Category: Farm Management

  • Look Out Overhead

    Look Out Overhead

    An important financial consideration for any business is the costs they incur during the year. Ultimately, it affects the amount of profit or loss that will be realized by the business. There are certain “costs of doing business” known as overhead. These are things that an organization will have to pay for but are not designated to any one activity. An example might be property taxes. The taxes are owed and necessary for the business to maintain its property and obligations but typically could not be solely attributable to one activity like raising livestock or producing a crop. Usually, the costs are known but sometimes take a backseat to direct input costs when it comes to evaluation. For a true look at profitability, overhead must be factored in. The good thing is it may present opportunities for the business to cut down on its overall spending. 

    Overhead expenses occur once a year, several times a year, or even more sporadically. The first step is making sure they are logged in the books and records of the business. They can be reviewed to make sure they are necessary, reasonable, and have ultimately been paid. Common overhead expenses include insurance, taxes, depreciation, utilities, office expenses, and salaries. This list may not be all-encompassing, and it is important to mention that any personal expenditures for these items are not included in farm profitability.  Often, the business will have a bill or receipt that includes the amount. For others, it may be more of a calculation like depreciation or extracting the business use of utilities. The main goal is to account for all “costs of doing business”. 

    Determining total overhead is the first step. Once that has been completed, a producer may want to allocate the overhead costs to their different enterprises. This is not necessarily a precise calculation but is up to the owner or business manager. Some may approach it from a revenue perspective. For instance, if cotton is 50% of total farm revenue, then 50% of overhead will be allocated to it. Another method may be according to labor hours. If the time spent on a particular crop is 50% of the total hours worked (by everyone on the farm), then 50% of the overhead will be allocated to that crop. Product mix and profit margins will be different on each farm, so it is up to them to determine what is most appropriate. 

    In reviewing the information, a farm may realize that there are opportunities to cut costs. While not advocating for a farm to run without its necessary expenditures, overhead may be where some costs can be scrutinized. Checking insurance rates every couple of years can provide the same coverage at a lower cost from a different carrier. Computer software and other subscription services may have promotions or discounts for being a continued customer. Perhaps there are subscription services that are going unused and could be cut out completely. If computer equipment is upgraded every couple of years, extending that out an additional year or two can defer the expense. Often, farmers may attend trade shows or conferences to pick up new information. Sometimes, the conference host or other farm organizations will provide a cost share for travel or reimbursement for the conference. 

    The above are only a few ideas of cutting overhead costs. Individually, the costs may not account for much, but an effort to manage overhead can provide significant combined savings in the long run. If a farm is operating fairly lean from an input perspective, overhead may provide other opportunities to affect profitability. At the end of the day, revenues minus expenses determines net returns. Which expenses are reduced does not matter for the overall equation.


    Burkett, Kevin. “Look Out Overhead.” Southern Ag Today 3(52.3). December 27, 2023. Permalink

  • Exploring Diverse Crop Insurance Options for Cotton Producers

    Exploring Diverse Crop Insurance Options for Cotton Producers

    The risk in crop production, encompassing yield fluctuations and market price volatility, presents uncertain conditions for agricultural producers. To address and alleviate these uncertainties, the use of crop insurance is a key risk management strategy. The different crop insurance policies available for cotton producers frequently results in uncertainty concerning the variety of policies accessible and the specific regions where these policies are applicable.

    For upland cotton, a range of Federal crop insurance plans serves to mitigate the inherent risks associated with cotton production. The Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) for upland cotton encompasses three insurance plans offering farm-level protection against deep losses, which include complete losses. Yield Protection (YP) offers protection against only farm-specific yield losses, while Revenue Protection (RP) is designed to counter revenue losses triggered by variations in futures prices and farm yield. Revenue Protection with Harvest Price Exclusion (RP-HPE) also guards against revenue decline based on futures prices and farm yield but without the benefit of an adjusted revenue guarantee when harvest prices are above projected prices. 

    In addition to farm-level deep loss insurance, shallow loss programs such as the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO), Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO), and Stacked Income Protection (STAX) complement the risk management landscape. These policies are called shallow loss programs because none of these policies offer protection for complete losses. SCO and ECO function as add-on insurance products, which require enrollment in an underlying individual or farm-level plan of crop insurance (YP, RP, or RP-HPE) for enrollment. Both of these policies provide area or county-level protection. SCO and ECO follow the coverage of the underlying policy. If a producer chooses Yield Protection, then SCO and ECO cover yield loss. If a producer chooses Revenue Protection, then SCO covers revenue loss. SCO is only available for farms not enrolling in the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) Program. Stacked Income Protection (STAX) functions as an add-on or a standalone product, which can be enrolled with or without the individual or farm-level plan of crop insurance (YP, RP, or RP-HPE). STAX is exclusively accessible to cotton producers whose base acres are not enrolled in the ARC or Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs. Importantly, STAX may not be purchased with ECO or SCO. 

    Biram and Connor (2023) provide a comprehensive discussion regarding how to utilize crop insurance programs with an overlap between the deep loss and shallow loss insurance programs. Aside from the deep and shallow loss programs previously mentioned, cotton producers have access to two more crop insurance options: Area Risk Protection Insurance (ARPI, including Area Revenue Protection and Area Yield Protection) and Hurricane Insurance Protection – Wind Index (HIP-WI). ARPI offers coverage based on the overall performance of a designated area, usually a county. ARPI safeguards against revenue or yield loss within a county. Meanwhile, HIP-WI assists by covering a part of the deductible of the primary crop insurance policy when a county or a neighboring one faces sustained hurricane-force winds. HIP-WI’s coverage can be combined with SCO and STAX when the insured acreage is also covered by a companion policy (YP, RP, or RP-HPE). A summary of these insurance programs available for cotton is summarized in Table 1. 

    Ask your crop insurance agent if these plans of insurance are available in the county in which you produce cotton (see Agent Locator Tool offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Risk Management Agency). While insurance policies serve as vital tools in mitigating risks associated with cotton production, their intricacies underline the importance of understanding all the options and developing a comprehensive plan for managing price and yield risks.

    Table 1. Individual and area crop insurance products with associated indemnity triggers and status as a standalone product for upland cotton (updated 2/8/2024)

    ProductTypeTriggerStandalone
    Deep Loss Programs
    Yield Protection (YP)IndividualFarm YieldYes
    Revenue Protection (RP)IndividualFarm RevenueYes
    Revenue Protection, Harvest Price Exclusion (RP-HPE)IndividualFarm RevenueYes
    Shallow Loss Programs
    Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO)AreaCounty Yield or County RevenueNo
    Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO)AreaCounty Yield or County RevenueNo
    Stacked Income Protection (STAX)AreaCounty RevenueYes, and can be purchased as an add-on Policy
    Stacked Income Protection, Harvest Price Exclusion (STAX-HPE)AreaCounty RevenueYes, and can be purchased as an add-on Policy
    Additional Programs
    Area Risk Protection (ARP)AreaCounty Yield or County RevenueYes
    Hurricane Insurance Protection – Wind Index (HIP-WI)AreaHurricane or Tropical Storm Incidence and Wind Speed*No

    *Hurricane and Tropical Storm triggers: Hurricane is wind speed, and Tropical Storm is wind speed plus county average rainfall total.

    Reference:

    H. Biram and L. Connor. (2023). Types of Federal Crop Insurance: Individual and Area Products. University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Fact Sheet, Publication No. FSA75.


    Chong, Fayu, Yangxuan Liu, and Hunter Biram. “Exploring Diverse Crop Insurance Options for Cotton Producers.Southern Ag Today 3(51.3). December 20, 2023. Permalink

  • Two Key Productivity Measures with Profit Implications for Cow-calf Operations

    Two Key Productivity Measures with Profit Implications for Cow-calf Operations

    As we open the final month of the year, most spring-calving cow-calf operations have weaned calves and have an opportunity to assess the productivity and profitability of their herds. To that end, I wanted to quickly review two measures that I feel are of utmost importance to a cow-calf operator. Neither measure carries a dollar sign, but both have serious implications for the revenue side of the profit equation. There is no shortage of measures and indices that can be helpful for cow-calf operators, but weaning rate and pounds of weaned calf per cow are two that I think are very important, but also relatively simple to understand and calculate.

    Weaning rate is the percentage of cows exposed to a bull that wean a calf in a given year. If a farmer exposed 50 cows and weaned 45 calves, the weaning rate for that operation would be 90% (45 calves divided by 50 cows). There is a cost to maintaining and breeding cows whether they wean a calf or not, so limiting the number of cows that incur costs and fail to wean a calf is crucial. Holding all other things constant, herds with higher weaning rates will be more profitable than those with lower weaning rates. If weaning rate is an issue, farmers should work to determine if the issue is cows failing to breed, cows losing calves, or calf survival.

    An easy way to think about weaning rate is that it converts revenue per calf to revenue per cow. Table 1 below provides a simple way to illustrate this concept. If one assumes that the average calf is weaned at 550 lbs and is worth $2.30 per lb (for simplicity think steer-heifer average), then the value of each calf is $1,265 at weaning. However, when discounted for cows that were maintained but did not wean a calf, the revenue picture on a per cow basis is very different. Each 5% change in weaning rate impacts revenue per cow by more than $60. That difference expands in strong calf markets and contracts in weaker calf markets, but the fact that weaning rate significantly impacts profit is undeniable.


    The second measure that I wanted to briefly discuss is pounds of weaned calf per cow. This measure builds upon weaning rate by also including weaning weights. Pounds of weaned calf per cow can be calculated by dividing the total number of weaned lbs by the number of cows exposed to a bull or by multiplying the average weaning weight for the operation by the weaning rate. I like to think of pounds of weaned calf per cow much like a yield measure for a crop operation – production per unit. Weaned lbs are the production level, and cows are the unit. So this measures the lbs of weaned calf a cow-calf producer can potentially sell for every cow he or she maintains.

    Table 2 shows pounds of weaned calf per cow for a range of weaning rates and weaning weights. Increasing the percentage of cows that wean a calf each year and / or increasing the weaning weight of calves are two of the primary ways that cow-calf operations can see increased revenues, with calf price being an important third factor. The wide range across the table speaks to how much this measure can vary across operations. This is not to say that a higher level of lbs of weaned calf per cow is always desirable because this measure does not incorporate any additional costs associated with higher weaning weights or other considerations of the operation. But, tracking and managing that number will have profit implications for the operation over time.

    Table 1: Revenue per Cow as Weaning Rate Changes

    Assuming 550 lb calves @ $2.30: $1,265 per calf weaned
    Weaning RateRevenue per Cow
    95%$1,202.75
    90%$1,138.50
    85%$1,075.25
    80%$1,012.00
    75%$948.75

    Table 2: Pounds of Weaned Calf per Cow by Weaning Weight and Weaning Rate

     Average Weaning Weight
    Weaning Rate400 lbs450 lbs500 lbs550 lbs600 lbs
    95%380427.5475522.5570
    90%360405450495540
    85%340382.5425467.5510
    80%320360400440480
    75%300337.5375412.5450
  • Will Irrigated Soybean Area Continue to Expand in Eastern Arkansas?

    Will Irrigated Soybean Area Continue to Expand in Eastern Arkansas?

    The Mid-South region (eastern Arkansas, northeast Louisiana, Mississippi, and southeast Missouri) experienced a significant expansion in irrigated soybean acres since the beginning of the 1980s (Watkins, 2023). Irrigated agriculture in this region is highly dependent on groundwater from the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer. Eastern Arkansas is the largest soybean producer in the Mid-South. From Census year 1982 to Census year 2017, Arkansas irrigated soybean area expanded by +2.108 million acres (USDA, NASS, 2023a). Every county in eastern Arkansas experienced an increase in irrigated soybean acres during this time, but counties experiencing the greatest expansion were those bordering the Mississippi River. Are irrigated soybean acres still expanding or are they beginning to level off in eastern Arkansas? Will irrigated soybean area expansion continue across the region?

    Area trend analysis was conducted to answer these questions. Irrigated soybean harvested acres data were collected for all 26 counties in eastern Arkansas for the period 1980 – 2018 from the USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA, NASS, 2023b). Missing observations in the NASS data and additional acre observations for the period 2019 – 2023 were obtained from the USDA Farm Service Agency (USDA, FSA, 2023). 

    Figure 1 presents irrigated soybean acreage trends for the 1980 – 2023 period. Three basic patterns of acreage trends are identified:

    • Reached Plateau:

    Counties shaded orange represent counties that achieved a plateau at some point during 1980 – 2023 period. Irrigated soybean acres for these counties increased and then leveled off during the 44-year period. 

    • Declining:

    Counties shaded red represent counties where irrigated soybean acres initially increased until an acre maximum was reached. After the acre maximum was reached, irrigated soybean acres began to decline. 

    • Growing:

    Finally, counties shaded either light blue or dark blue represent counties where acres continue to grow and do not appear to have reached a plateau. The counties shaded light blue are counties with acres growing at a constant rate over time. The constant rate of growth ranged from +0.65 acres per year (Drew County) to +3.79 acres per year (Phillips County). The dark blue counties (Chicot and Mississippi) represent counties where the rate of growth is not constant but expanding over time, with the most recent rate of growth reaching +5.26 acres per year for Chicot County and +7.23 acres per year for Mississippi County.

    What information can be gleaned from these trends? Irrigated soybean acres in counties shaded red or orange are either declining (the red counties) or leveling off (the orange counties), implying irrigated area expansion in these counties has likely ended. Most of these counties are located in Critical Groundwater Areas where groundwater is being depleted faster than the rate of recharge (Arkansas Department of Agriculture, NRD, 2023). In addition, many of these counties have converted nearly all available non-irrigated soybean acres to irrigated acres. Counties shaded either light blue or dark blue are still expanding in soybean irrigated area. Most of these counties are located either alongside or within close proximity to the Mississippi River, where groundwater is more plentiful. Also, most of these counties still have a considerable amount of non-irrigated soybean area left for future irrigation conversion. These results highlight the importance of both groundwater availability and land availability to continued future sustainability of soybean production in eastern Arkansas and by implication the Mid-South region.    

    References and Resources

    Arkansas Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Division (2023). 2022 Arkansas Groundwater Protection and Management Report. https://www.agriculture.arkansas.gov/natural-resources/divisions/water-management/groundwater-protection-and-management-program/

    USDA-FSA (2023). United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Crop Acreage Data. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/efoia/electronic-reading-room/frequently-requested-information/crop-acreage-data/index

    USDA-NASS (2023a). United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Census_by_State/Arkansas/index.php

    USDA-NASS (2023b). United States Department of Agriculture, Quick-Stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

    Watkins, B. (2023). The Rise of Irrigated Soybeans in Arkansas. Southern Ag Today 3(32.3). August 9, 2023. Southern Ag Today


    Watkins, Brad. “Will Irrigated Soybean Area Continue to Expand in Eastern Arkansas?Southern Ag Today 3(49.3). December 6, 2023. Permalink

  • Comparing Liquified Propane to Natural Gas for Heating Fuel Cost Management in Poultry

    Comparing Liquified Propane to Natural Gas for Heating Fuel Cost Management in Poultry

    As winter approaches the broiler belt, it brings with it increased heating fuel bills for poultry growers. Most modern poultry houses in the southeast use liquified propane (LP) or natural gas (NG) to keep birds warm during the winter months, as well as during brood phases year-round. In many areas of the southeast, growers can choose one fuel over the other. However, this is a long-term choice requiring equipment conversions and plumbing changes. The cost of heating their poultry houses is usually a primary driver of this choice. LP and NG prices have proven to be volatile at times. Historically, LP price lags but roughly follows crude oil price changes, as it is a by-product of crude oil production. NG prices also have a crude oil production component but react more to international events and trading. The development of domestic gas fracking has made it more available and advanced NG as a competitor to LP in the U.S. However, access to NG pipelines is a limiting factor for many poultry producers. Also, NG customers generally do not have the ability to lower costs via pre-purchase agreements, volume purchases, or other negotiated price strategies that LP users have. Natural gas users simply pay the provider’s price at the time of billing. LP users must monitor fuel stocks and schedule deliveries to maintain adequate supplies at the farm. NG users do not have this worry as they always have pipeline access to gas. Hence, there is also no storage cost to consider when using NG. Farm trials have shown that, if NG is readily available, and prices are at their normal comparative levels, it is generally less costly to heat a poultry house with NG. But with recent NG price volatility, this could vary. 

    When comparing the costs of these two fuels, it is important to compare them on an equal basis in terms of heat energy output per unit. For this, British Thermal Units, or btu’s per unit is used. (One btu is roughly equivalent to the heat of a single matchstick flame.) LP is traded and sold to growers by the liquefied gallon and contains approximately 91,452 btu’s per gallon, with slight variations in actual product delivered. NG is traded and reported in one thousand cubic feet (MCF) units, which equals one million btu’s. It is often sold to retail customers by the “therm” or CCF (one hundred cubic feet), which is 100,000 btu’s of energy. For a quick comparison, you can take the LP price, multiply that by 1.093 and get the rough equivalent price of NG on a per btu basis. For example, if NG is priced at $1.17/CCF or $11.70/MCF (current trend price in Fig 1a), LP would need to be priced at approximately $1.07 per gallon to be equal in cost per btu. LP has not been at that low of a price in the southeast in recent history. Conversely, $1.20/gallon LP (trend forecast price in Fig 2b) is roughly equal to $1.31/CCF natural gas. Recent history has shown that NG prices are trending below that level, but from the spring of 2022 to the spring of 2023, prices were well above the trend, with commercial rates hitting a high of $1.45/CCF in September ‘23. LP prices at that time were approximately $1.52/gal ($1.66/CCF equivalent). These were the national averages; some users may have paid higher local rates for either fuel. Some local providers have varying rates for farms versus residential or commercial for LP or NG. Although NG has generally stayed on the less expensive side of this relationship, it may not always be the case for a specific farm or specific providers. 

    When looking at these variations, it is important to note that LP prices tend to react more to locally occurring events like weather and the short-term impacts of those events on supply than NG. However, the overall U.S. supply of propane does affect the market prices nationwide, as seen in figures 2a and 2b below. Luckily for poultry growers using LP, the current U.S. supply is strong and suggests lower winter prices are possible this year. NG is widely traded internationally, and prices are more reactive to international events like the war in Ukraine or Chinese economic strength and purchasing of the commodity. Even so, NG prices are forecast to remain soft for the coming winter as U.S. production looks strong and growing (fig 1b). Overall, with propane stocks high and natural gas production strong, U.S. poultry growers may be getting a welcome relief this winter from the high fuel costs of recent years, no matter which fuel source they choose. 

    NOTE: Any poultry grower considering making a switch from one heating fuel source to another needs to consider all costs, both short and long term, like equipment changes, plumbing upgrades, and pricing flexibility. Click HERE  for detailed information on NG conversion in poultry houses.

    Fig. 1a & b: Natural gas prices have been volatile recently in response to international events and trading. However, long-term forecasts are lower than the high prices of 2022. U.S. production looks to be strong and increasing over time.


    Brothers, Dennis. “Comparing Liquified Propane to Natural Gas for Heating Fuel Cost Management in Poultry.Southern Ag Today 3(48.3). November 29, 2023. Permalink