Category: Crop Marketing

U.S. exports can be a key driver for commodity prices. U.S. production of corn, soybean, and wheat exceeds domestic use, making access to export markets crucial. Data from 2018/19 to 2022/23 shows that corn, soybean, and wheat exports are dominated by a few key countries. For corn, the United States, Brazil, Argentina, and Ukraine constitute 85% of global exports (Figure 1). For soybeans, Brazil is the largest exporter followed by the United States and Argentina; together, the three countries account for 90% of soybean exports (Figure 2) and 84% of soybean meal exports. Wheat exporting countries are more diversified, with the United States, Russia, the EU, Canada, Australia, Ukraine, and Argentina making up 84% of the market (Figure 3).

In 2022/23 Brazil overtook the United States in corn exports and is expected to remain the largest export competitor to the United States. In the 2022/23 marketing year, Brazilian soybean exports nearly doubled those of the United States, and Brazil is projected to maintain its role as the worlds largest exporter of soybeans. In 2023/24, Brazilian exports are estimated at 50 million metric tons (MMT) of corn and 102 MMT of soybeans. Brazilian export projections for 2024/25 are at 49 MMT of corn and105 MMT of soybeans. In comparison, the United States is estimated to export slightly more corn at 55 MMT and 46 MMT of soybeans in 2023/24. 2024/25 U.S. export projections are at 56 MMT of corn and 50 MMT of soybeans. Wheat export patterns have remained relatively stable, despite geopolitical conflicts affecting some regions. The largest question for 2024/25 wheat exports pertains to Russia, which is experiencing weather-driven yield and quality issues in addition to the war with Ukraine.

Export data is vital for commodity marketing. Weekly, the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service reports sales transactions entered into with a buyer outside the United States. In addition to the weekly reporting requirements, daily reports to USDA FAS are required for any export sales activity of quantities totaling 100,000 metric tons or more of one commodity sold in one day to one destination or 200,000 metric tons or more of one commodity sold to one destination during any reporting week. Positive U.S. export bookings support domestic commodity prices. If exports exceed projections or expectations, prices will typically rise, offering a potential opportunity for producer sales. 

Weather events in other major exporting countries, particularly in South America, can signal support for prices and provide opportunities for increased U.S. commodity sales, especially for corn and soybeans. Wheat can be less sensitive to weather as wheat is produced on six continents in both hemispheres, so production is spread throughout the calendar year. Wheat can be strongly influenced by geopolitical and weather events, making it harder to predict specific timing for market changes. 

Exchange rates can also affect exports. The strengthening of the USD, relative to the export competitor’s currency, can make U.S. exports relatively more expensive to an importer. A weakening USD makes U.S. exports more competitive.

The competitiveness and small number of countries in export markets, particularly Brazil and Argentina in corn and soybeans, along with the past relative stability in wheat exports underscores the importance of monitoring both export trends and external factors to optimize commodity marketing strategies.

Figure 1: World Corn Exports by Country, 2018/19-2022/23 Marketing Years Average (%)

Figure 2: Soybean Exports by Country, 2018/19-2022/23 Marketing Year Average (%)

Figure 3: World Wheat Exports by Country, 2018/19-2022/23 Marketing Year Average (%)

References

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Production, Supply and Distribution.https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/advQuery.

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Export Sales Reporting Program. https://fas.usda.gov/programs/export-sales-reporting-program and https://apps.fas.usda.gov/export-sales/esrd1.html.

Gardner, Grant. “Ag Export Percentages: A Focus on Corn, Soybeans, and Wheat.” Southern Ag Today 4(24.1). June 10, 2024. Permalink

Calculating trendline yields can be a useful tool for budgeting or developing a crop marketing plan. Using trendline yield estimates at the start of the production year can assist in determining potential profitability, at current market prices, and determine if additional sales or price risk management is warranted. Projected yields should be periodically revisited during the production year to make adjustments to management practices and marketing strategies to improve the likelihood of positive financial outcomes. This article examines differences in linear trendline yields for corn across Southern States.   

There is tremendous variability in average USDA NASS corn yields across the Southern States (Figure 1).  Over the past five years (2019-2023), Arkansas had the highest average corn yield at 179.8 bu/ac followed by Kentucky (177.6 bu/ac) and Mississippi (176.2 bu/ac). The lowest five-year average yields occurred in Texas (121.2 bu/ac), North Carolina (129.2 bu/ac), and South Carolina (129.8 bu/ac). 

Projected linear trendline yields in 2024 for corn, using USDA NASS data from 1980-2023, vary tremendously (Table 1). The slope coefficient, in Table 1, provides the annual average increase in yield for each state from 1980 to 2023. The constant in Table 1 is the initial yield at the start of the linear trend line. For example, on average from 1980-2023, corn yields in Mississippi increased 3.33 bu/ac per year from a starting trendline yield of 43.57 bu/ac. An easier way to think about this is that over a ten-year period, average yield in the state of Mississippi increased by 33.3 bu/ac. Increases can be a result of production practices (such as irrigation) or technology (genetic improvements). In the past ten years (2014-2023), the increase in annual yield improvement for most Southern states has slowed.  R² is a measure of the proportion of variation in the dependent variable (yield) that can be explained by the independent variable (time). Across the Southern U.S., we see tremendous variation in the R² for linear trendline yields, ranging from a high of 0.926 for Mississippi to a low of 0.285 for Texas. Low R² values indicate that the independent variable (in this case time) does not explain the variation in yield, thus other variables need to be considered when projecting yield.  

Ideally, projecting annual yield should be conducted at the farm or field level using producer data. Crop insurance records or yield monitor data can allow producers to analyze, and project, yield and production to guide management and marketing decisions.

Figure 1. Corn Yields in Southern States, 1980-2023 

References

USDA NASS Quick Stats. Corn Yields, 1980-2023. Accessed at https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/  

---

Smith, Aaron. “Corn Yields and 2024 Projected Linear Trendline Yields in Southern States.” Southern Ag Today 4(23.1). June 3, 2024. Permalink

It is critical to consider the relationship between macroeconomic forces and the balance of global sugar supply and demand when examining sugar markets. Global economic expansion, along with a world population that is growing at approximately 1% per year  (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2024), supports strong sugar demand globally, which typically also supports world prices. However, falling energy prices and/or a worldwide recession could push global sugar prices lower. 

The world raw sugar price is somewhat reflected in the Sugar No. 11 futures contract (Figure 1). The Sugar No. 11 contract price does not include the transportation costs associated with delivering sugar to destination ports. As stated in the specifications for the Intercontinental Exchange (2024) Sugar No. 11 futures contract, “the contract prices the physical delivery of raw cane sugar, free-on-board the receiver’s vessel to a port within the country of origin of the sugar.” 

Major sugar-producing countries like Brazil, India, and Thailand provide subsidies and other support for their sugarcane sector, which can have a strong influence on the Sugar No. 11 futures contract price.  This is especially true when production fluctuates due to weather conditions or when governmental policies dictate a diversion of sugar into ethanol production. 

Worldwide sugar deficits have occurred in three out of the last four years. In turn, a tightening global stocks-to-use ratio has supported world sugar prices. As world raw sugar prices have moved upward, so too have U.S. raw sugar prices, which are reflected in the Sugar No. 16 futures contract price (Figure 1). The Sugar No. 16 futures contract does include transportation costs associated with delivering sugar to the destination port and, thus, the contract incorporates physical delivery into its price.

Figure 1. Sugar No. 11 and Sugar No. 16 Futures Contract Prices, their relationship, and the Tier 2 Tariff, 2020 to 2024. Source USDA ERS, 2024.

At present, Mexico’s ability to export sugar to the U.S. is hindered by drought, and Mexican production is expected to be significantly reduced again this year. As such, Mexican sugar exports into the U.S. market are expected be at a decade-and-a-half low at only 497,000 tons, according to the May USDA (2024) World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report.

Under the terms of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and several free trade agreements, sugar imports are allowed duty free under a Tariff-rate Quota (TRQ) system. In situations where raw sugar is imported outside of the TRQ, importers must pay a 15.36-cents-per-pound tariff in addition to the world raw sugar price plus transportation costs. This tariff is referred to as a tier-2 sugar import tariff and is shown as the green line in Figure 1. 

The red line in Figure 1 demonstrates the world raw sugar price plus transportation costs to the U.S. plus the tier-2 tariff. If the expected U.S. sugar supply falls and pushes domestic prices up to the point that they exceed that level, higher levels of tier-2 raw sugar will be attracted to the U.S. Thus, the red line represents the effective cap on U.S. raw sugar prices. For example, the existence of substantial demand for sugar beyond what Mexico can supply has resulted in large amounts of tier-2 imports [see Deliberto et al. (2024) for more information]. Those imports will enter the U.S. whenever the price for world sugar plus transportation costs plus the tier-2 tariff (red line, Figure 1) falls below the cost of procuring raw sugar supplies from preferential-access imports or domestic supplies (including Mexican production). Again, that relationship effectively caps the wholesale price of domestic raw sugar in the U.S. (red line, Figure 1).  

Conversely, if supply was expected to rise relative to demand in the U.S. (e.g., due to higher-than-expected domestic production or imports from Mexico) then the demand for tier-2 sugar would fall, bringing domestic prices further below the tier-2 cap. But, so long as demand for tier-2 sugar exceeds zero, the price in the U.S. for raw sugar will be driven by world prices plus transportation costs plus the tier-2 tariff of 15.36 cents per pound (red line, Figure 1). It should be noted that the figure depicts monthly prices as well as a static assumption of transportation costs of five cents per pound. There have been significant amounts of tier-2 sugar entering the U.S. over the past several years, which likely represents arbitrage opportunities to bring in tier-2 raw sugar due to pricing relationships or transportation cost adjustments that are occurring on a daily basis.

We observe that the same relationship frames the prices for wholesale refined sugar in the U.S., which is capped at the world price, or the Sugar No. 5 futures contract price for refined sugar plus the tier-2 refined tariff (16.21 cents per pound) plus transportation costs of shipping refined sugar to the U.S. With falling world refined prices coupled with the expectation of near-record high sugarbeet production, the U.S. wholesale refined sugar price has recently followed the world Sugar No. 5 price downwards. Midwest refined beet sugar spot prices have ranged between 55 to 58 cents per pound. When pricing the 2024 expected crop, refined sugar prices have held steady in the 53 to 55 cent range, which is considerably lower than prices in the prior 18 months that reached as high as 70 cents per pound. 

Overall, raw and refined sugar prices in the U.S. are currently driven by transportation costs associated with shipping bulk raw sugar and containerized refined sugar to the U.S., and factors that are affecting the global sugar market. Those factors include, among others, foreign subsidies [e.g., World Trade Organization (2024)], demand for ethanol as a transportation fuel [e.g., Bloomberg (2024)], and global growing conditions for sugarbeets and sugarcane crops [e.g., USDA FAS (2024)].

References

Bloomberg. 2024. Tereos Brazil to Keep High Sugar Output as Peers Endure Drought. Retrieved from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-01/tereos-brazil-to-keep-high-sugar-output-as-peers-endure-drought

Deliberto, M., K.L. DeLong, and B. Fischer. “Navigating U.S. Sugar Imports From 70 Countries.” Retrieved from: https://southernagtoday.org/2024/04/18/navigating-us-sugar-imports-from-70-countries/

Intercontinental Exchange. 2024. Sugar No. 11 Futures. https://www.ice.com/products/23/Sugar-No-11-Futures  Date accessed: May 3, 2024.

USDA. 2024. May WASDE. Retrieved from: https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde

USDA ERS. 2024. “Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook Tables.” Retrieved from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables/ Date updated: April 2, 2024. Date accessed: April 18, 2024. 

USDA FAS. 2024. Global Agricultural Information Network: Sugar Annual. Retrieved from: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Sugar%20Annual_Managua_Nicaragua_NU2024-0002.pdf

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2024. “Census Bureau Projects U.S. and World Populations on New Year’s Day.” Retrieved from: https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2024/01/census-bureau-projects-us-and-world-populations-new-years-day#:~:text=The%20projected%20world%20population%20on,the%20U.S.%20and%20world%20populations. Date updated: January 3, 2024. Date accessed: April 18, 2024. 

World Trade Organization. 2024. India’s Measures to Provide Market Price Support to Sugarcane. Retrieved from: https://web.wtocenter.org.tw/downFiles/12294/398060/00k37djfolGb0l5OnjSaA8xFnrwmAEQAiLp0Y7SoysK00000tZTwiAmB3qaIG9YFD0000073wLiCTUqy9oiKW087r8sHXz4A==

---

Deliberto, Michael, Karen L. DeLong, and Bart L. Fischer. “Analyzing World and U.S. Sugar Price Dynamics.” Southern Ag Today 4(21.1). May 20, 2024. Permalink

On May 10^th, USDA released the latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report. The May WASDE provides the first official projections for the 2024 marketing year from USDA and annual marketing year forecasts for the supply and use of various crops. Projections for production are based on the acreage reported in the March 28^th USDA Prospective Plantings report, and yield forecasts are based on trend models or historical yields, depending on the crop. Thus, the USDA projections discussed below are subject to change as the growing season and marketing year progress. 

U.S. corn production is projected at 14,860 million bushels, a 3% decline from the 2023 record of 15,342 million bushels. For 2024/25, U.S. corn production is based on 82.1 million harvested acres (5.1% decline from 2023) and a national average yield per harvested acre of 181.0 bushels. Combined with 2,022 million bushels of carryover stocks from last year and 25 million bushels of imports, the total U.S. corn supply is projected to be 1.1% higher than in 2024 at 16,907 bushels. Similar to 2023, the supply increase is slightly offset by a 0.6% increase in total use. Feed use is projected to increase by 50 million bushels, and ethanol use remains unchanged from 2023 at 5,450 million bushels. Exports are projected to increase by 50 million bushels to 2,200 million bushels, partially due to reduced expectations in exports for Brazil and Russia in 2024. Corn ending stocks are projected at 2,102 million bushels, a 4% increase from 2023. The average farm price is projected to continue the downward trend, at $4.40 per bushel, compared to $4.65 in 2023 and $6.54 in 2022. 

U.S. soybeans are also projected to see higher supplies and lower prices in 2024. U.S. soybean production is projected to be 4,450 million bushels, a 6.8% increase from 2023. Some production increases are due to a higher expected yield of 52 bushels per harvested acre (compared to 50.6 in 2023) – also a record if realized. The 2024 average farm price is projected at $11.20 per bushel, an 11% decrease from 2023. Demand and exports are expected to improve from 2023, with domestic crushing and exports each projected to increase by 125 million bushels. However, supplies continue to outpace demand, with 2024 ending stocks projected at 445 million bushels, a 31% increase. 

U.S. cotton producers are projected to plant 0.44 million more acres  in 2024, an increase that more than offsets the 6% drop in the national average yield, resulting in nearly 4.0 million more bales of production compared to the 2023 production estimate. The 2023 cotton crop saw 3.79 million acres of abandonment, with 10.23 million acres planted but only 6.44 million acres harvested. Drought plagued Texas again with abandoned acres in Texas accounting for 90% of U.S. abandoned acres. Currently, USDA projects 10.67 million acres planted with 9.13 million acres harvested in 2024. Drought conditions in Texas are not as severe as this time last year which may slightly alleviate the magnitude of abandonment. In the May WASDE, U.S. cotton production is projected at 16.0 million bales, a 33% increase from 2023. On the demand side, exports are expected to increase by 0.7 million bales to 13.0 million bales. Despite higher exports, cotton ending stocks are projected to increase by 1.3 million bales to 3.7 million bales on higher production. The average farm price is projected to weaken to 74 cents per pound, the lowest farm price since 2020. 

Lastly, the carryover of long-grain rice from 2023 is relatively low compared to the last two marketing years at 18.0 million hundredweight, but increased production in 2024 will nearly eclipse the carryover. Long-grain rice production is projected to increase by 10% to 169.3 million hundredweight. Exports are expected to increase to 75 million hundredweight, which is largely driven by increased competitiveness in price and regaining the Mexico market lost to Brazil in 2023. Ending stocks are projected to be up 46% at 26.3 million hundredweight. Like other crops, the average farm price is projected lower to $14.50/cwt.

Overall, the May 2024 USDA WASDE report projects a bearish supply and demand picture and lower prices compared to 2023. Figure 1 provides a snapshot of typical month-over-month movements in the five-year average of the Marketing Year Average (MYA) cash price received by farmers. This can provide an expectation of movements in a relatively more current window. The last pre-harvest price upside movement for long grain rice has recently been in August while the last pre-harvest upside price movement for cotton happens in July. Corn and soybeans follow a similar pattern with downward price movement in July through harvest in October. Taking advantage of upward price movement through a crop marketing plan as described by previous Southern Ag Today articles (Maples, 2022; Maples and Gardner, 2023; and Maples, 2024) is of the utmost importance.

Figure 1. Month-over-Month Change in Five-Year Average MYA Price for Rice, Cotton, Corn, and Soybeans: 2019-2023

---

References

United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. (2023). World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE-63). Retrieved May 10, 2024 from https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/3t945q76s/8910m7465/0p097p24j/wasde0523.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. (2024). World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE-64). Retrieved May 10, 2024, from https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0524.pdf

Maples, Will. “Considerations for Developing a Pre-Harvest Marketing Plan.” Southern Ag Today 2(47.1). November 14, 2022. 

Maples, William E., and Grant Gardener. “Using Historical Price Movements to Inform Marketing Decisions.” Southern Ag Today 3(51.1). December 18, 2023. 

Maples, William E. “Cash Grain Contracts and When to Use Them.” Southern Ag Today 4(18.1). April 29, 2024. 

---

Biram, Hunter, and Ryan Loy. “May WASDE Projects Higher Supplies and Lower Prices Again in 2024.” Southern Ag Today 4(20.1). May 13, 2024. Permalink

During April, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) announced the suspension of selected statistical reports and processes, including the annual objective yield sampling effort for U.S. cotton.  The latter was a process of field sampling of squares and bolls in major cotton producing states, from which an objective estimate of yield was calculated.  This estimate presumably informed the monthly U.S. cotton production forecasts, beginning with the August forecast, with potential to confirm or contradict the earlier (May, June, July) forecasts that are traditionally based on historical average yield and abandonment, along with subjective opinion.  It should be noted that in 2019, the start date for objective yield sampling for most of the U.S. was moved from August to September. 

The delaying of the objective yield survey process, followed by its announced elimination, has potential for increasing the forecasting error of U.S. cotton production, which has implications for market planning and even price volatility.  Figure 1 provides a description of the variability of USDA NASS monthly forecasts of U.S. cotton, by crop year.  For example, the year 2012 in Figure 1 graphs the standard deviation (roughly 200,000 bales) around the average of forecasted cotton production from the May 2012 initial monthly forecast through the following April (2013) forecast of 2012 cotton production.  

The graphed points in Figure 1 represent the variation associated with revised production estimates.  Through 2018, the public data collection and publication of information to inform the production estimates was the same.  Over this period, the variability of those monthly estimates within a given crop year fluctuated between 200,000 and one million bales around the average production for that year.  This appears as a fairly narrow, sideways pattern.  

Since 2019, there has been a marked increase in variability of the monthly production forecasts around average crop year production for the last five years.  This variability reached 1.7 million bales in 2020, and 1.6 million in 2023. The increase in production forecast variability since 2019 is visually correlated with the delay of objective field sampling for most of the U.S. Cotton Belt until September.  It is unknown whether there is any causal influence.  However, the complete elimination of cotton objective yield sampling represents an even larger disruption of previously available information.  Our hypothesis is that confirming information on the size of the U.S. crop will have to wait until data from NASS surveys of ginning, as well as bale counts from USDA classing offices, are finalized in the winter. The absence of in-season, objective yield information adds to market uncertainty with likely price implications. 

Figure 1. Standard Deviation of Monthly U.S. Cotton Production Forecasts (May to April), By Crop Year.

Robinson, John. “Public Information and the Variability of U.S. Cotton Production Forecasts.” Southern Ag Today 4(19.1). May 6, 2024. Permalink