On Monday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that enrollment for the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs will begin next Tuesday (January 21) and run through April 15. Even if you plan to keep the same elections, make sure to reach out to your local Farm Service Agency (FSA) office about signing your annual enrollment contract…preferably well before the deadline.
As you start to think about program election, the Effective Reference Prices for the 2025 crop year can be found in Table 1. The 2025 ARC-County benchmark yields and revenues as of January 6, 2025 can be downloaded here. While adjustments are being made to incorporate the latest data from FSA, the Agricultural & Food Policy Center’s (AFPC) 2025 ARC-CO/PLC Decision Aid will soon be available at https://afpc.tamu.edu. While we are more than a year away from knowing whether either program will trigger for the 2025 crop year, AFPC’s decision tool can be used to explore a variety of potential outcomes, including those based on the latest macroeconomic projections from our sister center, the Food & Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri. If you have questions about the enrollment decision, don’t hesitate to reach out to us or a member of our team. We are happy to be a resource.
Table 1. Effective Reference Prices (ERPs) for the 2025 Crop Year
The final days of 2024 brought great news and some certainty for our cash-strapped farmers from our nation’s capital. Disaster and economic losses were included in the continuing resolution that was passed by Congress and signed into law on December 21st by President Biden. H.R. 10545 (the American Relief Act) extended federal spending and averted a government shutdown through March 14, 2025. It also provided farmers additional certainty by extending the provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill through September 30, 2025. The bipartisan CR passed the U.S. House and Senate by votes of 366-34 and 85-11 respectively. With all of this said, we had hoped and expected Congress would act to provide assistance to agricultural producers, and they delivered. Well done and thank you!
The “now what?” is…how will the assistance be implemented? Since the bill passed, lenders from across the U.S. have been emailing and calling asking how much of the projected economic assistance payments should they realistically be including in producer loan packages. Of the $30.78 billion authorized by the supplemental, $10 billion is set aside for economic assistance with the rest targeted toward physical disaster losses. Congress provided detailed instructions on how the economic assistance should be distributed by USDA. The final bill was largely the same as we described in a previous Southern Ag Today article. As indicated in the footnote below the individual commodity payment rates in the previous article, “Commodities estimated to receive minimum payment, either through formula with complete data or based on assumption due to lack of publicly available data, final payment rates may vary”.
This means that you and your banker probably shouldn’t include the listed payment rates multiplied by your crop acres in your loan as economic disaster loss payments. There is a finite amount of money to be shared among producers of the 21 covered crops, and if USDA’s estimates on the minor crops end up being significantly different, even though the acreages are not large it could lead to somewhat lower payment rates across the board.
In our opinion, based on years of watching programs get implemented by USDA, we would suggest that 85 percent of those rates should be the lowest amount lenders should use. We can’t imagine payment rates being adjusted more than that. Further, the act called for the economic aid to be distributed no later than 90 days following enactment (or March 21, 2024), so the payment rates should be known before many (though certainly not all) producers start planting.
For months, Southern Ag Today has been documenting growing economic pressure in the countryside, particularly for row-crop producers (see here, here, and here). We have also repeatedly highlighted the need for assistance to help growers shoulder losses in 2024 while preparing for a rather bleak outlook in 2025, particularly with farm bill negotiations having stalled in Congress. Following a weekend of high-stakes negotiations, Congress released its draft supplemental text on Tuesday, proposing $30.78 billion in economic and disaster assistance for the countryside.
In October, we highlighted the introduction of the Farmer Assistance and Revenue Mitigation Act of 2024 (FARM Act) as introduced by Rep. Trent Kelly (R-MS). Of the $30.78 billion authorized by the supplemental, $10 billion is set aside for economic assistance that hews closely to the structure of the FARM Act. The supplemental did include a few key changes. For example, the payment factor was reduced from 60% (as envisioned in the FARM Act) to 26% to fit within the $10 billion budget for the program. Additionally, the supplemental also imposed minimum payments for economic assistance (based on 8% of the statutory reference price established in the 2018 Farm Bill), which serves to raise the payment rates for several of the smaller-acreage crops along with peanuts and rice. Table 1 includes an estimate of the payment rates for economic assistance. The payments will be based on acres planted to the eligible commodity in 2024 (for harvest, grazing, haying, silage, or other similar purposes) and 50% of the acreage prevented from being planted in 2024. Separate payment limits would apply for economic assistance: $125,000 for persons or entities that derive less than 75% of their income from farming, ranching, or forestry and $250,000 for persons or entities that derive 75% or more of their income from farming, ranching or forestry.
Eligible Commodity
Estimated Payment ($/Acre)
Corn
43.80
Soybeans
30.61
Wheat
31.80
Cotton
84.70
Rice (L/M)*
71.37
Sorghum
41.85
Oats
78.42
Barley*
21.76
Peanuts*
76.30
Dry peas*
16.16
Lentils*
19.32
Chickpeas, large*
24.16
Chickpeas, small*
25.04
Sunflower*
23.38
Rapeseed*
23.23
Canola*
26.76
Safflower*
15.71
Flaxseed*
17.48
Mustard*
11.42
Crambe*
19.37
Sesame*
5.28
*Commodities estimated to receive minimum payment, either through formula with complete data or based on assumption due to lack of publicly available data, final payment rates may vary.
SOURCE: House and Senate Agriculture Committee staff. NOTE: these payment rates are initial estimates for illustration only. Congress must first pass the legislation and then USDA will publish final payment rates as they implement the program.
In addition to economic assistance, $20.78 billion will be available for disaster assistance to help cover losses in 2023 and 2024. Out of this amount, $2 billion must be made available for livestock losses; $30 million maybe made available to crop insurance agents to help offset the freeze in administrative and operating expense reimbursements imposed by the Obama Administration; and $3 million must be made available to address concerns with circumvention of trade laws regarding molasses on the northern border. Importantly, there are a number of other items that may be funded from this amount, including block grants for various purposes. For example, the bill allows for block granted funds to be used for agricultural producers who have suffered losses due to the failure of Mexico to deliver water to the United States in accordance with the 1944 Water Treaty. The provision closely follows Rep. Monica De La Cruz’s (R-TX) bill – the South Texas Agriculture Emergency Assistance Act – which proposed to allocate $280 million in grants to the State of Texas (via the Texas Department of Agriculture) to help offset losses incurred by border producers.
As of the time of publishing, the path forward is not remotely clear. Yesterday afternoon, President Trump and Vice President-Elect J.D. Vance released a statement noting that “Republicans want to support our farmers…” but highlighting that “[t]he only way to do that is with a temporary funding bill WITHOUT DEMOCRAT GIVEAWAYS combined with an increase in the debt ceiling.” While this is strong support from the incoming Administration, the current Congress and Administration must sign it into law now for assistance to arrive in time to help with the 2025crop year.
Recent articles in Southern Ag Today have detailed the financial stress that Southern crop producers are having to endure, although the problems are not unique to the South. In economics, we talk about the “cost price squeeze” that is created by declining commodity prices and high input costs. Our work at the Agricultural and Food Policy Center (AFPC) at Texas A&M University – with roughly 575 individual producers from across the country that work with us on 90-plus crop, livestock, and dairy representative farms – has given us a good feel for the relative costs of production and profitability across the country. Those 575 producers are some of the very best from all regions and commodity types. They also know that working with us provides them a voice in the policy world they would not otherwise have. Because of this, I often get calls and emails letting me know when pressure is mounting. In the last three months, there has been a steady stream of calls and emails saying that this is the worst year they have ever had and getting financing for next year has been incredibly difficult.
I have heard from some that if it wasn’t for their lender including an estimated payment from the FARM Act, they would not have been refinanced…which is troublesome to say the least. Why? Neither the FARM Act nor any other disaster/economic aid has been moved forward by Congress. Others have commented that they are having to sell land to pay off carryover debt to get their 2025 financing. All are saying that without pledging their land as collateral, operating loans for next year would not be happening. Some might say this is business as usual but consider this: the 2025 crop year is projected to be worse than 2024 by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri, USDA, and our own recent projections for our representative farms.
Without getting into doomsday scenarios, I just ask the reader to consider the question that I keep getting asked: why should we continue to risk our financial health and continue to see our net worth evaporate when Congress can’t get their act together enough to pass much needed disaster/economic assistance that will help in the short-term or a new farm bill for the longer term? My answer to that question is one of hope more than fact, but I am very hopeful that Congress will act decisively and soon.
I’m writing this somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean as I travel home from England. I was there for the last several days at the invitation of the British Embassy in Washington, D.C., along with several U.S. agricultural officials, including Congressional staff and a handful of state secretaries, directors, and commissioners. The purpose was to learn about the agricultural industry in one of the most beautiful and storied countries on the planet, but it also provided a good opportunity to compare with current events unfolding at home. Not surprisingly, farmers and ranchers in both countries face a lot of the same challenges: enduring erratic weather; striking the right balance between conserving resources and growing food; and navigating unpredictable politics, just to name a few.
With respect to the latter, both countries have recently gone through elections. This past summer in the general election in the U.K., the opposition Labour Party led by Keir Starmer – now Prime Minister – defeated the governing Conservative Party. The new government recently introduced a new inheritance tax proposal. While there are far more details (and nuance) than I have space to discuss today, the proposed changes will impose an inheritance tax of 20% on business and agricultural assets beyond £1 million (roughly $1.26 million at today’s exchange rates) beginning in April 2026. Much like in the United States, growth in land values and equipment costs have resulted in a situation where farms have significant net worth – at least on paper – but little liquidity. In other words, producers have little ability to pay huge tax burdens when an operation is passed along to an heir. Proponents of the proposal will argue that any transfers to individuals more than seven years before death will continue to fall outside the scope of the new inheritance tax. However, producers will counter that death doesn’t respect the timeframes set by the government, and they will argue that the proposal stands to destroy the heritage their families have built – to say nothing of the eventual impact on food security. On Tuesday of this week, British farmers and ranchers descended on London to protest the new government’s proposal.
While England is a long way from the United States, it’s not all that different from here. Throughout our own election season this Fall – and as part of the debate about how to pay for the now-defunct Build Back Better Act – a number of proposals were discussed to significantly change the taxation of unrealized capital gains and estate taxes in the United States. In June 2021, at the request of Rep. GT Thompson (R-PA) and Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), our team at the Agricultural and Food Policy Center (AFPC) authored a report that estimated the impact of two of these proposals, the Sensible Taxation and Equity Promotion Act and the For the 99.5 Percent Act. At the time, our analysis showed that a generational transfer under the two bills would impact 92 of AFPC’s 94 representative farms (increasing the average tax liability by $726,000 per farm) and 41 of 94 representative farms (increasing the average tax liability of $2.2 million per farm), respectively.
While our election results this Fall very likely mean that agricultural producers in the United States won’t face a near-term change in the treatment of unrealized capital gains and estate taxes, the events unfolding “across the pond” are a very clear reminder that elections have consequences…and that policies (well-intentioned or not) often have unintended consequences.
