Author: R. Jamey Menard

  • Estimated Total Economic Impacts from Trade Policy Shifts-Worst-Case Scenario Revisited

    Estimated Total Economic Impacts from Trade Policy Shifts-Worst-Case Scenario Revisited

    The recent Southern Ag Today policy/trade article on December 12 by Goyal et al discussed the state-level economic consequences for potential trade policy shifts following the 2024 U.S. presidential election. In summary, their analyses investigated the worst-case scenario if the US where to impose a 60% tariff on Chinese goods, including a 10% tariff on imports from other countries. Such an action, as indicated by Goyal et al, could result in a 60% tariff on US agricultural exports and further tariffs from other trading partners. Their projected export losses under this scenario for 2025 by commodity and state are replicated in Table 1 below:

    Table 1. State Level Shocks by Commodity Grouping Based on Worst-Case Scenario*
    StatesCottonPoultrySoybeansBeefPorkFeedsDairyCornWheatOthersTotal
    TX-$847-$153-$11-$340-$32-$95-$184-$76-$81-$1,398-$3,217
    AR-$196-$237-$567-$17-$7-$39$0-$43-$9-$907-$2,022
    NC-$112-$258-$239-$9-$281-$36-$10-$42-$30-$779-$1,796
    GA-$345-$255-$20-$13-$4-$23-$25-$24-$7-$869-$1,585
    FL-$20-$13$0-$18$0-$5-$25-$3$0-$1,356-$1,440
    KY$0-$59-$350-$30-$17-$74-$10-$73-$37-$771-$1,421
    MS-$175-$143-$424-$8-$9-$29-$1-$32-$4-$452-$1,277
    TN-$104-$35-$276-$20-$13-$37-$5-$43-$28-$426-$987
    OK-$96-$47-$45-$120-$133-$17-$8-$13-$133-$279-$891
    LA-$52-$33-$203-$7$0-$22-$1-$27$0-$534-$879
    AL-$107-$213-$49-$15-$2-$15$0-$17-$11-$290-$719
    VA-$26-$58-$93-$14-$7-$20-$17-$18-$12-$351-$616
    SC-$59-$60-$50-$5-$4-$13-$2-$16-$7-$268-$484
    *60% tariff on US agricultural exports plus additional tariffs from other trading partnersSource: Southern Ag Today, December 12, 2024 (Goyal et al)

    Of interest would be the total economic impacts (including multiplier effects) based on this worst-case scenario. Using the direct impacts from Table 1 (excluding the category grouping “Other” because of uncertainty what that grouping entails), an input-output model (IMPLAN) can provide this information. IMPLAN model output includes descriptive metrics of the economy such as total industry output (a measure of economic activity) and total value added. Total industry output (TIO) is defined as the value of production by industry per year. Total value added or gross regional product is defined as all income to workers paid by employers; self-employed income; interests, rents, royalties, dividends, and profit payments; and excise and sales taxes collect by business from individuals. It is equivalent to a state’s Gross Regional Product, which is analogous to Gross Domestic Product for the entire U.S.

    Based on the IMPLAN state model runs using 2023 data and reporting the economic information in 2025$, the backward linked[1] results are displayed in Table 2. The direct impacts for economic activity, -$8.7 billion, are what was presented by Goyal et al. The indirect impacts, which account for the decrease in economic activity from input suppliers, total -$3.1 billion. Decreased household spending, or the induced impacts, totals -$2.0 billion. The total economic impacts are close to -$14.0, a -$5.2 billion difference from the direct impact of -$8.7. The decrease in Gross Regional Product totaled -$6.6 billion. Tax impacts as a result of Goyal et al’s worst-case scenario analysis totals -$992.0 million.

    Table 2. Estimated Economic Impacts from Worst-Case Scenario (2025$)*
     TIO (EconomicActivity)Gross Regional ProductTaxes
     (billion $)(million $)
    Direct1-$8.7-$3.7-$342.7
    Indirect2-$3.1-$1.6-$373.8
    Induced3-$2.0-$1.2-$275.5
    Total4-$13.9-$6.6-$992.0
    *60% tariff on US agricultural exports plus additional tariffs from other trading partners1Direct effects are those what was presented by Goyal et al.2Indirect effects are those attributable to the input supplying businesses (e.g., expenditures on raw materials, supplies, and other operating expenses).3Induced effects are created as the new income generated by the direct and indirect effects is spent and re-spent within the region.4Total is the sum of the direct, indirect, and induced effects.

    This short, quick analysis gives an example of how an initial change in direct spending has ripple effects throughout the economy. Not only are the commodities in question affected,  but input suppliers and household spending also feel the negative shock in this example. Consequently, tax receipts are affected as well.


    [1]Describes the interconnectedness of an industry with its supply chain and “looks backward” to its necessary intermediate inputs to produce its output. In input-output modeling, Type I multipliers measure these backward linkages, whereas the Type SAM multipliers expand on these linkages to include household spending (IMPLAN Glossary “Backward Linkage”, 2017). 


    References

    Goyal, R., S. Steinbach, Y. Yildirim, and C. Zurita. 2024. “State-Level Effects of Potential Trade Policy Shifts on Southern U.S. Agriculture.” Southern Ag Today. December 12.

    IMPLAN Group LLC, IMPLAN System (2023 data and Cloud Platform V. 24.6 Release), 16905 Northcross Dr., Suite 120, Huntersville, NC  28078. Available at implan.com.


    Menard, R. Jamey. “Estimated Total Economic Impacts from Trade Policy Shifts-Worst-Case Scenario Revisited.Southern Ag Today 5(4.4). January 23, 2025. Permalink

  • Census of Agriculture Production Expenses for Southern States

    Census of Agriculture Production Expenses for Southern States

    The most recent agriculture Census defines total farm production expenses as “expenses provided by producers, partners, landlords (excluding property taxes), and production contractors for the farm business” (USDA/NASS, 2024). Based on Census data from 2017 to 2022, all southern states experienced higher overall production expenses (Table 1 in descending order based on change from 2017 to 2022). For 2017 to 2022, the top three states with the highest increases in production expenses were Louisiana (44.4% increase), Alabama (39.5%), and North Carolina (38.5%). The lowest were Oklahoma (15.35 increase), Texas (21.7%), and Virginia (21.6%). For the twenty-year timeframe 2002 to 2022, Alabama, Arkansas, and South Carolina had the largest production expense increases (yellow highlight), whereas Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas had the lowest (blue highlight).

    Total farm production expenses in the Census are comprised of the following categories 1) fertilizer, lime, and soil conditioners, 2) chemicals, 3) seed, plants, vines, & trees, 4) livestock & poultry, 5) feed, 6) gasoline, fuels, and oils, 7)utilities, 8) repairs, supplies, & maintenance costs, 9) hired farm labor, 10) contract labor, 11) custom work & custom hauling, 12) cash rent for land, buildings, & grazing fees, 13) rent & lease expenses for machinery, equipment, and farm share of vehicles, 14) interest expense, 15) property taxes, 16) medical supplies, veterinary, & custom services for livestock, and 17) all other production expenses (defined as storage and warehousing, marketing and ginning expenses, insurance, etc.).

    For these categories, the top five production expense categories summed across all 14 southern states were feeds purchased (28.9% of the total $112.3 billion); livestock and poultry purchased or leased (15.2%); hired farm labor (8.5%), fertilizer, lime, and soil conditioners purchased (6.6%); and repairs, supplies, and maintenance costs (5.8%). The five lowest were property taxes paid (2.2%); custom work and custom hauling (2.1%); contract labor (1.9%); medical supplies, veterinary, and custom services for livestock (1.2%); and rent and lease expenses for machinery, equipment, and farm share of vehicles (0.6%).

    Agriculture producers face many challenges. Combined with low commodity prices, the rising cost of production expenses highlighted here illustrate the financial squeeze to a farmer’s bottom line.  The resulting lean profits, diminished cashflows, and increased credit reliance threaten the financial viability of many Southern producers. That is why understanding your cost of production is imperative. Going into next year, identify your own high expense categories and manage appropriately. 


    Menard, R. Jamey. “Census of Agriculture Production Expenses for Southern States.Southern Ag Today 4(46.1). November 11, 2024. Permalink

  • Changes in Average Age of Producers in Southern States, 2017 and 2022

    Changes in Average Age of Producers in Southern States, 2017 and 2022

    USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service’s (NASS) Census of Agriculture is published every five years and provides data at the U.S., state, and county levels. One metric tracked is the average age of agricultural producers. This information is provided for selected southern states for the Census reporting periods 2017 to 2022, along with the percentage change in average age for that timeframe.

    The overall average ages for all producers for 2017 and 2022 for the southern states are indicated in Table 1. In all states, average producer ages were increasing. For 2022, Mississippi and Florida had the highest average ages of producers at 59.6 and 59.5 years old, respectively. Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee had the largest percent change increases in average ages from 2017 to 2022. North Carolina had no change.

    For this same timeframe, North Carolina had the largest numbers of counties with declines in average age of producers for 52 of their 100 counties, or 52 percent, followed by Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (Table 2). Those with the smallest include Maryland, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Kentucky.

    Figure 1 depicts county level decreases (yellow shade) or increases (blue shade) in average age of producers for the states analyzed. Those counties with no changes are depicted in a red hatched fill.

    Figure 1. County Level Change in Average of Age of Producers from 2017 to 2022 Census


    Menard, R. James. “Changes in Average Age of Producers in Southern States, 2017 and 2022.Southern Ag Today 4(32.5). August 9, 2024. Permalink

  • Digging into Dirt: Southern States Adoption of No-Till and Reduced Tillage Practices 

    Digging into Dirt: Southern States Adoption of No-Till and Reduced Tillage Practices 

    Based on the USDA’s most recent Census of Agriculture 2022 data for tillage practices, no-till, and conservation/reduced tillage acres comprise 65.4% of the tillage practices for selected southern states (Table 1). For the US, the no-till and conservation/reduced tillage rate is 73.4%. No-till is defined as leaving 50% or more of the soil surface undisturbed from harvest to planting. Whereas conservation and reduced tillage is defined as leaving 30% or more surface undisturbed and may involve chisel plows or light disking (Rust and Williams, 2010). As of 2022, three southern states have the highest rate of no-till and conservation/reduced tillage in the U.S.: Tennessee (93%), Maryland (92.1%), and Virginia (91.7%). The three southern states with the smallest adoption of no-till and conservation/ reduced tillage practices compared to all tillage practices were Florida (39%), Texas (52.1%), and Mississippi (56.8%).

    Of interest would be the comparison of southern state’s adoption of these tillage practices over time, which are indicated in Figure 1. The figure displays the percentage change in no-till and conservation/reduced tillage acres at the county level from 2017 to 2022. Green shades indicate percentage decreases in these tillage practices whereas blue shades indicate an increase percentage wise.

    Figure 1. 2017 to 2022 Percentage Change in No-Till and Reduced/Conservation Tillage Acres

    Source: USDA/NASS Census of Agriculture, 2022

    The five southern states with the highest increase in acreage of cropland using no-till plus conservation/reduced tillage practices from 2017 to 2022 are Arkansas (17.6%), followed by Florida (15.3%), Texas (15.1%), Georgia (10.8%), and Alabama (10.7%). The states with the largest average increase in these tillage practices for the three census periods (2012, 2017, and 2022) were Florida (29.3%), Mississippi (20.6%), Arkansas (20.2%), Texas (17.1%), and Louisiana (16.4%).

    This information helps us understand which regions within the South are adopting reduced and no-till practices and is also relevant as carbon markets expand.  These practices can improve soil health by preserving soil structure, increasing water retention and organic matter. Additionally, they reduce soil erosion and lower greenhouse gas emissions by minimizing soil disturbance. However, given the cropping system, adopting no-till or reduced till may not make sense (e.g., peanut and rice production). Most importantly, the impact and profitability of no-till and reduced-till practices varies depending on the regions and crops involved, influencing adoption rates.

    Reference

    Rust, B. & J. Williams. 2010. USDA/ARS. “How Tillage Affects Soil Erosion and Runoff.” USDA/ARS Available at https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/20740000/PublicResources/How%20Tillage% 20Affects%20Soil%20Erosion%20and%20Runoff.pdf.


    Menard, R. Jamey, and Hence Duncan. “Digging into Dirt: Southern States Adoption of No-Till and Reduced Tillage Practices.Southern Ag Today 4(31.3). July 31, 2024. Permalink