Category: Farm Management

The last couple of weeks, we have focused on the rise in fertilizer prices.  Today, we are highlighting nitrogen price trends in the context of relative prices.  Historical highs for nitrogen at $1,000/ton were reached in the summer of 2008.  Of course, those levels have been reached and even surpassed recently.  Other nitrogen price peaks occurred in 2011, 2012, and again in 2014.  But are these the “most expensive” fertilizer prices farmers have paid?  The answer depends on the crop you are producing. 

Figure 1 below illustrates how fertilizer (nitrogen) typically follows corn price.  Nitrogen and corn prices dating back to January 2000 are converted to an index of the respective series average (series average = 100%).  The green line is the monthly index for the nearby Dec Corn Contract, while the red line represents a monthly spot price index for nitrogen.  The black area shows the relative value of fertilizer measured in bushels of corn.  For a corn producer, fertilizer is most expensive when it takes more corn to pay for it.  Examining the relative price history, the fertilizer highs back in 2001, 2003, and 2005 were far more significant than they might first appear.  Driven more by natural gas prices in that era, rising fertilizer coincided with flat or even falling corn prices.  In November of 2005, a ton of nitrogen fertilizer was worth a series high of almost 250 bushels of corn.  High nominal prices in 2011 and 2012 were accompanied by higher corn and the relative fertilizer value was closer to the more affordable 20-year average of 110 bushels per ton of nitrogen.  In 2014 corn price fell quickly, while nitrogen held steady resulting in a relative value increase to almost 200 bushels.  

Figure 1. Relative Prices (Nitrogen / Corn) 

Cotton producers have faced a slightly different history because fertilizer is less connected to cotton price.  Figure 2 illustrates the cotton and nitrogen price relationship.  The relative value of nitrogen, measured in pounds of cotton, most often follows the nominal price of nitrogen.  For the 20-year series, the average value of nitrogen was roughly equal to 620 pounds of cotton.  While short-lived, the 2008 nominal price peak for fertilizer also represents the most expensive fertilizer value measured by equivalent pounds of cotton at almost 2,000 pounds.  With all prices riding the same wave in 2010-11, the relative nitrogen value held steady at around 500 pounds of cotton per ton of nitrogen.  Cotton prices retreated over the next 5-6 years, translating into a sustained period of relatively expensive fertilizer value which twice rose above the mark of 1,000 pounds of cotton per ton nitrogen.  

Figure 2. Relative Prices (Nitrogen / Cotton) 

The chart data stops in December of 2021, so where do relative values stand today?  Since 2000, only twice has the relative value of nitrogen exceeded 200 bushels of corn.  With corn at $5.75/bu. and nitrogen around $1,200/ton, the relative nitrogen value is 208 bushels.  Similarly, a ton of nitrogen has rarely been valued at over 1,000 pounds of cotton, and today the value is closer to 1,200 pounds of cotton assuming a $1.00/lb. cotton price.  Yes, commodity prices are higher and may offset some of the increased fertilizer prices.  However, even relative nitrogen values are approaching all-time highs in this incredibly challenging environment.  

Reference: 

Outlaw, et al. Economic Impact of Higher Fertilizer Prices on AFPC’s Representative Crop Farms.  Texas A&M University System, Agricultural and Food Policy Center Briefing Paper 22-01. January 2022.  

Sources: 

AFPC Briefing Paper 22-01, nitrogen prices compiled from DTN spot market price data for the last trading day of each month. The markets include New Orleans, Corn Belt, Southern Plains, South Central, Southeast and Florida.   Corn and Cotton prices are author compiled of monthly futures prices of nearby harvest month contracts. 

---

Klose, Steven, and J. Marc Raulston. “Relative Price of Nitrogen.” Southern Ag Today 2(7.3). February 9, 2022. Permalink

Last week we looked at the basic supply/demand factors contributing to the surge in fertilizer prices.  The abnormally high fertilizer market prompts the question:  How much of a financial burden do these prices represent for producers?  Today we are highlighting a study attempting to address that very question.  The Agricultural & Food Policy Center (AFPC) at Texas A&M maintains data on 64 representative crop farms across the U.S.  The data, provided by the consensus of local producer groups, describes the capital structure and operating parameters necessary to forecast a financial outlook for each representative farm.  The basic idea of the study was to impose higher fertilizer expense on each farm and compare the bottom-line results for a 2022 outlook with that of a baseline scenario (a fertilizer market without the current surge in prices expected in 2022).  Here’s the link to the full paper:  Economic Impacts of Higher Fertilizer Prices on AFPC’s Representative Crop Farms.

As a baseline, the study assumes the market outlook as described by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) August 2021 Baseline for commodity prices and cost inflation.  In the baseline, fertilizer price inflation estimates in 2022 were 9.9% for Nitrogen (N) and 13.6% for Phosphorous and Potash (P & K).  Based on estimates of spot prices observed at the time of the study, the alternative higher cost scenario assumed inflation factors of 55.4% for N and 50.8% for P&K.  Results outline the total impact to each farm’s NPK costs for 2022.  Alternative inflation assumptions result in an approximate 37% higher fertilizer bill for all farms.  For 25 feed grain farms, the average increase in fertilizer cost for 2022 was $128,000 (or almost $40/acre over the baseline scenario).  Rice farms saw the highest per acre increase with an average across 15 farms of roughly $62/acre.   Both cotton and wheat farms would experience near $100,000 higher total NPK costs on average or approximately $30/acre and $20/acre, respectively.

Summary Results of AFPC Study on Fertilizer Price Impact

Type (# of Farms)	Avg. Planted Acres	NPK CostsBase($1,000)	NPK CostsAlternative ($1,000)	NPK CostsDifference ($1,000)	NPK CostsDifference ($/Acre)
Feed Grain (25)	3,178	350	478	128	39.55
Wheat (11)	4,319	249	343	94	19.64
Cotton (13)	4,199	303	417	114	29.72
Rice (15)	2,512	337	463	126	62.04

While the study illustrates a significant cost increase, two important factors suggest the results are somewhat conservative in measuring the impact of recent fertilizer trends.  First, the study only measures an estimated change in 2022 costs.  Fertilizer prices started their recent trend well before 2022.  Fertilizer had already seen significant increases in 2021 (17% for N and 26% for P&K relative to 2020).  Combining the two years, even the baseline in the study reflects 2022 prices that are 29% (N) and 43% (P&K) higher compared to 2020.  Second, the approximate 50% increase for 2022 may not be high enough.  Since the study was completed, spot prices this year have approached triple the prices from 2020.  On the other hand, it is important to note that current commodity future prices indicate an improved revenue in 2022 for most producers, which will offset some of the sting of increased costs of production.  In that vein, next week we will look at current and past fertilizer trends relative to commodity prices.

Monthly Average Fertilizer Nutrient Prices, January 2000 to October 2021

Reference: 

Outlaw, et al. Economic Impact of Higher Fertilizer Prices on AFPC’s Representative Crop Farms.  Texas A&M University System, Agricultural and Food Policy Center Briefing Paper 22-01. January 2022.  

Klose, Steven, and J. Marc Raulston. “Financial Impacts of Higher Fertilizer“. Southern Ag Today 2(6.3). February 2, 2022. Permalink

Sky-rocketing fertilizer prices have dominated ag industry discussions over the last year, and for good reason.  By now, the peaks & valleys of the price chart below should be familiar, and most of you remember living through these price cycles.  The price climb that began in late summer 2020 is the most dramatic since 2008 and we are now seeing spot prices more than double and even triple the average prices seen over the 4-5 years preceding 2020.  The discussion generally starts with: what is causing these kinds of prices?  In this particular case, there does not seem to be any one culprit.  Instead, it might be best described as a perfect storm of factors that are all creating upward price pressure.  

Demand:  An increase in commodity prices (particularly corn price) is expected to lead to an increased demand for fertilizer.  Corn rose above $7.00/bu in the summer of 2008; fertilizer prices spiked soon after.  Again in 2021, corn broke through $7.00/bu, and we have seen what has followed with fertilizer.  There is an obvious connection.  What about residential fertilizer demand?  We know the Covid Era of increased work from home created higher demand for landscaping, lawn equipment, etc.  People were home more often, therefore paying more attention to the lawn and garden.  Without finding the specific data, it is a safe bet we are collectively demanding/using more residential fertilizer, as well.

Supply:  Often times, demand is met by ramping up supply to satisfy the increased need and moderate upward price pressure.  However, we find the fertilizer market (along with so many other industries) currently overwhelmed with supply struggles.  Global natural gas prices have increased the cost of fertilizer production, some traditional exporting countries are shipping less to ensure their own domestic supply, and the geo-political landscape of trade battles and imposed tariffs have further slowed supply.  Finally, physical supply chain disruptions and increased cost of product transportation have slowed supply to the point of questionable availability at given times/locations.  

The challenge moving forward is that we have yet to see a light at the end of the tunnel.  History would suggest prices will eventually ease, but no evidence today indicates any relief throughout the 2022 production season.  Next week, we will examine the farm level financial impacts of producers enduring higher input costs.  Tomorrow (Southern Ag Today, Jan 27, 2022), Dr. Andrew Muhammad will dig a little deeper into the trade/import markets for specific fertilizer products.   

Monthly Average Fertilizer Nutrient Prices, January 2000 to October 2021

Reference: 

Outlaw, et al. Economic Impact of Higher Fertilizer Prices on AFPC’s Representative Crop Farms.  Texas A&M University System, Agricultural and Food Policy Center Briefing Paper 22-01. January 2022.  

---

Klose, Steven, and J. Marc Welch. “The Perfect Fertilizer Storm.” Southern Ag Today 2(5.3). January 26, 2022. Permalink

2021

The hemp industry continues to struggle to find its balance in the agricultural economy. As the industry continues to work through hemp inventories produced in 2019, 2020, and 2021, which have continued to suppress farm gate prices, retail pricing remains sticky. For example, in Kentucky, 1,675 acres of hemp were harvested in 2021 representing a 63% decrease over 2020. Multiple states around the country are experiencing these types of declines. Hemp production destined for extraction continues to dominate the national market. Consumers of hemp products are loyal and purchase mostly online. However, there is market confusion within the industry as consumers need additional education on the differences between hemp and marijuana, according to our research.

2022

For the market to move forward in 2022 the industry needs to educate consumers on the differences between hemp and marijuana. Furthermore, uncertainties around regulations, THC content, pet and livestock feed approval, inconsistent smokable laws between states, and FDA approval continue to hinder growth in the hemp sector. Some processors continue to explore new marketing channels by focusing on cannabinoids other than CBD (i.e. CBG, CBN, etc.) or other THC attributes (i.e. delta 8,10).  However, significant increases in floral hemp production are not expected until current stocks are processed (or destroyed because of storage issues) or demand shifts. Conversely, the grain and fiber industries are starting to see an increase in demand as investment in these sectors continue to increase. Hemp continues to be a small sector of agriculture that needs stability before significant increases in acreages are realized.

Figure 1: State and Region Hemp Biomass Price

Mark, Tyler. “Hemp Review and Outlook“. Southern Ag Today 2(4.3). January 19, 2022. Permalink

Satellite imagery has been widely promoted as a decision-making tool in agricultural production. Many agricultural software companies, crop consultants, and farm managers have integrated satellite imagery into their data analytics for production monitoring and management. Such data and analytics show promise for supporting field zone mapping, identifying relative variations in crop yield, and monitoring water use. There are tradeoffs between satellite platforms in terms of the scale and usefulness of the data collected depending on the application at hand. There are also cases where satellite imagery can be useful for mapping the impacts of extreme events such as flooding, drought, or derechos. 

In June 2021, a 100-year flood event occurred in Southeast Arkansas. When such events happen, it is imperative that impact estimates are conducted as soon as possible to identify how and where to best support producers. The public imagery typically available for agricultural applications comes primarily from the NASA/USGS Landsat or EU Copernicus Sentinel missions. While imagery from these platforms comes at sub-monthly time-steps and relatively high spatial resolutions (30 and 20 meter pixels, respectively), it often isn’t available for several weeks after the images are taken due to processing. However, commercial imagery such as that produced by Planet Labs, offers opportunities for higher spatial resolution of 3-5 meters at near daily time-steps and becomes available in hours to days. When more than 15 inches of rain dropped over Southeast Arkansas, Planet Scope imagery was used to estimate the flood extent over cropland and illustrates the potential for more rapid cropland monitoring applications.

Figure 1 shows the color-infrared (CIR) imagery, flood extent, and heavy flooding (>1 ft) by crop type based on USDA NASS’s cropland data layer (CDL). Planet Scope records four bands of multispectral data for each pixel, including red (R), green (G), blue (B), and near-infrared (NIR). Many producers are familiar with the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), which is derived from NIR and R bands and corresponds to crop greenness. NIR reflects strongly when vegetation is present, and absorbs heavily when water is present. This relationship is very useful, as in this case, for mapping flooded fields. Based on the flood extent identified with thresholds for NIR, the CDL, and ground reference information provided by local county extension agents, there were 254,323 soybean, 190,150 rice, 54,817 corn, and 34,864 cotton acres estimated to have heavy flooding during this event in Arkansas. This information was generated within days of the flood event for the seven hardest hit counties. After a few weeks, impact estimates were generated for the broader area including 12 counties. Economic impacts from the event were estimated at approximately $60 million for corn, $6 million for cotton, $68 million for rice, $71 million for soybeans, and $1 million for wheat at an approximate total of $206 million.

Satellite imagery applications for agriculture are most commonly thought of for in-season monitoring and post-season assessment of maximum greenness to map field management zones. However, a lesser known but useful application of satellite imagery is for flood or natural disaster mapping. When flood events, derechos, or other natural disasters occur, estimating the extent of crop damage in a short timeframe is of utmost importance to best support recovery. We often rely on conversations and phone calls with county extension agents, producers, and crop consultants to gain an initial estimate of crop impacts. Satellite imagery can provide an additional tool for making damage estimates in those critical days and weeks following an event, especially when combined with on-the-ground conversations and validation. Planet and other satellite platforms will continue to play a role in improving and supporting agricultural production as wider access becomes available. This case represents one of many opportunities for satellite imagery to increase in its adoption and applications in crop production.

Figure 1: Estimates of Flood Extent and Acreage Impacts in Southeast Arkansas, June 2021.

Davis, Jason, and Aaron M. Shew. “Flood Impact Estimates on Cropland using Satellite Imagery“. Southern Ag Today 2(3.3). January 12, 2022. Permalink