Author: Bart Fischer

  • Examining Farm Bill Base Acre Proposals

    Examining Farm Bill Base Acre Proposals

    On May 30, 2024, we compared the farm safety net features of the House Ag Committee-passed version of the 2024 Farm Bill (Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024) with the Senate majority proposal (Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024). In today’s article, we focus on one of those provisions: the addition of base acres. While the Senate majority proposal would provide a “limited opportunity” to update base for “underserved producers”– and it remains to be seen exactly what that would entail – the House Ag Committee-passed bill would add up to an additional 30 million acres of base for farms where planted acres exceed base acres on the farm. While base is a wonky, often overlooked provision, is has the potential to be one of the more consequential in the farm bill, particularly as proposed by the House. 

    Previous Southern Ag Today articles (for example, see here) have explored the issue of base. While a seemingly straightforward issue, it’s actually quite complicated. First, base acres were established decades ago and there have been very few opportunities to update/add base. Second, because base acres are decoupled from planting history, what a producer was planting in the mid-1980s when base was established is not necessarily reflective of what is being planted on the farm today. Third, while the 2014 Farm Bill allowed for a “reallocation” of base acres – which did provide an opportunity for the base acres to be more aligned with what was planted on the farm, on average, from 2009-2013 – that “reallocation” did not allow new base acres to be added to the farm. In fact, the last real opportunity to add base acres occurred in the 2002 Farm Bill as soybeans were being added as a covered commodity. Consequently, land with no base (or with plantings that exceed base) have had virtually no opportunity to add base in the last several decades. Fourth, there are severe data limitations preventing thorough analysis, which means it’s difficult for policymakers to know the scope of the problem. Fifth, because of those data limitations, it’s difficult to advise policymakers on the implications of various proposals to change base acres. For example, one popular option adopted by the National Corn Growers Association would be for Congress to simply mandate a base acre update to recent plantings, but ascertaining who would add/lose base is almost impossible to determine, which puts Congress in a precarious position. Despite all of these challenges, based on our collective decades of experience in working on farm policy, just about every farmer we know has land without base (or that is “under-based”) and would be very interested in being able to add new base acres. 

    It is this last point that makes the House Ag Committee proposal particularly intriguing. It is entirely optional and, apart from the 2002 Farm Bill making soybeans a covered commodity, it would represent the single largest opportunity to add base acres since their initial creation in the mid-1980s. Under the House Ag Committee proposal, a farm would be eligible for additional base acres equal to the amount by which (1) the average number of acres from 2019 through 2023 that were planted or prevented from being planted to covered commodities (including “eligible non-covered commodities”) exceeds (2) the existing base acres on the farm. In other words, if you have a farm with plantings that exceed base (including farms where you have no base at all), you can add the missing base. There are a few key limitations/provisions of which to be mindful:

    • To avoid penalizing producers who may be in a crop rotation that contains certain non-covered commodities, the number of eligible acres may include the number of acres planted or prevented from being planted to non-covered commodities (i.e., the “eligible non-covered commodities” referenced above) other than trees, bushes, vines, and pasture. The acres of non-covered commodities that can count toward the eligible acres on the farm would be limited and may not exceed 15% of the total acres on the farm.
    • New base acres added under this provision would be assigned to covered commodities using a formula like that utilized for the base reallocation opportunity in the 2014 Farm Bill. The assignment would reflect the ratio of covered commodities planted on the farm from 2019 through 2023.
    • Following sign-up, if the total number of eligible acres across the country exceeds 30 million acres, the Secretary would be required to apply a pro-rata reduction to all farms to reduce the number of eligible acres to equal 30 million. For example, if USDA receives applications to add 60 million acres of base, everyone will see a 50% factor applied to their application (i.e., 30 million divided by 60 million). Regardless, assuming there are sufficient applications, this would result in a minimum of 30 million new base acres being added to the program.

    Bottom line: this is a significant change from previous law that we expect to be extraordinarily popular among agricultural producers.


    Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “Examining Farm Bill Base Acre Proposals.Southern Ag Today 4(23.4). June 6, 2024. Permalink

  • Battlelines Are Being Drawn: Comparing Current Farm Policy Proposals

    Battlelines Are Being Drawn: Comparing Current Farm Policy Proposals

    On May 1, 2024, Rep. G.T. Thompson, Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, released summaries of their respective farm bill proposals (see here and here).  

    On May 17, 2024, Chairman Thompson released text of his bill.  Very early this morning, the House Committee on Agriculture finished marking up its version of the 2024 Farm Bill – the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024 – and passed it out of Committee on a bipartisan vote of 33 to 21. 

    While there will be a lot of chatter about the path forward in the full House, attention is now turning to the Senate. To help set the stage, we have compiled a side-by-side comparison of the major farm safety net features of the House Ag Committee-passed bill and the Senate majority proposal – the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024.  Importantly, no bill text has been released for the Senate proposal, so the comparison is compiled from the summary materials linked above. Further, while Table 1 compares the proposals currently on the table, we leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about which approach they prefer. It is also important to note that Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, announced earlier this morning that he will weigh in with his own framework “in the coming weeks” but highlighted that the House Ag Committee-passed bill “mirrors much of what Senate Republicans are seeking to accomplish with our framework.”

    Key FeaturesHouse Ag Committee-Passed BillSenate Majority Proposal
    Title 1 Provisions
    Statutory Reference Prices (SRPs)Increases ranging from 10-20%… 

     Corn: $3.70/bu to $4.10/bu
    Sorghum: $3.95/bu to $4.40/bu
    Barley: $4.95/bu to $5.45/bu
    Oats: $2.40/bu to $2.65/bu
    Soybeans: $8.40/bu to $10.00/bu
    Wheat: $5.50/bu to $6.35/bu
    Seed Cotton: $0.367/lb to $0.42/lb
    Rice: $14.00/cwt to $16.90/cwt
    Peanuts: $535/ton to $630/ton
    Other Oilseeds: $20.15/cwt to $23.75/cwt
    Dry Peas: $11.00/cwt to $13.10/cwt
    Lentils: $19.97/cwt to $23.75/cwt
    Small Chickpeas: $19.04/cwt to $22.65/cwt
    Large Chickpeas: $21.54/cwt to $25.65/cwt 
    5% increase “for commodities such as seed cotton, rice, and peanuts”… 
    Corn: unchanged at $3.70/bu 
    Sorghum: unchanged at $3.95/bu 
    Barley: unchanged at $4.95/bu 
    Oats: unchanged at $2.40/bu
    Soybeans: unchanged at $8.40/bu
    Wheat: unchanged at $5.50/bu 
    Seed Cotton: from $0.367/lb to $0.385/lb
    Rice: $14.00/cwt to $14.70/cwt
    Peanuts: $535/ton to $562/ton
    Other Oilseeds: unchanged at $20.15/cwt
    Dry Peas: unchanged at $11.00/cwt 
    Lentils: unchanged at $19.97/cwt 
    Small Chickpeas: unchanged at $19.04/cwt
    Large Chickpeas: unchanged at $21.54/cwt
    Effective Reference Prices (ERPs) No change from current law.“Changes the definition” of ERPs by “updating the formula…”  Details TBD.
    Maximum PLC Payment  NOTE: these estimates illustrate the maximum possible PLC payment (assuming the ERP is at 115% of the SRP).Except for seed cotton and corn, the maximum possible PLC payment is the difference between the Effective Reference Price and the Loan Rate:
    Corn:  $1.42/bu
    Sorghum:  $2.64/bu
    Barley:  $3.52/bu
    Oats:  $0.85/bu
    Soybeans:  $4.68/bu
    Wheat:  $3.58/bu
    Seed Cotton:  $0.183/lb
    Rice:  $11.74/cwt
    Peanuts:  $335/ton
    Other Oilseeds:  $16.21/cwt
    Dry Peas:  $8.20/cwt
    Lentils:  $13.01/cwt
    Small Chickpeas:  $15.05/cwt
    Large Chickpeas:  $14.10/cwt 
    The maximum possible PLC payment is equal to 20% of the Effective Reference Price.
     —Corn:  $0.85/bu
    Sorghum:  $0.91/bu
    Barley:  $1.14/bu
    Oats:  $0.55/bu
    Soybeans:  $1.93/bu
    Wheat:  $1.27/bu
    Seed Cotton:  $0.089/lb
    Rice:  $3.38/cwt
    Peanuts:  $129/ton
    Other Oilseeds:  $4.63/cwt
    Dry Peas:  $2.53/cwt
    Lentils:  $4.59/cwt
    Small Chickpeas:  $4.38/cwt
    Large Chickpeas:  $4.95/cwt
    Loan RatesCotton:  0.45-$0.52/lb to $0.55/lb
    Dry Peas:  $6.15/cwt to $6.87/cwt
    ELS Cotton:  $0.95/lb to $1.00/lb
    Graded Wool:  $1.15/lb to $1.60/lb
    Non-Graded Wool:  $0.40/lb to $0.55/lb
    Mohair:  $4.20/lb to $5.00/lb
    Honey:  $0.69/lb to $1.50/lb
    Corn:  $2.20/bu to $2.42/bu
    Sorghum:  $2.20/bu to $2.42/bu
    Barley:  $2.50/bu to $2.75/bu
    Oats:  $2.00/bu to $2.20/bu
    Soybeans:  $6.20/bu to $6.82/bu
    Wheat:  $3.38/bu to $3.72/bu
    Rice:  $7.00/cwt to $7.70/cwt
    Peanuts:  $355/ton to $390/ton
    Other Oilseeds:  $10.09/cwt to $11.10/cwt
    Lentils:  $13.00/cwt to $14.30/cwt
    Small Chickpeas: $10/cwt to $11/cwt
    Large Chickpeas: $14/cwt to $15.40/cwt
    Sugar (Raw):  $0.1975/lb to $0.24/lb 
    No change to statutory Loan Rates from current law but potential to increase (up to 10%) if estimated cost of production in a given year (from 2025 to 2029) is higher than the 5-year average cost of production from USDA’s Economic Research Service. For sugar producers, “increases sugar loan rates and adjusts the relationship between raw sugar and refined sugar to reflect more recent production and transportation costs.”
    ARC Guarantee Increase from 86% to 90%.Increase from 86% to 88%.
    Maximum ARC PaymentIncrease from 10% to 12.5%, raising the maximum possible payment by 25%. No change from current law of 10%.
    Base AcresAdds up to an additional 30 million acres for farms where planted acres exceed base acres on the farm. “Limited opportunity” to update base for “underserved producers” only.
    Payment Limit AmountsIncrease from $125,000 to $155,000 for producers with >75% of income from farming/ranching/silviculture. No change from current law.
    Payment Limit IndexingFor producers with >75% of income from farming/ranching/silviculture, payment limits indexed for inflation (CPI-U) going forward. No comparable provision.
    Legal EntitiesEliminates the LLC penalty. Pass-thru LLCs would join General Partnerships and Joint Ventures in having the number of payment limits parallel the number of stakeholders in the entity. No comparable provision.
    Means TestingNo change from current law of $900,000, except that means testing would not apply to disaster programs in Title 1 and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) for producers with >75% of income from farming/ranching/silviculture.  NOTE: this is consistent with the original means testing requirements from the 2002 Farm BillReduces AGI threshold from $900,000 to $700,000 for row-crop producers and makes tenants ineligible if landowners do not meet AGI threshold. Increases allowable AGI from $900,000 to $1,500,000 for specialty crop and “high-value” crop producers.
    Title 11 Provisions
    Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) Trigger Increase from 86% to 90%Increase from 86% to 88%
    SCO Premium Support Increase from 65% to 80%Increase from 65% to 80%
  • Leveling the Playing Field for U.S. Agricultural Producers

    Leveling the Playing Field for U.S. Agricultural Producers

    Those who know little about production agriculture will often ask us why we have a farm safety net in the United States. While there are several justifications to choose from, one of the most notable is that farm policy is designed to help level the playing field for U.S. agricultural producers in the global marketplace. In this article, we illustrate the case of rice.

    Rice is an important part of the U.S. agricultural economy, particularly in the South where a number of local communities are highly dependent on the rice industry. Despite its importance, U.S. rice production accounted for just 1.2% of global rice production over the past 5 years. Consequently, the price received by U.S. producers is very much a function of market and political dynamics originating in the rest of the world. 

    In April 2015, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) reported on the global competitiveness of the U.S. rice industry, concluding that the global rice market was “characterized by significant government intervention in both imports and exports.” One of the most notable serial offenders is India, deploying a cadre of input subsidies and minimum support prices that support their growers to the detriment of producers around the world.  In 2020, our own analysis concluded that U.S. rice and wheat farmers were facing almost $600 million per year in lost sales due to the trade-distorting domestic support policies that were being utilized by India (that number rose to $850 million per year in a 2022 update). In February 2024, Rep. Jason Smith, the Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means asked USITC to again investigate the global competitiveness of U.S. rice producers. While we won’t prejudge the outcome of their investigation, we can’t help but note that India’s rice exports more than doubled from 2015/16 (when the last USITC report was written) to 2021/22.  

    The bottom line is that producers in other markets have significant, government-sponsored benefits that advantage their rice producers over U.S. rice producers. All of this helps to explain why 2022/23 marked the lowest level for U.S. rice exports since 1985/86 (Figure 1). While previous Southern Ag Today articles have explored the temporary reprieve resulting from India’s recent export ban (see here and here), the eventual return to status quo will inevitably result in lower prices for producers around the world, including in the United States. 

    All of this serves as yet another reminder of the importance of the farm safety net in leveling the playing field for America’s agricultural producers. It also magnifies the importance of updating the farm safety net in the next farm bill to ensure that it is reflective of the risks currently being faced by America’s agricultural producers.  

    Figure 1. U.S. Rice Exports from 1985/86 to 2022/23.

    Source: Production, Supply and Distribution (PSD) Data, USDA-FAS

    Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “Leveling the Playing Field for U.S. Agricultural Producers.Southern Ag Today 4(15.4). April 11, 2024. Permalink

  • ARC and PLC Deadline TOMORROW!

    ARC and PLC Deadline TOMORROW!

    The Further Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-22) was signed into law on November 16, 2023.  The bill extended various programs, including the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs, through September 30, 2024.  As a result of the extension, ARC and PLC will be in place for the 2024 crop year under the same parameters as those negotiated in the 2018 Farm Bill (i.e., the same base acres, program yields, and Reference Prices, etc).  Growers have until tomorrow (March 15, 2024) to make an election between ARC and PLC on a crop-by-crop and farm-by-farm basis and to enroll their farm(s) for the 2024 crop year. 

    If you are unable to make it to your local Farm Service Agency (FSA) office by the close of business tomorrow, we highly encourage you to call the office to inquire about the possibility of getting on a register to preserve the option of signing up at a later date. Under the 2018 Farm Bill, the election and enrollment are an annual decision; as a result, even if you haven’t participated in recent years, you should be able to sign up for 2024 if you wish (assuming there aren’t other factors impacting your eligibility).

    For many growers in the South, March 15th is also the Sales Closing Date for crop insurance on several crops.  As we noted in an earlier Southern Ag Today article, we highly encourage you to consider your FSA enrollment in light of the crop insurance options available to you. In many cases, the decisions you make on one will affect the other.  For example, you cannot participate in the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) on a farm if the base acres for that crop have elected ARC for the crop year (and vice versa, especially for winter wheat producers who have already purchased SCO on the 2024 crop).  Similarly, cotton producers cannot purchase a Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) policy on any farm (FSA Farm Number) where the seed cotton base has been enrolled in ARC or PLC for that crop year.

    Despite bearish prices for many commodities, ARC and PLC are still unlikely to provide any assistance in most cases.  As a result, we highly encourage you to consider all of the crop insurance options available to you – including area-wide options like STAX, SCO, and the Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO) – before making your FSA election/enrollment decisions. 


    Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “ARC and PLC Deadline TOMORROW!Southern Ag Today 4(11.4). March 14, 2024. Permalink

  • Farm Bill Fault Lines: Why is the Farm Bill Debate Stuck in Neutral?

    Farm Bill Fault Lines: Why is the Farm Bill Debate Stuck in Neutral?

    As the saying goes: a picture is worth a thousand words.  We present to you Figure 1.

    Figure 1: Farm Safety Net and SNAP Spending, 1962 to 2026F

    Source:  OMB Table 11.3 – Outlays for Payments for Individuals by Category and Major Program: 1940 – 2028 and Table 3.2 – Outlays by Function and Subfunction: 1962 – 2028.
    Note:  spending for budget subfunction 351 (farm income stabilization) is used as a proxy for farm safety net spending.

    Any serious student of farm policy is taught very early on that nutrition policy and farm policy go hand in hand…and that you can’t get a farm bill done that doesn’t include both.  Why?  The argument goes like this: there are not enough rural votes to pass a farm bill, and including nutrition brings along urban votes that otherwise would not vote for a farm bill. Figure 1 paints an interesting picture of how this relationship has changed over time. Following are our observations:

    • For 40 years, spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the farm safety net were roughly equivalent.[1] Remarkably, over the 40-year period from 1962 to 2001, SNAP spending edged out farm safety net spending by just 2/10ths of 1 percent ($439.28 billion versus $438.39 billion). Interestingly, the House was controlled by Democrats for 33 of those 40 years.
    • In contrast, over the past 20 years (2002-2021), SNAP spending has outpaced spending on the farm safety net by 242% ($1,231.87 billion versus $360.14 billion).  While part of this increase is certainly attributable to the Great Recession and COVID, it was also the subject of considerable scrutiny during both the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills. Interestingly, the significant increase in SNAP spending occurred despite the fact that Republicans controlled the House in 14 of the last 20 years.
    • In spite of the politically-charged concerns over SNAP spending levels in each of the last two farm bills, in 2021 the Biden Administration revised the Thrifty Food Plan market basket which was estimated to further increase spending on SNAP by $254 billion from 2022 to 2031.[2] As a result, according to the last estimates from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), over the next 6 years, SNAP spending is projected to outpace farm safety net spending by 508% ($787.44 billion versus $129.49 billion). Notably, that provision was estimated to be budget neutral in the 2018 Farm Bill.
    • With respect to the farm safety net, spending over the last 20 years has been flat. In inflation-adjusted terms, spending is actually declining.

    While we are simply making observations, the purpose in doing so is to help paint a picture for why it has become so painfully difficult to get a farm bill done. In our judgement, this latest administrative action – against the backdrop of what had already been a considerable amount of angst over SNAP spending levels – is putting a significant amount of strain on that historic coalition.  At the same time, grower comments at listening sessions across the country over the last two years have repeatedly highlighted what is self-evident in the chart below: the farm safety net is lagging behind. 


    [1] For purposes of this article, we are equating farm income stabilization (budget subfunction 351) and the farm safety net.

    [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/msr_fy22.pdf


    Fischer, Bart L. and Joe Outlaw. “Farm Bill Fault Lines: Why is the Farm Bill Debate Stuck in Neutral?Southern Ag Today 4(7.4). February 15, 2024. Permalink