Blog

  • Observations on the Cattle Report in the South

    Observations on the Cattle Report in the South

    Plenty has been written on USDA’s Cattle inventory report released on January 31st.  In today’s writeup we are going to focus on some observations by a few of our Southern Ag Today livestock economists from around the South.

    Andrew Griffith, University of Tennessee.  Despite the bullishness of the cattle inventory report, beef cattle herd expansion will not be able to begin until the fall calf crop is ready to hit the ground, and it will only start if ample supplies of hay are harvested in 2023 and fall grazing looks promising. This means most of the heifers in the 2022 calf crop will be entering feedlots. It will be the 2023 calf crop where there is opportunity for heifers to be retained for beef cow replacements. The issue with the 2023 calf crop is that it will likely be 900,000 head smaller than the 2022 calf crop, which means 450,000 fewer heifers to choose from. The majority of the room for expansion will be in the Plains from Texas to Nebraska and the Mid-South (i.e. Kentucky, Tennessee).

    Kenny Burdine, University of Kentucky.  The Kentucky beef cow herd was estimated to be down by 7% year-over-year. I have to go back to 1967 to find a beef cow inventory that small for the Commonwealth – over 50 years!  After many years of decreasing dairy cow inventory, Kentucky saw an increase in dairy cow numbers during 2022. This is significant and may speak to a reversal of that long-run trend.

    On a little less Kentucky oriented note, monthly on-feed numbers finally moved below year-ago levels this fall. The 4% decrease from 2022 levels in this report really speaks to lower 2023 beef production. This will be our first year-over-year decrease in beef production since 2015. Last year was not a good year for wheat grazing in the Southern Plains due to dry weather and high wheat prices. The fact that the January 2023 Inventory report showed an additional 5% decrease in the number of cattle grazing on small grains in that region is significant. Winter wheat grazing represents a significant opportunity for spring born calves that move through markets in late fall / early winter and Southern calf markets feel these impacts when winter grazing demand is not there.

    Max Runge and Ken Kelley, Auburn University.  Alabama’s beef cow herd for January 1, 2023 was virtually unchanged from the inventory of January 2022. There was a one percent increase for beef cows that have calved, but when combined with a smaller number of heifers over 500 lbs. held as beef replacement heifers and a smaller number of milk cows that have calved (-33% YOY), the difference in reproductive females only equates to a 5,000 head increase in 2023- or less than 1%. The number of steers and bull over 500 lbs. remained the same with the only difference being the percentage of steers versus bulls. In 2022, there were 4,000 more steers than bulls but in 2023, bulls totaled 4,000 head more than steers. Calves less than 500 lbs., totaled 10,000 more in 2023. Overall, the beef cattle numbers were less than ½ percent less in 2023.

    David Anderson, Texas A&M University.  The number of beef cows in Texas declined by 125,000 head or, 2.8 percent, to 4.3 million head.  That was the fewest since 2016.  It is interesting to note that USDA revised the 2022 beef cow numbers down 50,000 head.  That decline might have been a little smaller than expected given the large increase in beef cow slaughter in the region which includes Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana.  Those states saw a 325,000 head decline in beef cow inventory, closer to in line with the increase in the regional beef cow slaughter data.  Heifers held for beef cow replacement were down 9.9 percent, well more than the beef cows.  The ratio of heifers to beef cows is consistent with a cow herd continuing to decline.  Also of note is the Texas dairy herd.  Dairy cows increased another 25,000 head to 650,000 head, the most since 1959 and speaks to the continued rapid growth in the Texas Panhandle.  The growth in beef on dairy breeding will continue to expand a steady new supply of feeder cattle to High Plains feeders.

    University of Kentucky Ag Logo

  • Do Corn and Soybean Harvest Futures Rise or Fall During the February Projected Crop Insurance Price Determination Period?

    Do Corn and Soybean Harvest Futures Rise or Fall During the February Projected Crop Insurance Price Determination Period?

    For corn and soybean producers, activity in futures markets in February is very important. For many producers, projected crop insurance prices and volatility factors are determined from February 1-28. The projected price will set revenue guarantees and potentially affect planting decisions. At the start of February 2023, December 2023 corn futures ($5.94) were slightly above last year’s projected crop insurance price of $5.90 per bushel and November 2023 soybean futures ($13.65) were well below last year’s futures price of $14.40. The direction of prices from now until the end of February will be key for producers when examining risk management and marketing strategies for the 2023 crop.

    Every year, during winter producer meetings, when discussions turn to risk management and marketing strategies, someone inevitably states that December corn and November soybean futures tend to fall during the projected crop insurance price determination period (February 1-February 28, in Tennessee and numerous other Mid-South states). This statement usually coincides with the assertion that external forces (government and/or global grain companies) are moving markets to reduce premium expense or foster utilization of other price risk management tools to boost profits. 

    Does a simple analysis support this? No. From 2010 to 2022, the data does not back this claim (Figures 1 and 2). Instead, the data shows prices follow the month-over-month price trend. For example, December corn average monthly prices from December to April declined in 2010, 2013, 2015, 2019, and 2020. For 2011, 2014, 2018, 2021, and 2022, December corn futures prices increased. The remaining years 2012, 2016, and 2017, showed no trend and moved mostly sideways over the five-month interval. For the November soybean contract, average monthly prices from December to April declined in 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2020. For 2011, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2021, and 2022, November futures contract price increased. The remaining year, 2010, had no trend and moved mostly sideways over the five-month interval.

    What does this mean for the 2023 crop insurance price determination period? Not much. This is a backward-looking metric; the trend is not revealed until the trend has occurred. However, a small month-over-month average decline occurred between December and January for both corn and soybean harvest futures. The final projected crop insurance prices for corn and soybeans will be important to producer marketing and risk management decisions moving forward.

    Figure 1. Monthly average December corn futures prices from December to April, 2010-2023

    Figure 2. Monthly average November soybean futures prices from December to April, 2010-2023

    References

    Barchart.com. December Corn and November Soybean Historical Daily Closing Prices. Accessed at: https://www.barchart.com/futures/quotes/ZCZ23/historical-download and https://www.barchart.com/futures/quotes/ZSX23/historical-download

    USDA – Risk Management Agency (RMA). Price Discovery. https://prodwebnlb.rma.usda.gov/apps/pricediscovery

    Author: S. Aaron Smith

    Associate Professor, Crop Marketing Specialist

    University of Tennessee


    Smith, S. Aaron. “Do Corn and Soybean Harvest Futures Rise or Fall During the February Projected Crop Insurance Price Determination Period?Southern Ag Today 3(6.1). February 6, 2023. Permalink

  • Curiosity to Cash: Successful Web Marketing

    Curiosity to Cash: Successful Web Marketing

    Too many agribusiness owners struggle to convert website visits into sales. The first step is to answer three critical questions in less than ten seconds with the content in the header section of your website. 

    To demonstrate the use of these three questions, we reviewed the Palo Blanco Farms website and gave them suggestions for their website. 

    What Do You Offer?

    Palo Blanco Farms first noted that they sold healthy and sustainable food in the header section of their website, which was vague. We learned that they earn 70% of their revenue from selling organic microgreens, so this main product should be featured in the header. Also, we suggested they add details about what microgreens are. Microgreens are a nutritious and natural way to add veggies to your diet. These details tell their customers what they are selling. 

    Why Do I Want It?

    Palo Blanco Farms could state that microgreens are a healthier, safer alternative to nutritional supplements. They could also explain that consuming microgreens brings health benefits from essential vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants. 

    How Do I Get It?

    The primary call to action is to buy now. We suggested: (1) Buy the product; (2) Receive the Greens; and (3) Live Well, Be Healthy. Since Palo Blanco focuses primarily on subscription deliveries in Laredo, we suggested they design a buy-now experience that minimizes clicks – as Amazon does. 

    Want to learn more about how you can convert more of your website visitors into sales? Visit http://brickstoclicks.extension.msstate.edu/ to watch the free Website Mini-Masterclass video series or enroll now in the Master Your Marketing course coming in April 2023. 

    Data from GallupOECD, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Image from https://www.paloblancofarmandranch.com/.


    Barnes, James and Rebekka Dudensing. “Curiosity to Cash: Successful Web Marketing.Southern Ag Today 3(5.5). February 3, 2023. Permalink

  • What Do Producers Want/Need in a Safety Net?

    What Do Producers Want/Need in a Safety Net?

    During Extension and commodity group meetings this winter, we have been asked over and over what will be in the next farm bill.  After answering with “it depends” – based on money and interest in bi-partisanship on Capitol Hill – we then go on to give our thoughts on what we think will be in the next farm bill.  At that point, the audience is generally happy…and ready to see if they won a door prize…until we ask them the question: what is it that you want or need in the next farm bill?

    The expressions on the audiences’ faces generally remind us of the pained looks on the faces of the kids in the Scripts National Spelling Bee competition.  Google it…it’s intense.  After some reflection, below is a summary of what we tend to hear.

    There is just so much more risk in farming now than there has been in the past.  Producers need as much help defraying as much of the risk as they can get.  Title I programs like ARC and PLC have not helped much at all during the current run up in most input costs.  Neither are triggering since market prices are too high to generate payments (despite the fact that those market prices are still not high enough to cover costs in some cases).  Overall, there is a lot of interest in raising the reference prices that are used in both the ARC and PLC payment calculations.

    On the other hand, producers almost universally acknowledge that crop insurance has provided significant protection as the revenue guarantees have risen along with market prices (since they are based on futures prices for most covered commodities).  Additionally, there are a wide variety of products for producers to choose from to tailor their coverage to their operations such as different coverage types (yield or revenue) across different units (basic, optional or enterprise).  Producers can also purchase supplemental, area-wide coverage such as the Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX), the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO), or the Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO).   Some producers will say that the cost of the supplemental policies (and the complicated array of choices) makes them less attractive options.  At the same time, producers are not looking forward to sustained price declines (that everyone knows are coming eventually) that will lower price guarantees and reduce the effectiveness of insurance as a safety net – especially if production costs have not declined. 

    A few producers will say that the safety net needs to be bankable – a term that generally refers to lenders allowing prospective safety net payments to be added to loan packages which would aid in showing their operating loan request is viable.  While the ad hoc assistance over the last several years has been vital – particularly against the backdrop of Title 1 providing less support – that assistance arrives long after the disaster has come and gone.  If and when the markets begin to fall, bankability of the safety net will be even more important. 

    Overall, producers are quick to point out how much they appreciate the safety net support they receive; however, some are looking for Congress to be innovative in providing programs that are bankable and more aligned with the amount of risk exposure modern farms have today.


    Outlaw, Joe and Bart Fischer. “What Do Producers Want/Need in a Safety Net?Southern Ag Today 3(5.4). February 2, 2023. Permalink

  • Bankruptcy as an Option to Relieve Financial Distress

    Bankruptcy as an Option to Relieve Financial Distress

    Bankruptcy is a legal process that allows those (a person or a business) that cannot currently pay back their debts or are struggling to pay back current debts to develop a plan that relieves the financial burden of those debts.  The person or business unable to pay back debts is known as a debtor.  This process allows the debtor to work out a process to repay outstanding debts to creditors and will eventually let the debtor make a fresh start.  Although it provides a fresh start, the bankruptcy filing may stay on the debtor’s credit report for several years and may limit the ability to borrow money.

                Bankruptcy falls under federal law, and types of bankruptcies are often referred to by their chapters in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  The main types of bankruptcy would be Chapter 7, Chapter 11, Chapter 13, and Chapter 12.  Chapter 7 is the most common form of bankruptcy and allows a debtor to liquidate all assets but those exempt from bankruptcy to pay off creditors.  Chapter 13 is another form of bankruptcy used by debtors with reliable income sources and some exempt assets.  Chapter 13 allows the debtor to reorganize, keep assets, and dedicate a portion of their income (usually 3 to 5 years) to pay off debts.  Chapter 11 is available to all U.S. businesses, allowing a debtor to remain in control of the business as a debtor in possession and reorganize the business to pay back debts.  Chapter 12 is a bankruptcy provision for qualifying family farming and fishing operations.  

    Chapter 12 is designed to allow agricultural operations to reorganize in ways that the other Chapters do not allow.  Current qualifications include:

    • Being engaged in a farming operation or commercial fishing operation.
    • Having total debt less than $11,097,350 for a family farm or $2,268,550 for a family fishing operation.
    • Total farm related debts of at least 50% or fishing related debts of at least 80% of all filer debt.
    • More than 50% of the filer’s gross income originates from the farm or fishing operation.

    Future posts will explore how Chapter 12 enables agricultural operations to reorganize and continue operating.


    This work is supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) program, grant no. 2022-67023-36112/project accession no. 1028056, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

    Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.

    Author: Paul Goeringer

    Senior Faculty Specialist, University of Maryland

    Author: William Secor

    Assistant Professor, University of Georgia

    Author: Adam Rabinowitz

    Assistant Professor & Extension Specialist, Auburn University


    Goeringer, Paul, William Secor, and Adam Rabinowitz. “Bankruptcy as an Option to Relieve Financial Distress.Southern Ag Today 3(5.3). February 1, 2023. Permalink