from dribbled to injected UAN. Until it rains, neither dribbled nor injected N will get to the roots for uptake, but at least the injected UAN-N won’t volatilize. It might make sense to use a urease inhibitor if surface application is the only option, but that won’t eliminate the risk that if it stays dry, the N won’t get into the crop in time to maximize its use no matter how we apply it. If it’s dry by early June and is projected to stay dry (as it did in 2012), it might make sense to skip the in-season N application altogether.

Dry urea can be applied across the top of emerged corn without concern for injury, although leaf edges sometimes show damage after application, especially when applied to larger plants, which catch more urea in the whorl. Some long-ago research showed that urea in the whorl didn’t decrease yield. Moderate wind tends to fold leaves over the whorl and may decrease urea capture, but of course won’t help uniformity of spread. Although urea applied to the soil surface is subject to loss by volatilization, enough rain to move the urea into the soil within a week after application will minimize losses. If it doesn’t rain, the urea may not do much good. Using Agrotain will help reduce volatilization and lower risk of loss, and might be appropriate if rain is likely to come late. Using polymer-coated urea (ESN) slows release of the urea into the soil, but in-season applications are usually made with the hope that N will get into the plants quickly, and slow-release will hinder that, and will lower effectiveness of the applied N. Polymer-coated urea can also move with surface flow of water following heavy rain, and in some cases might even leave the field.

While 2019 has so far presented some challenges in terms of applying N, a period of warm weather in April can greatly improve the prospect of getting N on this year’s crop without losing yield potential. We will need to retain flexibility, though, perhaps to the extent of changing form and timing of application to ensure that the crop gets enough N in time. One drawback to that, besides the challenges in equipment and timing, may be increased N costs that result from changing N form and application equipment. It would be good to enter revised N prices into the N rate calculator to see how this changes the amount of N to use. With expected corn prices and margins not very high, this might be the year to put off trying new and less-proven products and practices, and to focus instead on the basics of getting N to the crop in adequate amounts, both by choosing moderate rates (the MRTN should be the first option for most fields) and by applying N in a way that minimizes losses and maximizes crop access to this critically important nutrient.