Blog

  • New Commercial Poultry Breeder Housing Under Economic Stress

    New Commercial Poultry Breeder Housing Under Economic Stress

    While the overall demand for chicken remains strong, a couple of production trends caught my attention last year that have continued into 2023. It seems there could be a new “normal” in the broiler industry – fewer chicks hatched per broiler-breeder hen placed. Breeder hens produce the fertile eggs that will be hatched to produce the broilers that are eventually slaughtered for chicken products. Figure 1 shows roughly a 6% drop from the long-term average in chicks hatched per hen per month. Multiplied across the industry’s breeder farms, that could result in millions fewer chicks per year. This could be caused by any number of factors. Whatever the cause, the industry needs the chicks to keep up with demand for chicken. To offset this loss, figure 2 shows that about 8% more hens are currently in the field than in the past. One could argue that this is the easy solution to make up the difference. However, that solution eventually requires additional breeder housing. That leads to a difficult economic situation for commercial poultry companies and their contract growers. 

    In my last article for SAT, I discussed the increasing cost of broiler housing and its impact on growers’ ability to build new farms or expand existing farms. Breeder growers are facing similar challenges. A typical breeder farm today consists of four to eight 40’ x 500’ houses with enclosed concrete hallways between the houses and cooled egg storage facilities. In addition to the normal environmental control systems, these farms have specialized equipment like nesting boxes, egg conveyors and split feeding / drinking areas for hens and roosters. The structures are also specialized for the task of keeping large hens and roosters comfortable and producing fertile eggs for 40+ weeks. To contend with labor shortages, growers and integrators have had to adopt labor saving equipment for egg collection and crating. All such specialized housing and equipment comes at a premium. Add the general increase in building materials and labor costs over the last few years and the resulting cost of a new four-house breeder farm in the southeast today is $32.50 per square foot or approximately $2.6 million or more. This does not include the cost of the land itself, extensive land prep, or any cost for ancillary equipment. 

    For example, if we assume a USDA Farm Services Agency guaranteed loan that reduces equity requirements down to 10% and include estimated additional costs and fees, a grower will need to borrow approximately $2,795,000 to get a new four house breeder farm up and running on land they already own. The corresponding annual payment (20-year loan, 8% APR) would be approximately $284,677. At an average annual income of $4.60 per square foot for new breeder farms (ref 2), the annual gross revenue would be $368,000. Annual operating expenses have been shown to cost approximately 25% of gross revenue on new breeder farms, or in this case, $92,000 per year. This leads to a shortfall in net revenue of ($8,677) per year for the grower. Integrators have recognized this is an untenable situation for growers and a barrier to obtaining additional breeder housing. In response, some have offered direct cash incentives that lower the effective cost of the new houses while others include additional pay per dozen eggs for new housing. These direct cash incentives must decrease loan amounts and increase net revenue to meet the typical bank requirement of a 1.30 debt service ratio if new loans are to be made. In the scenario depicted in table 1, a cash incentive of $7.00 per square foot combined with a revenue equal to $4.82 per square foot would result in a positive net return, meet debt service requirements, and allow for new farms to be built. It remains to be seen whether such incentives would support enough new housing to overcome what could become a serious challenge for some companies.  

    Figure 1:

    Figure 2.

    Table 1.

    Four New 40′ x 500′ Breeder HousesNo IncentiveIncentive
    Incentive Payment $7.00 per Square Foot$0 $560,000
    New Farm Loan 20-year, 8% APR, 10% Eq.$2,795,000 $2,215,400
    Interest Paid Over Loan Period $2,898,538 $2,297,468 
    Gross Revenue per Square Foot $4.60 $4.82 
    Annual Gross Revenue $368,000 $385,336 
    Annual Loan Payment ($284,677)($225,643)
    Annual Operating Expenses25% of Gross Revenue($92,000)($92,000)
    Annual Net Return($8,677)$41,923 
    Debt Service Ratio0.971.30

    Ref: 

    1. Livestock Marketing Information Center: www.lmic.info
    2. New Farmer’s Guide to the Commercial Broiler Industry: Farm Types & Estimated Business Returns: www.aces.edu/blog/topics/farming/new-farmers-guide-to-the-commercial-broiler-industry-farm-types-estimated-business-returns/

    Brothers, Dennis. “New Commercial Poultry Breeder Housing Under Economic Stress.Southern Ag Today 3(40.2). October 3, 2023. Permalink

  • Corn and Soybean Harvest Futures Contract Price Frequency 

    Corn and Soybean Harvest Futures Contract Price Frequency 

    This article examines the daily closing price frequency for the November soybean and December corn futures contracts from November 1st to contract expiration for soybeans and December 1st to contract expiration for corn for the 2010 to 2023 (to September 22, 2023) crop years. Figures 1 and 2 show the frequency of closing prices by price range (bars) and cumulative price frequency (line). The total number of daily closing prices are 3,600 for soybeans (Figure 1) and 3,629 for corn (Figure 2). Figure 1 shows that 14.0% of the daily closing futures prices for the November soybean contract were between $9.50/bu and $10.00/bu. Figure 2 shows 21.1 % of the daily December corn futures price closings were between $3.75 and $4.00. The November soybean futures daily closing price was below $14.00/bu 92.1% of the time and the December corn futures daily closing price was below $6.00/bu 85.1% of the time over the period considered.

    As of September 22, 2023, the December 2024 corn futures price was $5.07/bu and November 2024 soybean futures price was $12.56/bu. This is down substantially from recent highs, but at the mid to higher price in terms of historical price frequency. Weak US soybean export demand from China paired with record Brazilian soybean production has resulted in relatively lower futures contract prices for 2024. Corn has also had downward price pressure given a 15.13-billion-bushel 2023 U.S. crop, estimated US ending stocks of 2.22 billion bushels, and no indicators for significantly stronger corn demand in 2024.

    So how can these data guide a risk management decision? Consider a simple options fence strategy.  On September 22, an $11.40/bu November 2024 put option could be purchased for 31 ½ cents, and a $14.00/bu November 2024 call option could be sold for 35 ½ cents (net premium gain of 4 cents). This strategy sets a futures market price floor of $11.40/bu by setting a lower fence removing approximately 55% of the historical downside futures price risk at the cost of forgoing 7.9% (i.e., 100% – 92.1%) of the historical upside in futures prices by setting the upper fence (Figure 1).  Similarly, for corn, buying a $4.50/bu December 2024 put option for 16 ½ cents and selling a $6.00/bu December 2024 call option for 15 ½ cents (net premium expense of 1 cent) would set the lower fence at $4.50/bu – removing 55% of the historical downside futures price risk at the cost of forgoing 14.9% (100% – 85.1%) of the historical upside in futures prices due to the upper fence. Producers may want to examine risk management strategies that protect against downside futures market price risk at the cost of some upside potential. 

    Figure 1. November soybean closing futures price frequency, 11/1/09 to 9/15/23.

    *Futures price closes are for the November contract from November 1st to contract expiration for 010 to 2023 (September 22, 2023). 3,600 daily price closes.

    Figure 2. December corn closing futures price frequency, 12/01/09 to 9/15/23. 

    *Futures price closes are for the December contract from December 1st to contract expiration for 2010 to 2023 (September 22, 2023). 3,629 daily price closes.

    References and Resources

    Barchart.com. https://www.barchart.com/futures/grains?viewName=main


    Smith, Aaron. “Corn and Soybean Harvest Futures Contract Price Frequency.” Southern Ag Today 3(40.1). October 2, 2023. Permalink

  • What Does a Government Shutdown Mean for Farmers?

    What Does a Government Shutdown Mean for Farmers?

    As we approach the end of the U.S. government’s (USG) fiscal year, the probability of a government shutdown seems imminent. The USG has until tomorrow (September 30th) to reconcile differences in government spending before they ultimately shut down for an unknown period (Cassella, 2023). The issues arise in Congress where disagreements on government spending based on ideological lines have paralyzed the passing of funding bills needed to keep the government running beyond September 30, 2023. To avoid a government shutdown, Congress has several tools at its disposal, ranging from passing a short-term Continuing Resolution to passing all 12 appropriations bills (e.g., funding allocations for government agencies). Keep in mind that President Biden must also sign whatever Congress passes by the end of day on September 30th (Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 2023). Otherwise, a shutdown is nearly impossible to avoid. Incidentally, the 2018 Farm Bill also expires tomorrow. While we touch on that below, farm bill reauthorization is currently taking a backseat to efforts to fund the government.

    What does a shutdown mean for farmers?

    Besides a shutdown impacting everything from social security, national parks, and air travel, the agricultural sector may also be heavily affected. Namely, the Farm Service Agency (FSA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Rural Development offices are expected to close (Bickelhaupt, 2023). For a producer who participates in government programs, these agencies likely will not hold sign-ups, accept acreage reports, or issue participation payments during this time. While the length of a government shutdown would ultimately determine the overall impact to the farm sector, folks expecting payments for participation and/or wanting to enroll in a new program will likely feel the impacts shortly after the shutdown. 

    What about farm bill expiration?

    Importantly, the prospect of a government shutdown and the expiration of the farm bill are two separate issues – they just happen to be occurring at the same time.  However, the difficulty incurred in avoiding a government shutdown further highlights the challenges Congress faces in reauthorizing the farm bill. For producers, the impact of an expiring farm bill would likely not be felt until early 2024, because the current programs like Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) run through the end of this calendar year (Zimmerman, 2023). If farm bill expiration were to stretch into the New Year, USDA would need to pay out commodity price supports as laid out in the 1938 and 1949 Farm Bills; meaning, the USDA would be forced to purchase commodities such as milk, wheat, and cotton, at “parity prices” that are on par (in terms of purchasing power) with levels in the early 1900s (e.g., $50.70/hundredweight for milk based on May 2023 data). These price supports could mean that the U.S. government would “outbid” commercial markets and ultimately raise the price of retail commodities (Congressional Research Service, 2023). With respect to farm bill expiration alone, government programs such as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and crop insurance would likely not feel the same impacts. SNAP is an appropriated entitlement, and Congress likely would continue funding SNAP via the appropriations process (although we discussed above how that process has unfolded this year) and thus could continue most programs. Crop insurance is permanently authorized and funded by the Federal Crop Insurance Act that does not expire with the 2018 Farm Bill (Congressional Research Service, 2023).   

    References

    Bickelhaupt, H. (2023, September 18). A Government Shutdown Could Impact Farmers. Retrieved September 20, 2023, from https://ilcorn.org/news-and-media/current-news/article/2023/09/a-government-shutdown-could-impact-farmers.

    Cassella, M. (2023, September 19). How a Government Shutdown Could Leave the Fed Flying Blind. Retrieved September 20, 2023, from https://www.barrons.com/articles/government-shutdown-fed-inflation-data-48058234?mod=livecoverage_web.

    Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. (2023, September 5). Government Shutdown Q&A. Retrieved September 21, 2023, from https://www.crfb.org/papers/government-shutdowns-qa-everything-you-should-know#whatservicesaffected.

    Congressional Research Service (2023, August 21). Expiration of the Farm Bill. Retrieved September 20, 2023, from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47659.

    Zimmerman, S. (2023, September 12). How the Looming Government Shutdown is Complicating the Farm Bill. Retrieved September 21, 2023, from https://www.agriculturedive.com/news/farm-bill-budget-government-shutdown-food-prices/693425/.


    Loy, Ryan. “What Does a Government Shutdown Mean for Farmers?Southern Ag Today 3(39.5). September 29, 2023. Permalink

  • EWG Takes the Spotlight in the Silly Season

    EWG Takes the Spotlight in the Silly Season

    As discussed in a May 25, 2023, SAT article “The Silly Season Has Begun… Must Be Farm Bill Time,” every farm bill cycle, we run across a report or research geared toward “informing” farm bill discussions that, while not technically wrong, boy does it leave out something kind of important…hence the term “Silly Season.”  This time the article was written by Scott Faber and Jared Hayes of the Environmental Working Group.  Their September 5, 2023, article entitled “Calls to Increase Crop Reference Prices Would Help Fewer Than 6,000 Farmers” caught our attention.

    The authors analyzed individual producer payment data from their database of FSA payment data obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests to arrive at the following conclusions:

    “Increasing price guarantees for major crops would mostly benefit farmers of peanuts, cotton and rice in Southern states, not corn and soybean farmers, EWG has previously found, which further limits the overall benefit of increasing price guarantees.

    Only 5,630 farmers, mostly located in Southern states, received more than $50,000 in 2021 through the Price Loss Coverage, or PLC, program, according to USDA data, and would get more than a few thousand dollars if price guarantees went up.”  

    For the most part, we have few technical issues with what they said based on what they did. However, there are a number of factors – not discussed – that make their results meaningless.  First, they picked 2021, a year where most commodities in PLC did not trigger a payment.  The black line in Figure 1 intersects the marketing year average price for 2021 for the top 5 commodities in terms of base acreage.  All commodity prices are above their respective reference prices, so…no safety net payments would have been made.  If they had picked a year or two prior to 2021, there would easily have been more than 6,000 producers receiving payments.  Second, rather than try to use payment data to draw a conclusion, it would have been more meaningful to use FSA enrolled base acre data.  Figure 2 provides the FSA enrolled base acres for PLC and ARC county and individual for all 23 covered commodities.  While acreage data doesn’t allow one to say definitively how many farmers would be affected, it is pretty clear that in 2021 there were over 140 million acres of base in the PLC program that, depending upon prices, could have benefitted from higher reference prices. That applies to every single farmer with base acres in the United States.  In fact, every farmer would receive assistance in direct proportion to the amount of acres they have at risk, except for mid-to-large-sized operations that are payment limited. However, that is not likely the headline the authors were looking for…

    Figure 1.  Historical and Projected Prices for Five Major Commodities, 2009 – 2023.

    Source:  USDA NASS and FAPRI, “2023 Baseline Update for U.S. Agricultural Markets” September 5, 2023, available at: https://fapri.missouri.edu/publications/2023-baseline-update/

    Figure 2.  Enrolled Base Acres in PLC and ARC, 2015 to 2023.

    Source:  USDA FSA.  Available at: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/arcplc_program/index

    Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. “EWG Takes the Spotlight in the Silly Season.Southern Ag Today 3(39.4). September 28, 2023. Permalink

  • Which is more profitable for producers, Single-Species or Multi-Species Cover Crops?

    Which is more profitable for producers, Single-Species or Multi-Species Cover Crops?

    Interest among producers in adopting cover crops to enhance soil fertility, mitigate erosion, and manage weeds has been growing. Legumes, which are cover crops capable of fixing nitrogen, are recognized for enhancing soil health. In the Southern United States, where crops like cotton play a central role in crop rotations, there exists a pronounced nitrogen demand and a heightened risk of soil erosion due to limited crop residue post-harvest. The use of single-species cereals such as wheat or rye as a soil cover is a common practice. Although adoption remains modest, legume cover crops have the potential to not only minimize soil erosion, but also reduce the need for nitrogen fertilizers, possibly increasing profits relative to single-species cover crops lacking legumes.

    A 2-year on-farm trial was conducted in 2021 and 2022 in Terrell County, Georgia, to compare the use of various cover crop treatments in cotton production. The experiment consisted of 3 study treatments relative to a base treatment of a single species rye cover crop.   

    Base:               a single-species rye cover crop (Rye)

    Treatment 1:   a single-species crimson clover cover crop (Crimson Clover)

    Treatment 2:   a combination of rye and hairy vetch cover crop (Rye + Hairy Vetch)

    Treatment 3:   a 4-way mix of rye, vetch, triticale/oats, and crimson clover as cover crop (4-way)

    The biomass of the cover crops from each plot was weighed, and the UGA Cover Crop Calculator was used to estimate the nitrogen credit, additional nitrogen released into the soil once the cover crop decays. Two separate subplots were designated: A) a standard fertilizer application determined by the farmer (Normal N), assuming no nitrogen credits, and B) a reduced nitrogen fertilizer application (Reduced N), which in 2021 was based on the anticipated nitrogen credit, and in 2022 was fixed at 40lbs./acre assuming farmer had a budget constraint. Since all treatments adopted cover crops, costs like irrigation, planting, and termination of cover crops were the same. The potential profit impact of each treatment relative to the base treatment is compared using a partial budget approach. 

    Figures 1 and 2 illustrate, for 2021 and 2022, respectively, the cover crop biomass weighed, the nitrogen credit released into the soil after cover crop decay, and cotton yields for both Normal N and Reduced N subplots. The graphs show that in both years, all treatments produced almost as much, if not more, biomass than the rye treatment. Nitrogen credited to the soil was also found to be higher in all treatments across both years. The nitrogen credit observed for multi-species treatments exhibited a discernible decline between 2021 and 2022, primarily attributed to reduced legume establishment during the latter year, which was influenced by adverse weather conditions experienced in 2022. This gives credence to the nitrogen-fixing ability of legumes when they are adequately incorporated as cover. Cotton yields varied across time for the rye and hairy vetch treatment as they were as good or better than the base of rye in the year 2022 but not in 2021. But, the 4-way treatment, consistently, across years, produced yields as good as the base or even better. Figure 3 uses profits from the base treatment as a baseline against which profits from all other treatments were compared. The graph showed that the 4-way treatment provided higher profit per acre across 2021 and 2022. 

    While only illustrating the experience of two seasons in a single location, the Terrell County, GA study provides insight into the potential to offset nitrogen expenses by using multi-species cover crops (including legumes) in cotton production. Single species clover and dual-species (rye/vetch) generally performed better than rye in 2022, but did not in 2021. These mixed results of the lower variety treatments might shed some light on producers’ tendency to stick with a single species rye cover. However, a high variety, 4-species mixed cover crop had an improved profit outcome relative to a simple rye cover crop in both 2021 and 2022 as well as across all nitrogen application strategies. Results will obviously vary by season, geography, and primary crop, but the high variety cover was the better performer in this instance.  

    Figure 1. 2021 biomass weight, estimated nitrogen credit, and cotton yield from single and multi-species cover crop treatments.

    Figure 2. 2022 biomass weight, estimated nitrogen credit, and cotton yield from single and multi-species cover crop treatments. 

    Figure 3. Per acre profit differential for each cover crop treatment relative to the per acre profit of single species rye as cover crop (considering differences in yield, resulting revenue, cover crop seed costs, and nitrogen costs per acre) 

    References

    USDA-AMS (2023, February). North Carolina Production Cost Report: AMS_3159

    https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/viewReport/3159

    USDA-AMS (2023, February). Alabama Production Cost Report: AMS_3051

    https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/viewReport/3051

    USDA-AMS (2023, February). South Carolina Production Cost Report: AMS_2789/ CO_GR210

    https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/viewReport/2789

    USDA-NASS (2022). Southeastern Upland Cotton Price Received in $/lb. Data.

    https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/index.php?sector=CROPS

    Bobbie, Kelvin, Seth McAllister, Amanda R. Smith, and Yangxuan Liu. “Which is more profitable for producers, Single-Species or Multi-Species Cover Crops?Southern Ag Today 3(39.3). September 27, 2023. Permalink