by Don Shurley and Adam N. Rabinowitz
We have developed a third publication in a series of fact sheets on the new seed cotton program. Included in this document is a little history of what happened with the 2014 farm bill that led to the development of the seed cotton program. We provide an example of the decision process and identify things to think about when making the decision.
The PDF can be downloaded here.
by Don Shurley and Adam N. Rabinowitz
This post presents a second fact sheet in a series of publications that briefly explain the basic workings of the new seed cotton program.
Effective with the 2018 crop, “seed cotton” is now a covered commodity under Title I of the 2014 farm bill and eligible for PLC (Price Loss Coverage) payments. For purposes of the legislation, “seed cotton” is unginned upland cotton—a combination of both cotton (lint) and cottonseed.
The linked document discusses:
- Reference price and payments,
- Marketing year average prices and how to calculate them,
- What would have been the past 10 years had the seed cotton program been in place,
- Payment yields, and
- A payment calculator
Click on this link to access the factsheet.
by Don Shurley and Adam N. Rabinowitz
On the morning of February 9, 2018, the U.S. Congress passed budget legislation that included the designation of seed cotton as a covered commodity under the 2014 farm bill. The President has signed this legislation and it has become law. The document linked below highlights the critical components about the new cotton program and treatment of Generic Base.
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
More information, including a decision aid, will be available soon at http://agecon.uga.edu/extension.
by Adam N. Rabinowitz
The 2017 peanut harvest is well underway with over 70 percent of the Georgia crop dug and over 50 percent harvested. While Hurricane Irma negatively impacted the cotton crop, there was no widespread negative impact on peanuts. Both irrigated and dryland peanuts are looking good.
Peanut yields in Georgia and the rest of the peanut producing states will be up from last year with the big question being by how much and whether new records will be set. USDA forecasts for the U.S. are for a yield of 4,257 pounds per acre with the GA yield at 4,700 pounds per acre, both of which would set new records. With 1.9 million acres planted in the U.S. and 840 thousand acres planted in GA, this crop also has the potential to set a new record level of production.
A few questions have surfaced that are worth discussing as we wait for the harvest to be completed in the coming weeks.
- Is there sufficient warehouse capacity to store the expected crop?
As of mid-September there were 3.8 million tons of approved warehouse capacity in the U.S. with 1.9 million tons in GA. At first look, this has the potential to create a shortage of warehouse space of about 118 thousand tons in the U.S. and about 12 thousand tons in GA. However, expectations are that a worst case scenario would be a logistical issue and not a question of where to store these peanuts. Coming into this harvest, warehouses have been basically empty and shellers are prepared to start moving the current crop through the system. Combine that with a longer than typical planting season and the industry should have little problem in finding space for these peanuts.
- What is the size of this crop going to do to market prices?
This becomes a question of supply and demand. Basic economics tells us that as the supply increases prices will be driven down. There is little anyone can do to prevent the supply situation at this point, so one must look towards demand. The industry needs to continue to look for opportunities to expand demand in order to maintain or increase prices. We have seen domestic use of peanuts for food increase in recent years but there are few opportunities to impact consumer demand in a short period of time. The greatest opportunity for finding a market for this crop is through increased exports. Through August, total U.S. exports have been down compared to last year, and this is likely due to prices that increased late last year. While it is likely that exports will pick up, there is little indication that it will be without a drop in price. Right now the market is waiting to see how large this crop will be and that will determine how low the price will go to move this crop. Even with exports forecast to increase from last year, the ending stock created by this crop is expected to reach the heights of 2012. The industry needs to find a home for these peanuts as prices will be impacted until this surplus can be moved.
So the big question of course is whether the crop will meet these yield expectations. We really won’t know until the harvest is complete but we can look at some of the historical USDA projections to get an idea of how accurate they have been in forecasting yields.
As can be seen in the figure above, the blue line represents the actual yield in GA and the orange line represents the October forecast yield released by the USDA. This graph starts in 2006 which was when Georgia-06g was released. This variety currently represents about 80 percent of the peanuts planted in GA. We can see that every year, except the last two years, the USDA October forecast was less than the actual final yields. Generally this would project a very favorable expectation on the USDA forecast model as typically underestimating yields. There is further evidence of underestimating in 2012 when there was a big spike in yield such as is expected this year. The two most recent years when the USDA overestimated yields were during a period of a downward trend from the peak. It will be interesting to see what the final yield number is for 2017 and how that compares to the current forecast of 4,700 pounds per acre. This is certainly a big spike in yield from our actual 2016 yield of 3,900 pounds per acre, but with no major crop and weather issues this year it might just be achievable.
by Levi Russell
Last week in Atlanta Extension economists, lenders, and ag media met in Atlanta to discuss the market and policy outlook for agricultural commodities in the Southeast in the coming year. UGA economists presented the outlook for peanuts, timber, turfgrass, the green industry, cotton, poultry, and hogs. All presentations are available here. Feel free to contact us with questions about the presentations.
by Adam Rabinowitz
There have been some comments from policymakers regarding the upcoming farm bill and the debate between planted acres and base acres. Here is an explanation as to why base acres have been used and the potential impact of using planted acres.
The 2014 Farm Bill contains provisions for Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) commodity programs that are tied to a “base acreage” for which to compute payments. Base acres for a particular Farm Service Agency (FSA) farm depend on the past decisions by the farm to reflect either 1991-1995, 1998-2001, or 2009-2012 planted acres. Regardless of the specific base acreage determination, the common point among the commodity programs and farms is that base acreage is determined on historical planted acreage and not current year planted acreage. There are two main concerns over computing safety net program payments on current planted acres.
- Payments made on current planted acres means that newly planted acres are eligible for payments. This has the potential to distort market prices because planting decisions will be directly impacted by the eligibility for program payments. As planted acres increase, the market price will decrease, resulting in increased program payments, which may continue to perpetuate into a further increase in acreage, payments, etc.
- World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements contain limits on trade-distorting domestic support. When government safety net payments are tied to planted acres they would likely be reported as product specific crop commodity program payments. Product specific payments are viewed as potentially trade-distorting and thus subject to WTO limits.
Historical base acres have thus been used to mitigate the potential negative market distortion from government programs and potential violation of trade agreements. By determining safety net program payments on historical acreage, there is little (if any) incentive to make planting decisions based on the ability to receive government payments. With current safety net payments being issued in October of the following year after harvest, there is an even greater disconnect between planting decisions and government payments. Furthermore, ensuring that agricultural commodities maintain compliance with trade agreements is critical for continued expansion of demand and access to foreign markets for U.S. farmers.