Southern Ag Today

Blog

Dairy Margin Coverage Program Begins 2023 with Payment

Last summer, I wrote a Southern Ag Today article about the strength of dairy prices. After a great deal of volatility during 2020 and 2021, prices for cheese, butter, and nonfat dry milk pushed farm level milk prices beyond what was seen in 2014. The US All Milk price actually exceeded $27 per cwt last April and May and just missed that level in June. Increases in feed cost definitely bit into those price levels, but margins were as attractive as they had been in several years. Since that time, milk price has fallen by about $4 per cwt. Feed costs have also decreased, but not by as much proportionally. The figure below shows both US All Milk Price and Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) feed costs since January of 2014. (Note: Dairy-DMC did not exist for this entire time period, but the chart was intended to give historical perspective).

US All Milk Price and DMC Feed Cost

January 2014 to January 2023, $ per cwt

Source: USDA-NASS, USDA-FSA

The last data point in the chart above is for January of 2023 and that is where I want to focus this discussion. Dairy margins have shifted in recent months such that the DMC margin for January of this year was $7.94, so payments will be made at the $9.50 coverage level. This is the highest level of coverage available to producers covering up to 5 million pounds of annual milk production history. This means that a payment of $1.56 will be made on one-twelfth of the year’s covered production. The January payment alone will cover over 80% of the total premium cost for 2023 and coverage is still in place for the remaining 11 months for which margins are not yet known.

The figure below shows the DMC Margin from January 2014 to January 2023. This is just the difference in the two series shown in the previous graph and tells the story very well. One can see the $2.96 decrease in margin from November of 2022 to January 2023 as well as the overall volatility in milk price over DMC feed costs had the program been in existence since 2014. Had DMC been around in 2009 and 2012, the margin would have been below $4 at times.

DMC is similar to many other risk management tools in that producers are typically better off if they don’t receive payments from it. Ideally, market conditions are such that the difference between milk price and feed costs allow for acceptable returns. But in times when that is not the case, DMC can provide solid risk protection. Dairy producers should consider all risk management opportunities available to them including Dairy Revenue Protection, Livestock Gross Margin for Dairy, forward contracts, futures and options. But because DMC is a relatively inexpensive form of margin protection on coverage up to 5 million lbs of production history, I typically view it as the first layer of risk protection in a dairy farm’s risk management plan.

DMC Margin – US All Milk Price Minus DMC Feed Cost

January 2014 to January 2023, $ per cwt

Source: USDA-NASS, USDA-FSA, author calculations

Burdine, Kenny. “Dairy Margin Coverage Program Begins 2023 with Payment.” Southern Ag Today 3(11.2). March 14, 2023. Permalink

March 14, 2023
The Soybean to Corn Price Ratio as a Guide to Farmers’ Planting Decisions

A key factor in the development of a new crop price forecast is how many acres farmers plant of each crop.  USDA surveys farmers each year and reports early season acreage intentions in the Prospective Plantings report, released at the end of March. Then at the end of June, the Acreage report from USDA details the area of each major crop planted.  Since 2006, U.S. farmers have planted about 244 million acres to corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, sorghum, and rice.  Corn and soybeans account for the largest crop areas planted, reaching 181 million acres combined in 2021 (Figure 1).

Figure 1. U.S. Planted Acres

USDA, Acerage, June 30, 2022

From an economic standpoint, relative crop profitability is an important driver of planting decisions. One indicator of that profitability is the relative price of one 3.11commodity to another.^[1] Given the large area impacted and the typical rotation between these two crops, the soybean-to-corn price ratio is widely watched as providing insight into what farmers ultimately plant each spring.

An aspect of how the price relationship between soybeans and corn impacts planting decisions can be seen in the relationship of the soybean-to-corn price ratio and the number of corn acres planted in excess of soybeans each year.  In general, when the price ratio of Risk Management Agency (RMA) soybean-to-corn projected prices, calculated each February^[2] is relatively low, corn acres increase at the expense of soybeans. At high ratios, soybean acres increase relative to corn (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Corn Acres Minus Soybean Acres and RMA’s Soybean-to-Corn Projected Price Ratio

Updated 2/16/2023, USDA, RMS

The average price ratio from 2006 to 2022 is 2.36 and the average number of corn acres over soybean acres is 10 million.  At the extreme, in 2007 the soybean-to-corn projected price ratio was 1.99 and farmers planted 93.5 million acres of corn and 64.7 million acres of soybeans, a difference of 28.8 million acres (Figure 2). When the price ratio has been at its highest, 2.57 to 2.59, we have seen plantings of corn and soybeans about equal (2017 and 2018). But the price ratio at this level is also associated with 6 million more acres of corn than soybeans in 2021.  Corn acres relative to soybean acres were much smaller than expected in 2022, a difference of only 1.1 million acres despite a price ratio of 2.43.  It is likely that risks associated with high fertilizer prices and product availability had an impact on farmers’ planting decisions last year given higher fertilizer requirements for corn compared to soybeans.

The RMA soybean to corn base price ratio for 2023 is 2.33 ($13.76 soybeans, $5.91 corn). If the total planted area remains constant, that suggests an increase in corn acres and a decrease in soybean acres in 2023 compared to 2022.  In other years when the price ratio rounded to 2.3 (2010, 2013, 2015, and 2016), the range of corn acres over soybeans were 5.3 million to 15.6 million.  If corn and soybean acres again total about 180 million, the low estimate of corn acres for 2023 would be 92.7 million acres and the high estimate of soybean acres 87.4 million acres.

Of course, other factors besides relative prices matter when farmers make their planting decisions. Among these are crop rotations that boost productivity and input efficiency, input costs, and of course, weather. And in the South, cotton is a major non-grain competing crop enterprise whose price and profitability are not part of this analysis.   But, the price ratio between major crops may provide a key piece of information in forming expectations of what upcoming acreage reports may reveal.

^[1] For more on relative price relationships between commodities, see Rabinowitz, Adam. “The Peanut-Cotton Price Relationship.” Southern Ag Today 3(2.1). January 9, 2023.

^[2] RMA Price Discovery, base prices for 2023, conventional practices with a March 15 sales closing date, RMA Price Discovery – Home (usda.gov).

Welch, Mark. “The Soybean to Corn Price Ratio as a Guide to Farmers’ Planting Decisions.” Southern Ag Today 3(11.1). March 13, 2023. Permalink

March 13, 2023
The Economic Value of Agricultural Cooperatives

Agricultural cooperatives are an important part of the U.S. agricultural industry. In 2020, the USDA counted 1,744 farmer owned cooperatives with 9,500 locations, $200B in sales, $8.4B in net income and 1.8M members (USDA, 2021).  Earlier USDA studies indicated that agricultural supply and marketing cooperatives contributed to slightly over 38% of total farm output, (USDA 2004, 2006).  Despite their prevalence, many producers do not understand the cooperative business model.  That is unfortunate because it may prevent them from understanding the economic value of existing cooperatives or considering the formation of new cooperatives to improve their farm profitability.

Cooperatives can add value at the farm level as well as at the cooperative level.  That is a result of the cooperative having transactions with and providing service to its member-owners.  In some cases, the existence of the cooperative allows producers to grow a more profitable crop.  For example, in the cotton producing regions of Oklahoma, OSU crop enterprise budgets have consistently shown a $100/acre profit advantage for cotton relative to alternative crops (Kenkel, 2021).  This would not be possible without a cotton gin. Further, a producer-owned cooperative may maintain locations that investor-owned agribusinesses might abandon, or offer services or product lines that would otherwise not be available.  Cooperatives can also create farm level benefit through favorable prices.  The common thread of all these benefits is that they are not reflected on the cooperative’s financial statements and the portion of farm profits attributable to the cooperative is not readily observable.

However, some benefits of a cooperative are more easily observable.  Most agricultural cooperatives distribute profits to members in a combination of cash and equity (that is still redeemed for cash at a later date).  A classic assessment of the return on investment in a cooperative compares the discounted value of member cash flows to value of the member equity (Reynolds, 2013).  Bear in mind that an individual member’s return on equity is unique in that both the cash return and the equity holdings were a result of the amount of business they did with the cooperative. Thus, there was no out of pocket investment.

The revolving equity in a cooperative is, in essence, profits that are distributed to the member but temporarily lent back to the cooperative to fund investment.  Revolving equity creates value by funding infrastructure investments that can enhance existing activities or create new value through market access, risk reduction or new services. In this way, revolving cooperative equity benefits existing members by enhancing future profits, and supports future generations of producers by ensuring the perpetuation of the business.

Perhaps most importantly, cooperatives play a role in keeping markets competitive.  Many U.S. agricultural cooperatives were formed in the New Deal era to offset the market power of monopolists who threatened farmer welfare (Hogeland, 2006).  The existence of these cooperatives kept other firms “honest” or realistic in prices and services.  This aspect of the cooperative value package has often been termed “the invisible benefit of cooperatives”.  Because it is unobservable, the value of a cooperative’s existence is often only appreciated when it is dissolved or exits a market area.

While a common feature in agricultural industries, the cooperative value equation is quite complex.  Cooperative members can benefit at the farm level and from cooperative level patronage distributions.  Cash patronage distributions provide an immediate benefit while equity patronage distributions allow members to build ownership with no out-of-pocket investment.  In turn, that equity funds infrastructure thereby creating future value. By its very existence, the cooperative is likely improving market access and maintaining competitive market prices.

When should a producer patronize a cooperative?  When it makes economic sense!  In making that assessment it is important to realize that some of the economic benefits are subtle and long-term.  Like any business, we should not assume that cooperatives will be there if we do not support them.

References

Hogeland, J. (2006) “The Economic Culture of U.S. Agricultural Cooperative” Culture and Change, Vol. 28 No.2 Fall 2006.

Kenkel, P 2021. “Economic Impact of Oklahoma’s Cotton Cooperatives” Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics Staff Paper AE#2021-1 July 2021

Reynolds, A. (2013) “Determining the Value of the Cooperative Business Model: An Introduction” white paper, CHS Center for Cooperative Growth

USDA, (2004), “Farmer Cooperative Statistics 2002” Service Report 592, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Washington, D.C.: Rural Development, USDA. United States Department of Agriculture

USDA. (2006). “2002 Census of Agriculture”. Washington, D.C.: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

USDA, (2021) ”Agricultural Cooperative Statistics Summary, 2020” USDA Rural Developmet, Rural Business-Cooperative services,

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDARD/bulletins/300bab5

Kenkel, Phil. “The Economic Value of Agricultural Cooperatives.” Southern Ag Today 3(10.5). March 10, 2023.

Photo by Jonathan Borba: https://www.pexels.com/photo/girl-and-elderly-man-picking-strawberries-15672380/

March 10, 2023
U.S. Wood Pellet Exports Continue to Reach Record Levels

Woody biomass now accounts for a major share of renewable energy in the European Union (EU) and United Kingdom (UK) due to recent climate and renewable energy policies. Imports of wood pellets – often used in converted coal fueled power plants – in the EU and UK have reached record levels, with imports mostly coming from the southeastern region of the U.S. Consequently, wood pellets are now the leading forest-product export for the U.S., surpassing oak lumber, pine lumber, and other major exports (USDA, 2023). This article is not about the efficacy of European climate policy or the use of woody biomass in reducing carbon emissions. The overall goal of this article is to simply document the phenomenal rise in U.S. wood pellets exports over the last decade, mostly due to demand in the UK and EU, and the potential for increased exports in the future.

Since 2012, U.S. wood pellet exports have increased from $258 million to $1.5 billion, which is an increase of 498%. According to USDA (2023), Louisiana, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Florida have been leading states. Figure 1 shows U.S. wood pellet exports (in million metric tons [MT]) from 2012-2022 by destination (UK, EU, and Rest of World). Note that the UK has accounted for the major share of the overall rise in exports since 2012, while the EU has accounted for the major share of growth in more recent years (2021 and 2022). Since 2012, U.S. wood pellets exports have increased from 1.9 million MT (35% shipped to the UK and 57% shipped to the EU) to nearly 9.0 million MT by 2022 (59% shipped to the UK and 31% shipped to the EU). During this period, the UK accounted for as much as 90% of total U.S. exports (see 2016). The demand for wood pellets in Europe has significantly outpaced domestic production over the past ten years. This has resulted in increased imports from mainly the U.S., Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, wood pellet imports from Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine have been significantly impacted (Flach and Bolla, 2022), which likely explains the recent increase in U.S. exports to the EU and the increase in export prices from an average of $124/MT (2012-2020) to well over $150/MT in 2021 and 2022 (USDA, 2023).

Figure 1. U.S. wood pellet exports by destination: 2012-2022

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Global Agricultural Trade System

References

USDA (2023) Global Agricultural Trade System. Foreign Agricultural Service. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx

Flach, B., and S. Bolla (2022) EU Wood Pellet Annual. Report Number: E42022-0049. USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service.

Muhammad, Andrew. “U.S. Wood Pellets Exports Continue to Reach Record Levels.” Southern Ag Today 3(10.4). March 9, 2023. Permalink

March 9, 2023
Do I need to pay the Net Income Tax on my timber income?

The short answer is: It depends. The slightly longer answer is that it is determined by the classification of your timber holding, the way to sell the timber, and your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) for the year.

What is the Net Investment Income tax?

NIIT, also known as the Medicare surtax, is an additional tax applicable to high-income individuals, estates, and trusts with significant investment income. More specifically, it is a 3.8% tax on the lesser of: (1) net investment income or (2) the excess of MAGI over a threshold ($250,000 for married filing jointly and $200,000 for single taxpayers). The tax went into effect in 2013.

Generally, net investment income includes: (1) interest, dividends, capital gains, annuities, royalties, and rents not derived in a trade or business; and (2) income from businesses that are passive activities to the taxpayer. Wages, unemployment compensation, operating income from a nonpassive business, Social Security benefits, tax-exempt interest, and self-employment income are not subject to the NIIT.

Timber income and the NIIT

For federal income tax purposes, your timber activity generally can be classified into one of three categories: 1) for investment; 2) material participation in a trade or business; and 3) passive activity where your participation in a trade or business does not rise to the level of material participation. Due to the level of involvement, most non-industrial private forest landowners fall in the investor category. Farmers with occasional timber sales may treat their timber as property held for sale or use in a business. An example of passive activity is the limited partner in a partnership.

For investors, income on the sale of standing timber is a capital gain. Depending on the holding period, it can be long-term or short-term, but it is usually included in the net investment income for NIIT.

If the standing timber is held in a trade or business for more than one year and sold in a lump-sum or under a pay-as-cut contract, the income generally qualifies for the long-term capital gains tax treatment. Income from the sale of cut timber normally is ordinary unless a 631(a) election is in effect. Under the special election, the income from holding the standing timber is treated as a long-term capital gain, while the portion of the income from selling the cut timber is ordinary income.

If you materially participate in a trade or business, your timber income from the business is not subject to the NIIT, even if it is treated as a long-term capital gain. However, it is subject to the NIIT if your timber activity in a trade or business is passive and your MAGI is over the threshold.

Strategies to manage the NIIT for timber owners

If you can substantiate your timber activity as material participation in your timber business, you can enjoy the long-term capital gains tax treatment of your timber income and won’t have to worry about owing the NIIT on it. However, your timber income may push your MAGI over the threshold and trigger the NIIT on non-timber investment income. Therefore, you may want to manage the timing of your other investment income when you expect to have a significant timber income.

For more information about timber taxation, please see https://www.timbertax.org/publications/fs/taxtips/TaxTip2022.pdf

This publication is for informational and educational purposes, but is not intended as financial, tax, or legal advice.Please consult with your tax advisor concerning your particular tax situation.

Li, Yanshu. “Do I need to pay the Net Investment Income Tax on my timber income?” Southern Ag Today 3(10.3). March 8, 2023. Permalink

March 8, 2023