Author: Ryan Loy

Farmers in the Midsouth region are faced with several choices when planting and marketing their crops. The type of rental agreement can have a variety of impacts on a Midsouth farmer, particularly in terms of returns to cash operating expenses (or variable costs). For example, a farmer operating under a crop share agreement may require higher yields to cover variable costs than one operating under a cash rent agreement. This article highlights the breakeven potential for rice, corn, and soybeans under three land ownership scenarios: cash rent, 75-25 crop share agreement, and fully owned land. Understanding breakeven curves allows farmers to evaluate the minimum yield (or price) needed to cover costs under each agreement, an essential step in managing economic risk and optimal crop choice. The analysis aims to help Midsouth farmers understand their cost structure and to support more informed marketing decisions within the context of alternative rental agreements. 

The assumptions used to calculate breakeven values are given in Table 1 below. The listed Midsouth expenses represent estimated production expenses per acre for each crop; operating expenses do not include fixed overhead and other non-cash expenses such as depreciation. Breakeven combinations that exceed operating expenses do not include non-cash costs such as depreciation. Crop share agreements are assumed to follow a 75-25 split, with the landowner receiving 25% of the revenue and not contributing to production expenses. The cash rent value is an average derived from county-level estimates for irrigated farmland across the Midsouth region. We assume no associated land costs for the owned land scenario.  

Table 1. Breakeven Curve Assumptions

Figures 1 – 3 show the breakeven curves for Midsouth corn, soybean, and rice production. These curves plot the price and yield combinations necessary to cover total cash operating expenses, as defined in Table 1. Any price and yield point below the curve indicates a crop revenue that does not cover cash operating expenses, while points above the curve indicate positive returns above cash operating expenses.  To provide context for current market expectations, the 2025 USDA-RMA expected harvest price for Arkansas is plotted on each graph. Across all three crops, the owned land scenario consistently requires the lowest price/yield combination to break even, while crop share requires the highest combination. For instance, Figure 1 shows the breakeven curves for Midsouth corn production. At the expected harvest price of $4.65, the target breakeven yield under full ownership, cash rent, and crop share is 173 bu/acre, 206 bu/acre, and 231 bu/acre, respectively.  In simple terms, land tenure arrangements with higher expense obligations require either higher yields, higher market prices, or a combination of both to cover variable costs (Mills, 2023). The implication is that cash rent and land ownership are progressively more profitable than crop share.  However, it is important to remember that there are things to consider beyond cash operating expenses.  Specifically, both cash rent and owned land require the producer to bear a higher level of production risk, and land ownership requires the cost of capital investment.  

Figure 1. Midsouth Corn Breakeven Curves at an estimated $806/acre cash operating expense.

Figure 2. Midsouth Soybean Breakeven Curves at an estimated $510/acre cash operating expense.

Figure 3. Midsouth Rice Breakeven Curves at an estimated $993/acre cash operating expense.

References

Mills, Brian. “Forage Cost of Production and Breakeven Curves.” Southern Ag Today. July 19, 2023. https://southernagtoday.org/2023/07/19/forage-costs-of-production-and-breakeven-curves/

United States Department of Agriculture. (2024). Cash Rents County Estimates. Retrieved April 3, 2025, from https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Cash_Rents_by_County/

United States Department of Agriculture – Risk Management Agency. (2025). Harvest Price Discovery. Retrieved April 7, 2025, from https://public-rma.fpac.usda.gov/apps/PriceDiscovery

Loy, Ryan. “Breakeven Curves Under Different Midsouth Rental Agreements.” Southern Ag Today 5(17.1). April 21, 2025. Permalink

Historically, low commodity prices, high input costs, and expensive financing have been some of the most significant issues farmers have faced in the last few years. Luckily, some financial relief may come in the form of lower interest rates from the Fed reducing COVID-era rate increases (Wright, 2024). The Fed aggressively moved in September to cut 50 basis points, bringing the target Federal Funds rate to 4.75 – 5%, with indications for at least another 50 basis points before the end of 2024 (Fannie Mae, 2024). This article explores a hypothetical situation of a producer leveraging lower interest rates to consolidate debt to improve short-term liquidity. 

Consider a farmer’s debt obligation for 2024 (Table 1). In this scenario, the farmer holds a land loan with an original principal balance of $450,000 at a fixed interest rate over 20 years. As of 2024, the remaining principal stands at $330,000, with 12 years left in the repayment period. Additionally, the farmer has a machinery loan with an original principal balance of $180,000, structured over a 7-year term. The outstanding balance on this loan is currently $110,000, with 4 years left until maturity. 

The farmer also faces a $50,000 operating loan, due at the end of this year. Unfortunately, this year has not been profitable, and he cannot cashflow all his debt obligations. 

Table 1. Current Debt Obligations – Before Consolidation

The farmer’s total current debt obligation amounts to $123,000 for the year (Table 2). To address this financial strain, the producer meets with their lender to explore options for restructuring their debt. They discuss the possibility of consolidating existing debt into a longer-term, more favorable interest rate structure. The lender agrees to consolidate the remaining principal balances on all three loans ($330,000 + $110,000 + $50,000) into a new 10-year note totaling $490,000 (Table 3). The lender agrees to secure this loan using the equity in the farmer’s financed land as collateral. 

Table 2. Debt Financing Structure Before Consolidation

Table 3. Consolidated Debt Structure

Under this new debt structure, the farmer not only relieves the burden of the current year payments, but also reduces the ongoing obligation from $73,000/year to $63,000/year.  While debt consolidation offers advantages, it’s also important to consider potential drawbacks. For example, under the original debt structure, the annual debt service obligation would have dropped to $40,000/year, after the machinery loan was paid off in 4 years.  Under the consolidated note, the producer is committed to $63,000/year for a full 10 years.  Longer-term debt obligations also potentially lead to paying higher total interest expenses, even with an interest rate lower than their original loan(s) due to the extended accrual period. Additionally, creating a new loan comes with closing costs and fees that could offset the immediate financial benefits. Every situation is unique, and the pros/cons are not always clear.  Those looking to consolidate existing debt should meet with their lenders and determine the best strategy for their farm’s short-term viability and long-term sustainability. 

References

Wright, Andrew. “Lower Interest Rates Create Opportunities for Managing Debt on the Farm.” Southern Ag Today 4(37.3). September 11, 2024.

Fannie Mae. (2024). Fed Cuts Interest Rates Amid Sluggish Existing Sales but a Rebound in Starts Activity. Retrieved November 5, 2024, from https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/forecast/fed-cuts-interest-rates-amid-sluggish-existing-sales-rebound-starts-activity#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Open%20Market%20Committee,rate%20of%202.75%2D3%20percent.

The United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) releases monthly indexes for input prices paid and output prices received. These indexes include collecting survey responses for output and input prices for agricultural production, crops, livestock, and food commodities. The spread between these two indices often helps understand where farmers are getting price squeezed and how their profit margins are impacted. Current farm income instability from inflationary pressures, high interest rates, and several supply chain disruptions (e.g., the Russian-Ukraine war and Panama/Suez Canal) are forcing farmers to pay higher input costs while receiving lower commodity prices, emphasizing the need to consider these indexes into the future. 

These price indices measure the change in prices paid (and received) relative to a point in time—2011 in this case (Figure 1). The base year is often chosen during a time without prevailing inflation or major supply chain disruptions (Schulz, 2022). 2011 was a good year for agricultural production and profitability. As such, using 2011 as a base year is a way to highlight how better or worse-off agricultural producers are compared to a good year. 

Figure 1. Crop Output Prices Received vs. Input Prices Paid

Figure 1 compares the annual index value from 2000-2024 for the two indices with 2011 as the base year. The price received index in 2012 was 102.8%, meaning that the crop price received, on average, in 2012 was 2.8% higher than in 2011 (base year = 100%). The red circle in Figure 1 shows the beginning of a divergence between input and output prices. In 2013, when writing the 2014 farm bill, the index for input prices paid was almost exactly the index for output prices received. This is where most of our current farmer safety net support stems from, and since then, we’ve seen a major divergence in the two indices, with the widest gaps between 2014 – 2020 (USDA-NASS). From 2021 – 2022, we saw both indices increase, but the gap remained, and the divergence has grown wider in 2023 and 2024 due to declining commodity prices. 

Another way to view the indices is to calculate how they change year to year. Figure 2 plots the same indices as Figure 1 but shows the yearly change between the index values. Using this percentage change helps producers understand 1) the volatility of crop output prices and 2) the magnitude of change as compared to the previous year. A key takeaway is that input prices are less volatile (in terms of yearly % change) than output prices. Secondly, the percentage change in crop output prices between 2023 and 2024 (-13.8%) is much larger than the percentage decrease in input prices (-1.38%) during that period.

Without any relief in the form of improved crop prices received, figure 1 suggests farmers will continue to suffer from cost/price squeezes and eroding profit margins. Further, figure 2 shows the magnitude of that spread between the indices in Figure 1; if input and output prices continue this trajectory, an improved farm safety net will be warranted. This will be at the forefront of every producer’s mind, with ongoing Farm Bill debates in 2024.  

Figure 2. Year-over-Year % Change in Input and Output Crop Prices

References

Schulz, L. (2022). Disentangling Input and Output Price Relationships. Retrieved from: https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/schulz/SchSep22b.html

The Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC). (2024). Fertilizers in Russia. Retrieved from: https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/fertilizers/reporter/rus

USDA-Economic Research Service (2024). Farm Sector Income & Finances: Highlights from the Farm Income Forecast. Retrieved from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-income-finances/highlights-from-the-farm-income-forecast/

USDA- Economic, Statistics, and Market Information System. (2024). Agricultural Prices. Retrieved from: https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/c821gj76b?locale=en

Loy, Ryan, and Hunter Biram. “The Disparity Between Crop Prices Received and Input Prices Paid.” Southern Ag Today 4(28.3). July 10, 2024. Permalink