Category: Farm Management

  • Inflation and Farm Prices

    Inflation and Farm Prices

    The April U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI) update confirms what anyone who has gone to the gas station or grocery store in the last few months already suspected: prices are rising rapidly, particularly on food and energy.  The CPI is a composite measure of the cost of consumer related products, and a number of different CPI measures include different types or bundles of consumer products.  The CPI which includes all-items was up 8.5% from March 2021 to March 2022.  The March index for food only was up a bit more than that year-over-year, increasing by 8.9%.  The March energy index was up 32.0% over the past twelve months.  

    While energy and food prices have clearly gotten a lot of attention, price inflation is occurring broadly throughout the economy.  The core inflation index (all items less food and energy) for March was 6.5% higher than the previous year.  This is the largest year-over-year increase in the core index since August 1982. So, while inflation may be most pronounced on energy and food at present, it is clearly not confined to those sectors.  The overall economy is experiencing the worst inflation in forty years.  Figure 1 illustrates the annual rate of inflation over the past half century, expressed as the year-over-year percentage change in the monthly all-items CPI.      

    Figure 1.  Inflation, Measured by Percentage Change (year over year) in Consumer Price Index (CPI)

    Data Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, FRED Economic Data, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/

    Rising prices are a challenge not only for consumers but also for businesses who must deal with rising production costs.  Many businesses will respond to increasing costs of labor, supplies, materials, or other inputs by raising the price of their output to maintain profits.  Competitive pressure can certainly constrain a business’ ability to raise prices, but many businesses generally have some latitude to adjust their product prices in response to higher input costs.  This is not the case for farmers and ranchers, who are price takers in both input and output markets.   That is, farmers and ranchers have no ability to influence the price they pay for inputs or to set prices on their output.  Thus, their ability to pass along increased costs to their customers is basically nonexistent.  

    Figure 2 illustrates the long term trends in consumer prices and farm product prices.  It is clear that farm prices have not kept pace with broad consumer prices.  Effectively farm products are losing buying power relative to broad consumer products.  An aggregate bundle of farm products today is sold for 5.25 times the price received in 1970.  On the other hand, a bundle of consumer products costs 7.5 times what it would have cost in 1970.  Farm commodities today will only buy about 70% of the consumer products they would have bought in 1970, and that is only after the gap has narrowed considerably since the spring of 2020.  

    It is important to note that the agricultural industry as a whole is in better shape than the chart alone would suggest.  To offset the erosion of buying power, farmers have increased the quantity of products they sell by relying on improved production efficiency, yield gains, and growing the size of their farm.  In other words, the erosion of purchasing power per unit of farm output has been offset by increases in the scale of production.  Necessarily over time, an increase in farm size also implies a decrease in the total number of farms (two trends that date back hundreds of years).  The challenge for the individual farm or ranch is to manage times of volatility and uncertainty while also navigating the normal long-term trend of attrition, and thus surviving to be one of the “fewer” farmers moving forward.  We appear to be in the middle of one of those times when price volatility is a significant management challenge.          

    Figure 2.  Consumer Prices and Farm Product Prices

    Data Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, FRED Economic Data, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/

    The warning on the horizon for agricultural producers is not the immediate problem of inflation.  Instead, the concern is what comes after.  Producers can weather inflation reasonably well, as long as, farm prices are moving more-or-less in conjunction with input prices.  Such a situation is not unprecedented: take the 1970’s as an example.  While the 10 years from 1973 to 1982 represent some of the worst inflation in this country’s history, we don’t talk about a 1970’s agricultural crisis because farm prices were mostly keeping pace.  In fact, in the face of extraordinary inflation, agricultural conditions encouraged farmer investment and taking on additional debt.  The crisis didn’t appear until the 1980’s.  As inflation moderated and commodity prices flat-lined, the burden of servicing debt at high interest rates (which were both a result of and the treatment for high inflation) became unsustainable for an industry that was not only highly dependent on short and intermediate term financing but that had also leveraged up to high debt levels.  The lessons moving forward in an uncertain economy where both inflation and farm prices are rising together: 1) farm prices are not likely to keep up with broader inflation rates indefinitely, 2) higher interest rates are very likely coming soon, and 3) don’t take on new debt based on the assumption that current conditions will continue. 

    Anderson, John D. , Steven L. Klose. “Inflation and Farm Prices.” Southern Ag Today 2(22.3). May 25, 2022. Permalink

  • Potential Cost Savings of Multiple Inlet Rice Irrigation

    Potential Cost Savings of Multiple Inlet Rice Irrigation

    Irrigation water can be one of the largest expenses associated with rice production, particularly when energy prices are high as in the current production season. Multiple inlet rice irrigation (MIRI) has potential to reduce the cost of applying irrigation water to rice. MIRI uses poly pipe to distribute irrigation water to all rice paddies simultaneously. This differs from conventional cascade flood in which water is applied to the first paddy at the top of the field and then flows over spills to lower paddies until the entire field is flooded. Fields are flooded much faster with MIRI. Based on examples in Arkansas, applied water savings of up to 25 percent are achievable with MIRI relative to cascade flood. Other potential benefits of MIRI relative to cascade flood include reduced irrigation labor and higher rice grain yields. Labor is reduced with MIRI due to less adjustment of levee gates and better management of water depth during the growing season. Yields can be 3 to 5 percent higher under MIRI due to a reduced “cold water” effect at the top of the field (more cold water concentrated at top of field with cascade flood) and improved nitrogen efficiency due to faster flooding of the field. 

    Figure 1 presents rice irrigation variable costs per acre for both cascade flood and MIRI. Irrigation variable costs include energy, repairs and maintenance, irrigation labor, and for MIRI, the additional cost of poly pipe pick-up and removal. Rice irrigation variable costs are presented for three total dynamic head (TDH) levels (80 ft, 100 ft; 120 ft), and assume 32 acre-inches of water are applied under cascade flood and 24 acre-inches of water are applied under MIRI during the growing season. Both applied water amounts are typical water amounts for cascade flood and MIRI as reported in the Arkansas Rice Production Handbook. 

    Irrigation variable costs are presented for both diesel and electric power. Irrigation energy costs were calculated based on diesel and electric energy consumption data from McDougal (2015). A diesel price of $3.94/gallon and an electric price of $0.138/kWh were used in the energy cost calculations. The diesel price comes from 2022 Arkansas field crop enterprise budgets, while the electric price represents a median price estimated from electric rate schedules for irrigation from various electric cooperatives located throughout eastern Arkansas. Irrigation labor is charged at $11.33/hour, also from 2022 Arkansas field crop enterprise budgets. 

    Irrigation variable costs are much lower for electric power than for diesel power (Figure 1). Farmers have switched many of their diesel irrigation motors to electric motors because the cost of electricity has been lower and less variable over time relative to the cost of diesel. Irrigation variable costs are lower for MIRI than for cascade flood at all TDH levels. Lower costs are associated with less applied water and lower irrigation labor under MIRI. Monetary savings from MIRI are greater for diesel power than for electric power because applied water costs are much greater under diesel power than under electric power. Applied water cost for diesel power ranged from $5.35/acre-inch at 80 ft TDH to $8.02/acre-inch at 120 ft TDH. In contrast, applied water cost for electric power ranged from $2.10/acre-inch at 80 ft TDH to $3.15/acre-inch at 120 TDH. Diesel irrigation motors could potentially receive larger monetary payoffs from MIRI than electric irrigation motors on farms. Nonetheless, rice fields supplied with irrigation water by both diesel and electric motors could potentially benefit monetarily from MIRI relative to conventional cascade flood irrigation.

    References and Resources

    McDougall, W. M. (2015). A Pump Monitoring Approach to Irrigation Pumping Plant Performance Testing. Graduate Theses and Dissertations Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1146

    University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. 2022. Arkansas Field Crop Enterprise Budgets. https://www.uaex.uada.edu/farm-ranch/economics-marketing/farm-planning/budgets/crop-budgets.aspx

    University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. 2021. Arkansas Rice Production Handbook. https://www.uaex.uada.edu/farm-ranch/crops-commercial-horticulture/rice/

    Wilkins, Brad. “Potential Cost Savings of Multiple Inlet Rice Irrigation“. Southern Ag Today 2(21.3). May 18, 2022. Permalink

  • Prospects for Retained Ownership in a High Input Cost Environment

    Prospects for Retained Ownership in a High Input Cost Environment

    Retaining ownership of calves beyond weaning is a value-added process that provides cow-calf enterprises access to a greater share of the retail dollar. There are costs and benefits to selling at weaning as well as costs and benefits when retaining ownership, each of which must be evaluated on an annual basis. Estimating expected returns is challenging in a normal year, and has been complicated in 2022 by drought, widespread culling, high feed costs, and increasing calf prices. Below is an analysis of the retained ownership decision using today’s market expectations.   

    We can roughly estimate the expected revenue generated from the sale of a weaned calf today.  The average price of a 7-8 weight steer in Joplin, MO the last week of April ran $1.63 per pound, meaning a 750-pound steer calf brought $1,224.38.  So the question of retained ownership is how much additional revenue (value-added) over $1,224 can I expect from selling a fed calf, and what is the additional cost associated with the added value.

    If we assume a current calf weight of 750 pounds for a 2021 spring-born calf, and an average daily gain (ADG) of 3.5 pounds, we can assume a target harvest date of mid-October at approximately 1,350 pounds. The board price for an October delivery fed steer last week averaged approximately $1.43 per pound. If we locked that price in today, a 1,350-pound steer would generate $1,930.50 in revenue.  Compared to selling today at $1,224, retaining ownership would generate an additional $706/head.  Now let’s look at the cost of achieving that additional $706. 

    Cost of Gain (COG) is a function of days on feed, cost of feed, and pounds of feed per pound of gain. It is commonly estimated using corn price, so it is significantly higher this year than in recent years. The increased cost of corn has cost of gain in the neighborhood of $1.20 per pound to $1.50 per pound depending on the feeding location, including an approximate 33% markup for yardage fees, overhead, and miscellaneous expenses. Subtracting COG from the expected value-added ($706.12) leaves the bottom-line Expected Net Revenue change from making the retained ownership decision.  The table below shows the expected net revenue impact of retained ownership for various COG estimates ranging from $1.20 to $1.50 per pound of gain. 

    Given the current COG and relative calf values retaining ownership through the feed yard seems to be a relatively less profitable choice against selling a weaned calf.  The market appears to value an additional 600 pounds of gain at a little over $700/hd while the cost of that gain could range from $720 to $900.

    Benavidez, Justin. “Prospects for Retained Ownership in a High Input Cost Environment“. Southern Ag Today 2(20.3). May 11, 2022. Permalink

  • The Value of Proper Soil pH

    The Value of Proper Soil pH

    The increased cost of fertilizers has many users asking where fertility costs can be reduced.  Soil testing has long been recommended for farmers, ranchers, and homeowners to identify fertility levels and enable them to only purchase/apply that which is needed.  In addition to replacing the right amount of nutrients, it’s important to consider the conditions which make the most efficient use of existing and applied nutrients.  One component of a fertility program (and soil testing) that should not be overlooked is identifying and correcting low pH through the application of agricultural lime.  Agricultural lime is an investment that will leverage  high-cost fertilization by providing improved nutrient utilization in row crops, forages, and most other agricultural crops we grow in the S.E. United States. . 

    Figure 1. How Soil pH Affects Availability of Plant Nutrients

    Figure 1 shows the range of soil pH that provides that greatest plant utilization of the listed nutrients in the soil. If the soil pH is out of the target range, the nutrients aren’t utilized as efficiently. It should be noted that higher pH range may result in less utilization of some micronutrients.  It is important to know the major nutrient and micronutrient requirements of the selected crop or forage.

    There are various materials that are used for liming, and they have different attributes. Check with your supplier about what liming materials are available. Many states have regulations or laws associated with the characteristics and efficiency of materials that can be marketed as agricultural lime. 

    It typically takes one to two months after an application of a liming material before it becomes effective, so plan accordingly. 

    Producers should check with their land grant university for soil testing related information.  

    Runge, Max. “The Value of Proper Soil pH“. Southern Ag Today 2(19.3). Permalink

  • Extension Budgets and Budget Tools

    Extension Budgets and Budget Tools

    The Southern Ag Today team of editors and contributing authors are, for the most part, a group of Extension Agricultural Economics Faculty from the Southern Region Land-Grant University Systems.  Many of this same group are responsible for a decades-old tradition of publishing crop and livestock enterprise budgets in their respective states or regions.  Extension budgets are typically published early in the year before the growing season starts, and they serve a number of purposes.  The first is to simply provide examples of common practices used in region-specific enterprises, as well as to illustrate a possible set of revenue/costs expectations for the coming year.  Ag lenders sometimes rely on these budgets as benchmarks to compare loan applications and borrowers’ production plans.  Various state and federal agencies and other agricultural industry researchers may use these budgets to compare practices, costs, or expected yields across regions and over time.  However, most of us that contribute to creating Extension budgets would consider those as secondary benefits.  

    Extension budgets are best used as a planning tool, and even better if you make them your own with the published budget serving as a guide.  To that end, many of our budget projects also offer downloadable spreadsheets and other tools to create your own budgets.  The pre-season budget planning process offers a number of management benefits, including the ability to:

    • compare potential profits of various enterprises or production plans and choose appropriate crop mixes.
    • assess cost of production and break-even prices/yields; which help develop marketing plans and select appropriate levels of insurance.
    • conduct sensitivity analyses on specific items.  For example, determining the impact of recent fertilizer price increases on expected net returns and evaluating potential production plan adjustments.  

    Another benefit to a formal spreadsheet budget is the ability to do what I call active or continuous budgeting.  The idea being that the budget and the budgeting process does not end when the growing season starts.  As you progress through the production season, planned expenses become actual expenses while yield and price expectations are constantly changing.  Incorporating these in-season changes into your budgets as you go will keep you mindful of cashflow needs and will assist with ongoing production and marketing decisions.  The process will also sharpen your management skills and improve your pre-season production plans in future seasons.  

    To find budget publications and resources in your area, click below for your state’s Land-Grant University Extension program.  

    Alabama             https://www.aces.edu/blog/tag/profiles-and-budgets/?c=farm-management&orderby=title

    Arkansas            https://www.uaex.uada.edu/farm-ranch/economics-marketing/farm-planning/budgets/crop-budgets.aspx

    Florida  https://fred.ifas.ufl.edu/extension/commodityenterprise-budgets/

    Georgia              https://agecon.uga.edu/extension/budgets.html

    Kentucky            https://agecon.ca.uky.edu/budgets

    Louisiana         https://www.lsuagcenter.com/portals/our_offices/departments/ag-economics-agribusiness/extension_outreach/budgets

    Mississippi          https://www.agecon.msstate.edu/whatwedo/budgets.php

    North Carolina   https://cals.ncsu.edu/are-extension/business-planning-and-operations/enterprise-budgets/

    Oklahoma          http://www.agecon.okstate.edu/budgets/

    South Carolina   https://www.clemson.edu/extension/agribusiness/enterprise-budget/index.html

    Texas                  https://agecoext.tamu.edu/resources/crop-livestock-budgets/

    Tennessee          https://arec.tennessee.edu/extension/budgets/

    Klose, Steven. “Extension Budgets and Budget Tools“. Southern Ag Today 2(18.3). April 27, 2022. Permalink