Blog

  • The Perfect Fertilizer Storm

    The Perfect Fertilizer Storm

    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

    Source: AFPC Briefing Paper 22-01, 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. The phosphorous price is specifically for diammonium phosphate (DAP).

    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.  


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

  • Seasonal Price Indices for Cull Livestock

    Seasonal Price Indices for Cull Livestock

    The thought of marketing cull livestock is generally not at the top of mind for most livestock producers. However, it is an important decision from both a marketing and management standpoint. More specifically, most livestock producers are entering a period in which cull livestock prices tend to be increasing for cattle and hogs or they will be drastically decreasing for small ruminants. Thus, these seasonal price tendencies can be extremely useful when making marketing and management decisions.

    Utility cow prices typically experience their largest price increase in February with prices for this class of animal peeking in May or June. Selling cows at the highest price point in the year may or may not be the best decision, but there is a nice marketing window for this class of animal from February through June. Hog producers generally experience a similar seasonal pattern for slaughter sows. The price of slaughter sows will increase from February through the summer months with a nice marketing window between April and August.

    From the small ruminant standpoint, slaughter ewe and doe prices are typically at their peak in January and begin to decline in February. Prices then tend to decline through most of the year. Thus, sheep and goat producers may want to consider marketing cull ewes and does in the near term to capitalize on their current value.


    Recommended citation format: Griffith, Andrew P. “Seasonal Price Indices for Cull Livestock.” Southern Ag Today 2(5.2). January 25, 2022. Permalink

  • 2022 Price Outlook for Hard Red Winter and Soft Red Winter Wheat

    2022 Price Outlook for Hard Red Winter and Soft Red Winter Wheat

    In the last 2-1/2 years, wheat futures prices have doubled, from just over $4.00 per bushel in June 2019 to over $8.50 per bushel this past November. This has occurred in both the hard red winter wheat (Kansas City contract) and soft red winter wheat (Chicago contract) markets.  But over most of this period, hard red winter wheat, which normally trades at a premium to soft red winter wheat, traded at a discount. From January 2006 to December 2018, the average premium for hard red winter wheat to soft red winter wheat was 34 cents. From January 2019 through August 2021, hard red winter wheat traded at an average discount of 53 cents to soft red winter wheat. September 2021 to date, hard red winter wheat is back to an average 16-cent premium to soft red winter wheat.

    Figure 1. Wheat futures prices, Kansas City hard red winter and Chicago soft red winter, Tuesday close, cents per bushel

    The increase in wheat prices generally is associated with tightening world supplies.  Wheat acres globally have increased over the last several years, but the world average yield has declined. Total wheat production is up only 600 million bushels (about two percent) since the 2019/20 marketing year while world domestic use has grown by 1.6 billion bushels (about six percent). World wheat days of use on hand at the end of the marketing year have declined from a 146-day supply to a current estimate for 2021/22 of 130 days.  A decline in this measure of stocks-to-use has put upward pressure on prices.  

    World Wheat2019/20202020/20212021/2022
    Area Harvested, mil ac533546552
    Yield, bu per ac52.652.251.9
    Production, mil bu28,00628,51028,609
    Domestic Use, mil bu27,21828,46228,867
    Ending Stocks, mil bu10,87610,64210,236
    Days of use on hand145.9134.7129.8
    USDA, FAS, PSD, 1/12/2022

    Hard red winter wheat is the dominant class grown in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas with soft red winter wheat the most common class east of a line from Dallas to Kansas City. While the price of both classes of wheat are higher in the current global environment, there are important differentials in stocks-to-use by class which may help explain the premiums and discounts between these markets. 

    U.S. Wheat Associates, Planted Area, by Class, 2013-2019 http://maps.heartlandgis.com/storymaps/uswheatassociates/uswheatsupplychain/

    As with the global wheat situation, the stocks-to-use ratio for both hard and soft winter wheat have been on the decline in the U.S. the last several years. However, the decline in the stocks-to-use ratio for soft red has been sharper relative to the decline in the stocks-to-use ratio for hard red. 

    U.S. Wheat by Class: Days of Use on Hand at the End of the Marketing Year

    USDA, WASDE, January 2022

    In the 2017/18 marketing year, days of use for soft red was 34 less than hard red winter. By 2020/21, soft red days on hand were 103 less than for hard red—the soft wheat supply got tighter relative to hard wheat.  The hard red winter wheat premium declined from +8 cents to a 74-cent discount.  That situation appears to be reversing in the 2021/22 marketing year. The stocks-to-use ratio for soft red winter wheat has declined at a slower rate compared to hard red winter wheat and days on hand are back to a 54-day differential—soft winter wheat supplies are more plentiful relative to hard red winter wheat.  The price relationship to date this marketing year has hard red winter back on par with soft wheat. The latest weekly price shows a premium for hard red of 22 cents.  

    SRWW days of use on hand minus HRWW days of use on hand and the HRWW price premium

    USDA, Wheat Data and WASDE, Updated 1/13/2022

    With the U.S. only accounting for about six percent of world wheat production, supply and demand dynamics globally will largely influence the price of wheat overall.  But important distinctions in supply and use levels by wheat class can be important in local markets. For the time being, the fundamental (supply and demand) and price relationship between hard red winter and soft red winter wheat appears to be moving back toward long-term norms.    


    Recommended citation format: Welch, Mark. “2022 Price Outlook for Hard Red Winter and Soft Red Winter Wheat.” Southern Ag Today 2(5.1). January 24, 2022. Permalink

  • Local Vetrepreneurs Contribute to Rural Communities

    Local Vetrepreneurs Contribute to Rural Communities

    According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (2019), military veterans are disproportionately likely to live in rural areas, where they comprise 8.8% of the population compared to only 6.4% in urban areas. These veterans are disproportionately likely to be entrepreneurs. While 6.9% of the general population identifies as a military veteran, over 10% of entrepreneurs identify as military veterans. According to the Annual Business Survey (2019), veteran-owned firms make up about 5.9% of all businesses with 3.9 million employees and $177.7 billion in annual payroll. Of these 331,151 veteran-owned firms, 8.96% (29,671) are in retail trade.

    How does shopping at small, veteran-owned retail trade firms benefit the local economy?  First, in the last Community Development article, Dr. Rebekka Dudensing highlighted the value of shopping local, with every $1 spent at a small business generating $1.17 in the local economy. Second, research shows that locally oriented (rural) retail establishments are associated with other pieces of a vibrant local economy, such as small manufacturing establishments, civic associations, places to gather (“third places”), social capital, and civic engagement.

    Nationally, we find from the 2020 Annual Business Survey that 81% of veteran-owned retail trade firms employ between 1 and 19 employees. These veteran-owned firms also have a higher per-employee income, putting your dollars back into local households.


    Recommended citation format: Carpenter, Craig, and Michael Lotspeich-Yadao. “Local Vetrepreneurs Contribute to Rural Communities.” Southern Ag Today 2(4.5). January 21, 2022. Permalink

     

  • ARC-IC Considerations for 2022 Farm Program Elections

    ARC-IC Considerations for 2022 Farm Program Elections

    The farm program election deadline for 2022 is March 15th, and producers have the option to enroll commodities in Price Loss Coverage (PLC) or Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC).  PLC protects against declines in prices, and ARC protects against revenue losses at the county level (ARC-CO) or individual farm level (ARC-IC).  Among Southern producers, ARC-IC has not been popular in previous program elections, accounting for less than 1 percent of farm signups.  However, for the 2022 crop year, producers are making their farm program decisions at a time with relatively high commodity prices.  In this situation, it is unlikely that PLC will provide much support, and only alternatives that include yield losses will likely trigger support (ARC-CO and ARC-IC).  This begs the question of whether producers should consider ARC-IC for 2022.  ARC-IC differs from ARC-CO in the following ways: 

    1. The ARC-IC benchmark revenue is determined by a producer’s individual farm yields rather than county average yields. 
    2. ARC-IC election is made by Farm Service Number (FSN) rather than by commodity, i.e., if ARC-IC is selected for a FSN, then all commodities on that FSN are enrolled in ARC-IC.  If multiple FSNs are enrolled in ARC-IC, they will be treated as one “ARC-IC Farm.” 
    3. An ARC-IC payment is made on 65% of base acres rather than 85% for ARC-CO.
    4. Coverage applies to commodities with planted acres rather than base acres, i.e., if a producer has seed cotton base but plants corn in 2022, the ARC-IC benchmark revenue will be determined by corn prices and yields. 

    In addition to the ARC-CO/PLC decision tool, Texas A&M University offers a spreadsheet calculator for producers considering ARC-IC available at www.afpc.tamu.edu.  For the ARC-IC calculator, producers will need the information in Table 1.  Producers can utilize the calculator to compare potential ARC-IC payments with different combinations of FSNs and different price and yield expectations. 

    Table 1. ARC-IC Calculator Inputs


    Recommended citation format: Graff, Natalie, and Joe Outlaw. “ARC-IC Considerations for 2022 Farm Program Elections“. Southern Ag Today 2(4.4). January 20, 2022. Permalink