Posts

WILLAg IFES Post


2019 was a truly historic and in many ways unbelievable year for Illinois agriculture. The ongoing trade war with China and the on- and off-again efforts to reach an agreement dominated headlines much of the year. As if this wasn’t enough uncertainty for one year, Illinois was hit by one of the wettest spring planting seasons on record. Looking forward, the story of Illinois agriculture will continue to be one of managing volatility and financial difficulties. The stress of a prolonged period of low corn, soybean, and wheat prices, was amplified for producers experiencing low yields this year due to poor planting and summer growing season weather. Producers and landowners continue to face a series of difficult management challenges as they grapple with adjusting to this highly volatile economic environment. What is the prospect for a recovery in grain prices? Should cash rents be lower? And if so, how much? How much will government programs offset some of the financial stress? The members of the farmdoc team from the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics and University of Illinois Extension will be holding a series of five Illinois Farm Economics Summit meetings to help producers navigate these tumultuous times.


The registration fee for each location is $85 per person.  Save $5 by registering online for $80.  This fee includes all meeting materials, break refreshments, and lunch.  Registration at the door will be $90 per person, as space permits.
For registration questions contact Nancy Simpson at 217-244-9687 (8am to 4pm CST) or nsimp1@illinois.edu.
The registration deadline is December 9th, 2019


Monday, December 16 – Mt. Vernon Holiday Inn
Tuesday, December 17 – Springfield Crowne Plaza
Wednesday, December 18 – Peoria Par-A-Dice Casino
Thursday, December 19 – Dekalb Faranda’s Banquet Center
Friday, December 20 – Champaign I Hotel





2019: THAT Just Happened
Scott Irwin, Professor
Department of ACE, University of Illinois

What Did We Learn with Delayed Planting? Farm Management Implications
Gary Schnitkey, Professor
Department of ACE, University of Illinois

Illinois Farm Income: 2019 Projections and Outlook for 2020
Dale Lattz, farmdoc Research Associate
Department of ACE, University of Illinois

The ARC/PLC Decision in the New Farm Bill
Jonathan Coppess, Assistant Professor
Department of ACE, University of Illinois

Trade, MFP, and Policy Directions
Nick Paulson, Associate Professor
Department of ACE, University of Illinois

Grain Price Outlook for 2020
Todd Hubbs, Assistant Professor
Department of ACE, University of Illinois

Register for the Illinois Farm Economic Summits

click page to register





drag this page to the desktop to print and mail

Projected Net Incomes on Illinois Grain Farms in 2019 and 2020



by Gary Schnitkey, ILLINOIS Extension

Due to lower corn and soybean yields, 2019 net farm incomes on Illinois grain farms are projected to decline more than $80,000 per farm from 2018 levels. The low yields are partially offset by higher corn and soybean prices and higher MFP payments in 2019 as compared to 2018. Incomes in 2020 are projected to be negative if yields are at trend levels and Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments do not occur.

Historic Net Incomes on Illinois Grain Farms
Figure 1 shows average yearly net incomes on grain farms enrolled in Illinois Farm Business Farm Management (FBFM). These net incomes are averages across all grain farms in Illinois. Size, tenure relationships, and financial structures vary across these farms. Many farms are below 1,000 tillable acres, and some farms have over 8,000 acres. Over time, the size of farms has grown. In 2018, the average number of tillable acres was around 1,500 acres.



As can be seen in Figure 1, there are three distinct periods of net income. Between 1996 and 2005, net income averaged $55,000 per farm. This period was characterized by relatively low corn and soybean prices, resulting in low incomes. Income during this period reached a low of $11,000 in 1998, a year in which government programs were instituted to provide price and income support to grain farms.

From 2006 to 2013, incomes were much higher, averaging $189,000 per farm. Corn and soybean prices were higher than the other two periods due to increased use of corn in ethanol production, growing export demand for soybeans, and yield shortfalls occurring in several years. The prime example of a yield shortfall was 2012, a year of intense drought over much of the eastern and lower corn-belt. While yields were low in 2012, corn and soybean prices reach all-time highs. High prices, along with proceeds from crop insurance products, resulted in a record income of $298,000 per farm.

Prices have been lower since 2013, with corn prices generally being below $4.00 per bushel and soybean prices being below $10.00 per bushel. From 2013 to 2018, net incomes have averaged $79,000 per farm, about $110,000 less per farm than the 2006–2012 period. Incomes during the 2013–2018 period have been $24,000 higher than the 1996–2006 period, but have been much more variable. Incomes have varied from $500 per farm in 2015 up to $147,000 in 2018.

Compared to 2013 through 2017, incomes were much higher in 2018. In 2018, soybean prices fell partially due to U.S. trade disputes with China and other countries. In 2018, central Illinois farms on high-productivity farmland averaged $8.85 per bushel of soybeans, down from the $9.81 per bushel average from 2014 to 2018 (see Table 1). Two factors countered this price decline resulting in higher 2018 incomes:
  1. Yields were exceptional. While yields have been high since 2014, 2018 yields were truly outstanding. On central Illinois farms, corn yields averaged 237 bushels per acre in 2018, 16 bushels per acre higher than the 221 bushel average from 2014 to 2017. Soybean yields averaged 74 bushels per acre, 8 bushels higher than the 67 bushel average from 2014 to 2017.
  2. Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments. In 2019, MFP payments in central Illinois averaged $122 per acre for soybeans and $1 per acre for corn. Without these payments, 2018 incomes would have been below the 2013–2017 average.


Projected 2019 Incomes
The average net income in Illinois will be below $60,000 per farm, much lower than in 2018, with possibilities for incomes approaching 2015 levels on many farms. Most of the decline in net income is associated with lower gross revenue, as opposed to a significant change in expenses. On central Illinois high-productivity farmland, gross revenue averaged $819 per acre in 2018, given that 50% of the acres were in corn and 50% were in soybeans (see Table 1). Average gross revenue is projected at $761 per acre in 2019, $58 lower than in 2018. Factors impacting revenue from 2018 to 2019 are:
  1. Lower yields. In central Illinois, corn yields are projected at 205 bushels per acre in 2019, down by 32 bushels per acre from 2018 levels. Soybeans yields are projected at 58 bushels per acre, down by 16 bushels per acre from the 74 bushel average in 2018. Lower yields are the major reason for lower incomes.
  2. Prices are projected to be higher in 2019 as compared to 2018. Projections are made with a $3.90 corn price in 2019, compared to a $3.60 price in 2018. Soybean prices are projected at $9.00 for 2019, compared to $8.85 in 2018. Higher prices partially offset lower yields, resulting in higher incomes.
  3. MFP payments are projected at $82 per acre for both corn and soybeans in 2019. MFP payments will average about $20 per acre higher in 2019 as compared to 2018 on Illinois grain farms. Without MFP payments, average income on Illinois grain farms would be negative in 2019.
The $58 per acre decline in gross revenue from 2018 results in a net income that is $87,000 lower per farm ($58 per acre times 1,500 acres) in 2019. This leads to an estimate of net income for central Illinois farms of $60,000 ($147,000 income in 2018 minus $87,000 less income). Central Illinois likely will have some of the highest yields in the state, and therefore higher incomes than other areas. In northern Illinois, for example, yields are projected at 185 bushels per acre for corn, resulting in much lower income projections for northern Illinois. As a result, average incomes on Illinois farms likely will be below $50,000 per farm when averaged across Illinois.

Projected 2020 Incomes
Current projections would place revenue lower in 2020 as compared to 2019. In central Illinois, for example, average gross revenue is projected at $695 per acre in 2020, a decrease of $66 per acre from 2019 projected levels of $761 per acre (see Table 1). These projections are based on:
  1. A return to trend yields, which are higher than 2019 yields. Projections use a 211 bushel per acre yield for corn and 63 bushels per acre for soybeans.
  2. Stable prices of $3.90 per bushel for corn and $9.00 per bushel for soybeans.
  3. No MFP payments.
  4. No commodity title payments from Agricultural Risk Coverage or Price Loss Coverage.
These values would result in a negative average net income for 2020. Many factors could result in higher incomes, with two of the more likely factors being:
  1. A return to above-average yields. From 2014 to 2018, yields averaged 225 bushels per acre for corn and 68 bushels per acre for soybeans. These higher yields would result in average gross revenue of $745 per acre, still below the $761 projection for 2019. While higher yields are quite possible, those higher yields could be associated with price declines from projected levels. The impact of potentially lower prices are not considered in the projections, and would partially offset the impacts of higher yields.
  2. A continuation of the Market Facilitation Program. Another payment of $82 per acre will bring gross revenue near 2019 levels if yields return to trend levels.
Summary
Lower yields will contribute too much lower incomes on Illinois grain farms in 2019. A continuation of low incomes is projected into 2020. Without a continuation of the MFP program in 2020, incomes on Illinois farms will be negative if prices do not increase given that trend yields occur.
Soybean prices have fallen since the trade dispute began in 2018. Currently, soybean prices are near $9.00. Note that this $9 price results with considerably lower soybean acres in 2019, and much lower yields. In the current supply and demand environment, a return to more normal acres and above-trend yields likely would push prices below $9.00 per bushel. Farmers have not felt the full impact of lower prices because MFP payments have supported income in 2018 and 2019. If prices do not increase or yields are not exceptional, farms may have negative incomes without MFP payments in 2020.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge that data used in this study comes from the local Farm Business Farm Management (FBFM) Associations across the State of Illinois. Without their cooperation, information as comprehensive and accurate as this would not be available for educational purposes. FBFM, which consists of 5,500 plus farmers and 60 professional field staff, is a not-for-profit organization available to all farm operators in Illinois. FBFM field staff provide on-farm counsel along with recordkeeping, farm financial management, business entity planning and income tax management. For more information, please contact the State FBFM Office located at the University of Illinois Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics at 217–333–5511 or visit the FBFM website at www.fbfm.org.

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.