Category: Policy

Commodity programs in Title I of the Farm Bill and the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) are the primary risk management tools available to agricultural producers. In a previous SAT article, Fischer and Biram (2025) discussed the suite of risk management tools available to cotton producers, the intention of Title I programs to supplement tools in the FCIP, and the different combinations allowed for producers to use in a risk management strategy. Notably, they discuss how base acres enrolled in either Price Loss Coverage (PLC) or Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) cannot be enrolled in the Stacked Income Protection (STAX) program. Since 87% of historical seed cotton base acres have been enrolled in PLC (USDA-FSA, 2025), with nearly all base acres enrolled in 2019 and 2020, this discussion focuses on the complementary nature of STAX and PLC.

On the surface, STAX and PLC may appear to be similar programs authorized under different pieces of legislation. However, a closer look reveals stark differences. STAX is a tool in the FCIP which provides protection against revenue losses based on a chosen coverage level, a cotton lint futures price, and a county cotton lint yield. PLC is a counter-cyclical target price program under Title I in the Farm Bill which provides only price downside protection determined by the effective reference price (ERP) and a Marketing Year Average Price (MYAP) for seed cotton. The ERP is a function of the statutory reference price determined by federal law and historical market conditions. More specifically, the seed cotton price is a production-weighted average of upland cotton lint and cotton seed prices (see Shurley and Rabinowitz, 2018and Liu, Rabinowitz, and Lai, 2019a). STAX requires a premium to be paid by the producer while PLC requires no out-of-pocket cost for enrollment. STAX pays indemnities based on planted acres and county cotton lint yield and price, while PLC payments are based on base acres and MYAP for seed cotton.

While STAX and PLC both provide price risk protection, it is in different markets and under different conditions. STAX provides price risk protection against declines in the futures market between planting and harvest with different regions of the country facing different price determination periods – and only to the extent that those declines are not offset by yield gains (see Liu, Chong, and Biram, 2024). PLC provides price risk protection against declines in the cash market within a crop marketing year which is August 1^st through July 31^st of the following calendar year (USDA-FSA, 2023). PLC protection is triggered when the MYAP falls below the ERP with the PLC payment rate being the difference between the ERP and MYAP.

Since these two risk management tools provide different forms of price protection, it is no surprise that STAX indemnities based on price losses (i.e., in excess of any offsetting yield gains) differ from PLC payment rates. In the period authorized for risk protection in the 2018 Farm Bill (i.e., 2018-2024P), there was only one year in which both programs triggered, with 2024 projected to trigger at current prices. In 2019, the PLC payment rate for seed cotton was $0.0612/lb (see Figure 1) while the cotton lint STAX indemnity for price loss would have been $0.0310/lb (see Figure 2) which only would be for the 90% coverage level. There were three years when one program would have triggered when the other did not (2018, 2020, and 2022). The remaining two years saw no payments triggered by either program. 

We acknowledge that these payment rates are based on different triggers (i.e., weighted average seed cotton price versus cotton lint price) and refrain from discussing the magnitude of the differences. Instead, we emphasize the fact that these programs often do not trigger in the same year, reinforcing the idea that these differences imply the need for risk protection in both the cash and futures markets, mitigating basis risk (see University of Arkansas fact sheet). As a result, Congress may wish to consider making both PLC and STAX available for a producer to use in the same crop year since they meet different risk management needs.

Figure 1. Historical Performance of Price Loss Coverage (PLC) for Seed Cotton (2018-2024P) This figure shows the years in which a seed cotton PLC payment triggered. The orange bars show the MYAP, while the yellow dashes show the ERP. The triangles denote the PLC payment rate recorded that year. When the orange bar is the below the yellow dash, a PLC payment triggers, and the triangle depicts the payment rate.

Figure 2. Historical Performance of Stacked Income Protection (2018-2024P) This figure shows the years in which a STAX payment would have triggered in a county with constant yields. That is, if the county yield did not fall, it depicts what the Harvest Price would have to fall to in order for an indemnity (i.e., insurance payment) to trigger. The blue and green bars show the price guarantee based on 85% and 90% coverage levels of STAX, respectively, while the red dashes show the RMA Harvest Price. The blue and green triangles denote the STAX indemnity recorded for the 85% and 90% coverage levels, respectively, in a given year. When the blue or green bar is below the red dash, a STAX indemnity triggers, and the triangles depict the payment rate.

References

Biram, H.D. and Connor, L. (2023). Types of Federal Crop Insurance Products: Individual and Area Plans. University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet No. FSA75. https://www.uaex.uada.edu/publications/pdf/FSA75.pdf

Fischer, Bart L., and Biram, H.D. “STAX and PLC: Should Cotton Producers Have to Choose?” Southern Ag Today 5(15.4). April 10, 2025. Permalink

Liu, Y., F. Chong, and Biram, H.D. “Cotton Crop Insurance: Unveiling Regional Differences in Projected and Harvest Prices.” Southern Ag Today 4(4.3). January 24, 2024. Permalink

Liu, Y., Rabinowitz, A. N. & Lai, J. H. (2019). Understanding the 2018 Farm Bill Effective Reference Price. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia. Report No. AGECON-19-02PR. July 2019.

Liu, Y., Rabinowitz, A. N. & Lai, J. H. (2019). Computing the PLC and ARC Safety Net Payments in the 2018 Farm Bill. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia. Report No. AGECON-19-13PR. November 2019.

Shurley, D. & Rabinowitz, A. N. (2018). MYA Prices and Calculating Payments with the Seed Cotton PLC. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia. Report No. AGECON-18-03. February 2018.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. (2023). Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) & Price Loss Coverage (PLC). December 2023. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/fsa_arc_plc_factsheet_1223.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency. (2025). ARC and PLC Data. Date accessed: May 5, 2025. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/arc-plc/program-data

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency. (2023). Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) for Upland Cotton. January 2024. https://www.rma.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/STAX-Upland-Cotton-Fact-Sheet.pdf

---

Biram, Hunter, Bart L. Fischer, Yangxuan Liu, Will Maples, and Amy Hagerman. “STAX and PLC: A Tale of Price Risk Protection in Two Markets.” Southern Ag Today 5(19.4). May 8, 2025. Permalink

Long before the 2018 Farm Bill expired on September 30, 2023, there appeared to be one voice among the entire U.S. food and fiber system asking Congress to get a new farm bill completed that would provide producers an improved safety net with meaningful protection from low prices, bad yields or both.  Since that time, the economic condition of U.S. crop farms has deteriorated significantly due to low prices and high costs as reported in Southern Ag Today here and here.  Now, the farm bill appears to be stalled behind other priorities, namely a budget reconciliation bill that will provide the funding needed to extend the expiring Trump tax cuts that were enacted in the President’s first term and to beef up border security, among other priorities.

As part of the budget reconciliation process, the instructions to the House Agriculture Committee were to cut $230 billion from the baseline over ten years while the instructions to the Senate Agriculture Committee were to cut at least $1 billion over ten years.  Figure 1 provides estimates of the 10-year baseline from FY 2025 to FY 2034 to provide some perspective on projected spending across farm bill titles.  The expectation is that Title IV (the nutrition title) of the farm bill is where the majority of savings will originate.  It should be noted that the farm bill that passed out of the House Agriculture Committee last year and the Senate Republican farm bill proposal added around $55 billion (House) and $40 billion (Senate) in spending above the baseline to make the safety net stronger, in addition to other enhancements.

It appears that some parts of the House and Senate farm bill proposals might be able to be added to the budget reconciliation bill.  The exact details of how that might happen are not entirely clear, but it does appear that option is being considered.  Suffice it to say that, in our opinion, that is the only realistic pathway to achieving meaningful enhancements to the farm safety net for the 2025 crop.  There are some who worry this might fragment the farm/food coalition that has generally worked together to get a farm bill across the finish line.  We would, however, point out that the coalition fell apart during the 2014 Farm Bill debate in the House of Representatives, where two separate bills (a nutrition bill and a farm-only bill) had to be passed out of the full House and then combined again during the conference process with the Senate.  While we recognize the importance of all parts of the farm bill, in the name of trying to protect a very vulnerable crop production sector, Congress may wish to consider moving away from all or nothing this time around.

Figure 1.  Farm Bill Titles with Mandatory Baseline, 10-Year Projected Outlays, FY2025-FY2034, billions.

---

Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. “Does it Have to Be All or Nothing in Farm Policy?” Southern Ag Today 5(17.4). April 24, 2025. Permalink

The farm safety net includes a number of risk management tools that help producers navigate the risks they face, ranging from the Federal Crop Insurance Program to Title 1 of the farm bill. With crop insurance, farmers purchase the coverage which typically protects against price and yield risk within the growing season. By contrast, Title 1 of the farm bill authorizes programs – Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) in particular – that are designed to complement crop insurance, protecting against risks not otherwise covered. 

Because some of the programs have features in common, Congress has chosen to limit the choices available to producers. For example, the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) is an area-wide crop insurance policy that protects against county-wide losses in prices and yields (depending on the underlying policy) within the deductible portion of a producer’s crop insurance policy (i.e., the portion not covered by the underlying individual policy). In addition, in the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress created ARC, an FSA-administered program that protects against shallow losses in county-wide revenue. Because of the similarities between SCO and ARC, Congress stipulated that a producer was not eligible to purchase SCO on a crop enrolled in ARC. By contrast, a producer that enrolls the base acres on their farm in PLC – which covers deeper declines in marketing-year average prices – is permitted to purchase SCO at their discretion.

What does this have to do with cotton?  In the 2014 Farm Bill, upland cotton was removed as a covered commodity and cotton producers were left with no access to ARC and PLC.  Instead, they were left with an area-wide crop insurance policy – very similar to SCO – that was known as the Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX). Several years later, when seed cotton was added to the farm bill in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, cotton producers once again had access to ARC and PLC (albeit on seed cotton rather than cotton lint). An effort was made to eliminate STAX as a result, but policymakers recognized that not all producers have seed cotton base acres, so a political compromise was reached: STAX would remain available, but cotton producers would have to choose between STAX and ARC/PLC. According to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, “[b]eginning with the 2019 crop year, a farm shall not be eligible for [STAX] for upland cotton for a crop year for which the farm is enrolled in coverage for seed cotton under [PLC] or [ARC].” Notice, the restriction did not simply prohibit a producer from having access two area-wide tools (i.e., STAX and ARC), it also prohibited producers from having access to STAX and PLC, despite the two options having little in common.

There is no prohibition on SCO and PLC, for good reason, as they cover different risks. We question the wisdom in deviating from that logic with respect to STAX and PLC. While we will explore the differences between STAX and PLC in detail in a future article, suffice it to say we would encourage policymakers to take another look at this requirement as they go about the process of reauthorizing the 2018 Farm Bill, especially in light of the current state of the farm economy.

---

Fischer, Bart L., and Hunter Biram. “STAX and PLC: Should Cotton Producers Have to Choose?” Southern Ag Today 5(15.4). April 10, 2025. Permalink

Every once in a while, the stars align and our elected officials, political appointees, and career USDA employees get it right and, in this case, right on time.  On December 21, 2024, President Biden signed the American Relief Act of 2025—the continuing resolution (CR) that funds the government through March 14, 2025, and extended the 2018 Farm Bill provisions through September 30, 2025—into law.  Also included in the CR was $10 billion for economic assistance for farmers and $20 billion to cover losses due to natural disasters.  In a nod to the dire conditions in the countryside, Congress stipulated that USDA had 90 days to get the program developed and the assistance flowing.  Agricultural committee leadership in both the House and Senate kept the pressure on Congressional leadership to include help for our nation’s struggling farmers, and Congress delivered.  All that needs to be said is “well done and thank you.”

Between the time the CR was signed into law and Secretary Rollins was confirmed, career USDA-FSA employees were working on developing implementation details and software updates so they could meet the Congressional mandate of 90 days.  Once confirmed, Secretary Rollins made getting the funding out by the deadline one of her top priorities.  Again, all that needs to be said is “well done and thank you.”

As was reported by every agricultural news outlet, on March 18, 2025—and ahead of schedule—USDA-FSA announced that signup was open for the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP), the economic disaster part of the CR that will provide up to $10 billion to eligible producers.  This program provides economic assistance payments to eligible producers of specific commodities to help mitigate the impacts of increased input costs and falling commodity prices during the 2024 crop year.  Specific program details are available from USDA here (https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/emergency-commodity-assistance-program).

As my colleagues and I have written in Southern Ag Today multiple times over the past six months, the assistance was badly needed, and I know it is much appreciated.  Now farmers are beginning to email with questions about the timing and potential benefits from the natural disaster program.  I know that the Secretary and USDA are working diligently to finalize this program, but I have a favor to ask in the interim: send a “thank you” email to House and Senate Agricultural Committee leadership (and their staff) and Secretary Rollins thanking them for their hard work on getting this much needed assistance out the door.  All of their emails are easy to find, and if you do that you also deserve a … “well done and thank you.”

---

Outlaw, Joe. “Signup for Economic Assistance Announced… Producers Turn Their Focus to Physical Disaster Assistance.” Southern Ag Today 5(13.4). March 27, 2025. Permalink

Several provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 will begin to expire at the end of 2025. While most of the attention will be on extending the expiring provisions, Congress may wish to consider the inclusion of Tax-Deferred Farm Savings Accounts (TFSAs). Over the last 20 years, a number of different TFSAs have been proposed. The most recent proposal—the Farm Risk Abatement and Mitigation Election Act of 2017—was introduced by Congressman Rick Crawford (R-AR) and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. Despite dozens of attempts by several Members of Congress, TFSAs have never gained traction.

The premise of past TFSA proposals has essentially been the same: create a mechanism that allows producers to shelter taxable income in a good year to utilize in a future year. In current practice, the common tax management strategy for producers who have made money is to utilize Section 179 immediate expensing. Immediate expensing allows agricultural operations to fully depreciate (or expense) equipment or on-farm structures such as barns or grain storage in the year it is purchased. This sometimes results in producers purchasing equipment or farm structures that are not integral to the operation of the farm but were purchased to limit income taxes. As an alternative, TFSAs would allow producers to deposit (and earn interest on) taxable income and either save it for a rainy day or have time to plan how they will use it moving forward. 

While many different versions of TFSAs have been proposed in the past, we would argue that most of them were needlessly complicated, which likely helps explain why they’ve never been implemented. In our view, these accounts could be quite simple: taxable income generated by the farm could be deposited in an interest-bearing, tax-sheltered account and be treated as taxable income—and subject to ordinary income tax rates—on withdrawal from the account. While policymakers likely would want to weigh in on how much money producers could shelter each year and how long the funds could be held in the accounts, the more complicated they get, the less effective they become (and the less likely they are to become a reality).

Some may ask why now would be an appropriate time to implement these accounts. After all, most row crop producers are more worried about losing money in 2025 than managing income. But, at some point, farm income will recover, and growers will once again find themselves feeling the pressure to purchase equipment to avoid taxation. Imagine a scenario where prices have recovered, net operating losses have been exhausted, and producers make a bumper crop. With a TFSA, they would be able to shelter the income—tax free—and then use the savings in the future to help weather a downturn or to buy equipment when it makes sense for the business. Some may argue that this would result in less income tax revenue for the government, but that ignores the fact that farmers can already avoid taxation by using Section 179. Ultimately, TFSAs could simply be another tool in the toolbox—alongside the farm safety net and current tax management strategies—to help farmers and ranchers weather the extraordinary risks they face.

---

Nelson, Henry, and Bart L. Fischer. “Is Now the Time for Tax-Deferred Farm Savings Accounts?” Southern Ag Today 5(11.4). March 13, 2025. Permalink