Category: Crop Marketing

  • 2025 Crop Planning

    2025 Crop Planning

    Farming in 2025 will be challenging for many row crop producers. Low commodity prices, disappointing 2024 yields, high input costs, and policy uncertainty will require crop farmers to make important agronomic, financial, and risk management decisions. Below are a few points to consider during the planning process.

    1) Commodity prices are low and there is currently nothing on the radar that would indicate substantial improvement will occur in 2025. Drought (beyond just the southern region), production disruptions abroad, and geopolitics could improve price prospects, but at this point in time, increases in commodity prices are highly uncertain and mostly wishful thinking.

    2) Trade/retaliatory tariffs are a concern and provide the potential for substantial downside price risk in commodities that are heavily reliant on export sales, like soybeans and cotton. Protecting against downside price movements should be considered.

    3) Producers need to distinguish between cash versus non-cash costs (capital recovery) in the short term. We can farm in the short-term covering cash costs, but in the long term we need to cover total economic costs. 

    4) Input costs and profit margins need to be managed effectively – do not cut costs at the expense of yield but do not pursue the highest yield possible. Approximately 90% of cash costs are in five cost categories: land, seed, chemical, fertilizer, and operating expenses for equipment (fuel, labor, repairs and maintenance). Farmers should evaluate the efficiency of these five costs to assist in managing profit margins.

    5) Secure financing early. It will be a challenging year for many farmers to secure operating credit for 2025. Obtaining financing needs to occur as early as possible. Understand your financial position and how lenders evaluate credit applications. There are five main factors lenders consider: repayment, liquidity, solvency, collateral, and relationship. Which factors lenders emphasize, and the ratio or measure to evaluate the factor, will depend on the agricultural lender or credit provider. Talk to your primary lender early and often.

    6) Develop a marketing and risk management plan that includes crop insurance, storage analysis, contracts, futures, and options. Do not use the same marketing and risk management strategy in the current market environment as when we had higher prices and higher volatility two years ago.

    7) There is the potential for payments from the federal government (FARM Act? or other Ad Hoc legislation) and a new Farm Bill is possible in 2025. Until they are realized, it is not advised to incorporate these potential payments into the 2025 financial plan. If realized, they are a bonus.

    Due to the above challenges and the complexity of modern farming, it is essential for farmers to surround themselves with a strong support network. Important roles in farmer support networks include:

    Lawyer – Having appropriate legal advice is essential for agricultural enterprises. This can include a local lawyer for general legal matters but may also include specialized legal advice for more complex legal concerns. Paying for specialization is often cheaper in the long run. 

    Accountant – Nobody likes paying taxes, but it is essential for farmers to obtain assistance when preparing tax returns, planning purchases, or transitioning the farm to the next generation. A good accountant can save you money and assist if you have issues with the IRS. 

    Crop Insurance Agent – Crop insurance is the primary risk management tool for most crop producers. Crop insurance can be complicated to navigate and requires individual, policy-specific analysis to ensure you are receiving the most effective coverage for the premium paid. 

    Agricultural Lender – Agriculture is a capital-intensive business. Adequate and consistent access to operating and term debt is essential for most farmers. Having a primary agricultural lender that understands your operation and that will stick with you through agricultural cycles is imperative. This is not to say that all credit will be obtained through one lender. Farmers need to make sure that the cost of credit is fully analyzed and that decisions make financial sense. 

    Broker / Marketer / Grain Merchandiser – Marketing is not a strength for most farmers. However, in times of low prices and tight margins, marketing can be the difference between profit and loss. Obtaining expertise or a second opinion can be a tremendous benefit.

    Crop Consultant / Agronomist – Every production year is different and will require problem solving so a crop can be produced and sold. Yield is important; however, in periods of low prices and elevated input costs, it is essential that each input pulls its own weight economically. The cost of the input must be fully covered by financial benefits. A good agronomist can help navigate the agronomic challenges of the production season. 

    Extension Agent / Specialist – Extension provides a network to problem solve and connect producers with expertise to address problems and verify information independent of a financial motive. Searching the internet can be a powerful tool to assist in decision making. However, the internet has carpet bombed the information landscape with unreliable advice, opinions, and conspiracies, so be wary of information sources. 


    Smith, Aaron. “2025 Crop Planning.” Southern Ag Today 4(51.3). December 18, 2024. Permalink

  • A Statistically Lousy Year for Cotton Prices

    A Statistically Lousy Year for Cotton Prices

    Statistically generated near-term price forecasts are useful to compare/contrast with Extension ad hoc price estimates, USDA monthly price estimates, and trade price estimates.  Ongoing cotton price forecasting research at Texas A&M University provides some timely short-term (monthly average) price forecasts that shed light on the 2024 season.

    As depicted in Figure 1, over the period January 2014 to August 2024, ICE No.2 cotton monthly average futures prices ranged from 53.75 cents per pound to 146.17 cents per pound, averaging 78.23 cents per pound. The first nine years of this data were used as the training sample for model construction, while the 2024 monthly average prices were used for out-of-sample forecasting using a structural econometric model described in the next paragraph.  

    Structural econometric models consider the direct effects of specific variables on our dependent variable of interest:  ICE No. 2 cotton futures prices.  Our best working model specifies monthly average nearby ICE cotton futures as being explained by the monthly stocks-to-use ratio, real disposable personal income, real retail clothing sales, real personal consumption expenditures, the Michigan consumer sentiment index, seasonality indicator variables, and various qualitative factors.  We hypothesize that ICE NO.2 cotton futures prices are positively related to real retail clothing sales, real disposable personal income, real personal consumption expenditures, and the Michigan sentiment index but negatively related to the stocks-to-use ratio.  After estimating the model coefficients, the signs and magnitudes of the continuous variables in the model conform to prior expectations. This model accounts for roughly 96 percent of the variables in monthly average nearby ICE No.2 cotton futures prices.  The results indicate the absence of autocorrelation in the residuals.

    Using our econometric model to forecast prices, on average over the out-of-sample period January 2024 to August 2024, the price forecasts deviated from the actual values by 7.75 cents per month (also known as the Mean Absolute Error), or roughly 9.7 percent (also known as Mean Absolute Percent Error). In other words, the out-of-sample ex post forecasts are, on average, higher than the actual monthly average nearby ICE cotton futures price.  This result continues with the most recent model forecasts:

    • September 2024 Forecast: 76.87 cents per pound (Actual:  70.68 cents per pound)
    • October 2024 Forecast: 78.66 cents per pound (Actual: 71.65 cents per pound) 
    • November 2024 Forecast: 77.60 cents per pound (Actual: 70.03 cents per pound).

    So, what does this mean?   The results of an otherwise well-fitting statistical model suggest what cotton growers already knew:  2024 was an abnormal year.   The nearly thirty-cent decline in monthly average nearby prices between March and August was a statistical anomaly that our model cannot predict.  

    These kinds of things suggest there are atypical factors affecting price forecasts, which means adjustments need to be made by considering market forces that are not captured by economic modeling.  

    Source: Price settlement data compiled from https://www.ice.com/report/12

    Robinson, John. “A Statistically Lousy Year for Cotton Prices.” Southern Ag Today 4(50.3). December 11, 2024. Permalink

  • Peanut Stocks Expected to Remain Low in 2025

    Peanut Stocks Expected to Remain Low in 2025

    As the 2024 peanut harvest wraps up, peanut prices remain relatively stable compared to prices of other crops. Corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat, and rice have had significant price decreases since the 2022/23 marketing year, while peanut prices have experienced only a slight decrease over that period. Peanut prices are projected to average $530 per ton for the 2024/25 marketing year, just below the $536 and $538 per ton observed for the 2022/23 and 2023/24 marketing years, respectively. This price stability comes as peanut ending stocks have remained low and stable, which is expected to continue into the 2024/25 marketing year.

    Figure 1: Peanut Production, Disappearance, and Ending Stocks by Year

    Data Source: USDA Economic Research Service. Oil Crops Outlook. November 2024.

    Peanut production is expected to increase in 2024, driven by the 10% increase in planted acreage. If current USDA projections are realized, peanut production would total 3.3 million tons, an 11% increase from 2023, as shown in the orange line of figure 1. Georgia leads the way with an expected 1.65 million tons of peanut production, followed by Florida (297,850 tons), Alabama (297,600 tons), and Texas (262,500 tons). The increased nationwide production comes despite a projected U.S. peanut yield of just 3,723 lb. per acre, which is 1.4 percent below the 2023 yield and the lowest yield since 2016. 

    On the demand side, peanut disappearance is projected to keep pace with the increased production, as shown by the bars in Figure 1. Peanuts processed for domestic food products, which account for about half of U.S. peanut disappearance, are expected to increase by 1% to 1.58 million tons. Peanut crush is expected to increase by 22%. In contrast, exports are forecast to decrease by 18% to 600,000 tons. As a result of the strong production, ending stocks are expected to increase to 823,000 tons, but this would still be the second lowest total since 2016. Overall, these tight supplies may suggest that peanut prices remain favorable next year. Despite the relatively favorable peanut price situation, peanut profitability remains a major concern due to the elevated production costs identified in the article titled “The Long Term Economic Struggles of Southern Peanut Farmers.”

    Sources:

    USDA Economic Research Service. Oil Crops Outlook: November 2024. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=110380

    USDA. Peanut Stocks and Processing: November 25, 2024. Available at: https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/02870v87z


    Sawadgo, Wendiam. “Peanut Stocks Expected to Remain Low in 2025.Southern Ag Today 4(49.3). December 4, 2024. Permalink

  • Sifting through the Rice Market: Rising Supplies and Growing Competition

    Sifting through the Rice Market: Rising Supplies and Growing Competition

    With several key moves during the 2024 rice market, and harvest behind us, we can let the dust settle and make some observations and conclusions as we look toward 2025. A major shift in domestic production patterns emerged in 2022; volatile input costs, triggered by the Russian-Ukraine War and supply chain disruptions, led to a decline in rice acreage as southern U.S. farmers opted to grow less input-intensive crops like soybeans and corn. These challenges were exacerbated by a severe drought in California that substantially reduced short/medium grain rice production. Rice production rebounded in 2023 and maintained that level in 2024, when more stable fertilizer prices shifted producers back to rice to counter the risk of lower prices, as was the case in other commodities (Figure 1). Recent conversations with agronomists indicate that U.S. rice farmers may maintain or expand rice acreage and production in 2025.

    Figure 1. U.S. All Rice Class Production and Acres Harvested (2014 – 2024)

    The November 2024 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report indicates the current outlook for U.S. rice is for larger ending stocks, weaker exports and unchanged supplies and domestic use from October 2024 (USDA-AMS, 2024). All rice exports combined are lowered 1 million cwt to a total of 100 million. All rice ending stocks are increased 1 million cwt to 46.7 million, a 19% increase from the 2023/24 marketing year. The seasonal average farm price for long grain and southern short/medium grain is unchanged at $14.50/cwt, suggesting a cautious domestic response to the stock increases (Figure 2).

    Figure 2. Rice Marketing Year Average Farm Prices (2020/21 – 2024/24F)

    Internationally, it’s important to note the spread between India’s rice, Thailand/Vietnam rice, and U.S. milled rice. U.S. long grain is and has remained for several months at $800/metric ton, while Vietnam and Thailand are currently selling at $550 and $500/metric ton, respectively. The price gap widened following the September 2024 lift of India’s export ban on non-basmati milled rice. Currently, India has set the price floor at $490/metric ton. India’s return to the international market has forced Thailand and Vietnam to lower their prices by 10-13%, impacting demand for U.S. long grain rice in countries like Iraq. Iraq’s preference for cheaper rice from Asia, influenced by the price differential, has reduced demand for U.S. rice exports and poses a challenge for U.S. farmers (Childs and Jarrell, 2024). 

    Looking ahead, global rice exports for 2025 are expected to increase by 4% YoY, bringing total exports to 56.3 million metric tons. India is projected to reclaim much of their share, reaching a volume of 21 million tons. However, countries like Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam, and the United States are expected to see a decline in export volumes (Figure 3). 

    Figure 3. Milled Rice Exports (2020/21 – 2024/25Nov)

    Source: USDA-FAS, 2024

    References

    United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. (2024). World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE-654). Retrieved November 9, 2024, from, https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde1124.pdf

    United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service – PSD Reports. (2024). World Rice Trade. Retrieved November 9, 2024, from, https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/downloads

    United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2024). Rice Production and Acres Harvested. Retrieved October 2024, from, https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

    Loy, R., and Hunter, B. (2024). The Disparity Between Crop Prices Received and Input Prices Paid.” Southern Ag Today 4(28.3). July 10, 2024. Available at, https://southernagtoday.org/2024/07/10/the-disparity-between-crop-prices-received-and-input-prices-paid/

    Childs, N., & Jarrell, P. (2024). Rice outlook: October 2024 (Report No. RCS-24I). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Retrieved November 2024, from, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/outlooks/110219/rcs-24i.pdf?v=5219.8


    Loy, Ryan. “Sifting through the Rice Market: Rising Supplies and Growing Competition.Southern Ag Today 4(48.3). November 27, 2024. Permalink

  • Can Yield Upside Risk Eclipse Price Downside Risk Protection in ECO Crop Insurance?

    Can Yield Upside Risk Eclipse Price Downside Risk Protection in ECO Crop Insurance?

    Producers can keep track of their price risk protection through revenue insurance in a given growing season by comparing the Harvest (Fall) Price to the Projected (Spring) Price determined by USDA-RMA. In the broader picture of a marketing plan, revenue crop insurances provide a form of price guarantee at a premium expense similar to locking in a price guarantee using a put option contract (Biram and Smith, 2022). A previous article examined the price protection offered by Revenue Protection (RP), Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO), and Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO) crop insurance for corn and rice (Biram, 2023). That article only considered the change in prices and did not consider the potential change in yield. This article builds on the previous one by considering both the price and yield protection offered by ECO, and providing a snapshot of how changes in county yields can also trigger indemnities.

    ECO is an area-based crop insurance product and must be paired with farm-level insurance like Yield Protection (YP) or RP. The liability insured by ECO is calculated using the same parameters as RP (e.g., APH farm yield and futures prices) at coverage levels of 90% and 95%. The futures price used is based on the higher of the Projected Price and the Harvest Price determined by USDA-RMA. Unlike RP – which triggers indemnities based on farm-level losses –ECO triggers an indemnity based on county-wide losses and will trigger a full indemnity when county-level revenue losses fall to 86%.

    A county-level map is provided in Figure 1, which shows the extent that the final county yield can change relative to the expected county yield and still trigger an indemnity for corn that is equal to the producer paid premium (i.e., breakeven indemnity). In other words, this map answers the question of how much the county yield must change to trigger an indemnity that will at least cover the producer-paid premium. The producer premium was determined for RP at the 75% coverage level (RP-75) under optional units paired with ECO at the 95% coverage level (ECO-95) with the associated premium subsidy rate applied. Projected and Harvest Prices reported by the RMA Price Discovery Tool are used with theassociated price volatility. 

    As an example, a county shaded in the darkest green shows that the final county yield may increase at least 21-26% for an indemnity to trigger which covers the producer premium. This suggests the price decline in the futures market was severe enough to allow for yield upside risk that would offset indemnities triggered on price alone. Conversely, a county shaded in the darkest red indicates that the final county yield must decline at least 6-11% before a large enough indemnity to cover producer premium is triggered. This implies that the price decline was not severe enough to trigger an indemnity on price alone. Most counties have experienced severe enough price declines in corn that yield can increase in comparison to the expected yield and potentially obtain a net indemnity above zero (e.g., yellow and green shaded counties).

    A similar pattern exists for cotton and soybeans (Figures 2-3). Nearly all counties insuring cotton under ECO-95 and RP-75 allow for yield upside risk, or favorable potential, to determine an indemnity equal to producer premium with most counties allowing for 7-10% yield upside risk. The same story holds for soybeans with potential yield upside risk of 9-14% for most counties which indicates the extent of futures price declines for both cotton and soybeans in 2024. Rice is the exception with no counties allowing for yield upside potential in determining an indemnity equal to producer premium (Figure 4). This is expected given there was virtually no change (i.e., $0.002/lb) in the rough rice futures price between planting and harvest.

    This analysis shows that price risk protection, which does not require a crop insurance premium, could be provided through ECO-95 if yields do not increase by more than 5% across most counties. However, given the potential for record yields across most of the U.S., this potential may be largely eclipsed. While this yield upside could be beneficial, it only considers one half of the profit equation, gross revenue. Further, price declines, paired with elevated production expenses, have not been met by risk protection from other farm bill programs, such as Price Loss Coverage and Agriculture Risk Coverage. This underscores the lack of price risk mitigation provided by current farm policy tools and the need for an updated farm safety net.

    Figure 1. Percentage Change in County Yield for ECO-95 to Result in Zero Net Indemnity (Corn)

    This map shows the percentage change in the final county yield relative to the expected yield required to trigger an ECO indemnity that will be equal to producer paid premium. This assumes RP and ECO coverage levels of 75% and 95%, respectively. Click here for an interactive version of this map showing county-specific percentages.

    Figure 2. Percentage Change in County Yield for ECO-95 to Result in Zero Net Indemnity (Cotton)

    This map shows the percentage change in the final county yield relative to the expected yield required to trigger an ECO indemnity that will be equal to the producer paid premium. This assumes RP and ECO coverage levels of 75% and 95%, respectively. Click here for an interactive version of this map showing county-specific percentages.

    Figure 3. Percentage Change in County Yield for ECO-95 to Result in Zero Net Indemnity (Soybeans)

    This map shows the percentage change in the final county yield relative to the expected yield required to trigger an ECO indemnity that will be equal to the producer paid premium. This assumes RP and ECO coverage levels of 75% and 95%, respectively. Click here for an interactive version of this map showing county-specific percentages.

    Figure 4. Percentage Change in County Yield for ECO-95 to Result in Zero Net Indemnity (Rice)

    This map shows the percentage change in the final county yield relative to the expected yield required to trigger an ECO indemnity that will be equal to the producer paid premium. This assumes RP and ECO coverage levels of 75% and 95%, respectively. Click here for an interactive version of this map showing county-specific percentages.

    References

    Biram, Hunter, and S. Aaron Smith. “The Option to Augment the Crop Insurance Price Floor“. Southern Ag Today 2(35.1). August 22, 2022. Permalink

    Biram, Hunter. “Comparing the Harvest Price and Projected Price in Revenue Protection Crop Insurance for Rice and Corn.” Southern Ag Today 3(35.1). August 28, 2023. Permalink


    Biram, Hunter. “Can Yield Upside Risk Eclipse Price Downside Risk Protection in ECO Crop Insurance?Southern Ag Today 4(47.3). November 20, 2024. Permalink