Potential Influence of Commodity Policy on Iowa Agriculture
Bruce A. BabcockDermot J. Hayes
Center for Agricultural and Rural DevelopmentIowa State University
Background
• Can a change in commodity policy really change – types and quantities of crops and livestock
grown in Iowa?– financial conditions on Iowa farms?– number of Iowa farms?
• If so, then what policies will lead to what we want Iowa to look like in the future?
Three “extreme” policies• Liberalization
– Unilaterally remove all U.S. commodity subsidies, import tariffs and quotas, export subsidies: keep crop insurance
– Multilateral: Same as above but all other countries do the same.
• New Europe: Decoupled payments and increase protection for farmers to move “upscale” by increasing and protecting brands.
• Old Europe: Raise domestic crop and livestock prices. Adopt policies to remove resulting surpluses from the market.
Multilateral Liberalization• Elimination of
– Domestic subsidies in all countries– Import restrictions on sugar, beef, and dairy– Barriers faced by U.S. meat and grain exports
• Maintenance of – Subsidized U.S. crop insurance– CRP– Energy policy
Impacts of Multilateral Liberalization
• Export demand for U.S. beef and pork exports increase dramatically
• Iowa increases production of pork and beef • Moderately more corn acres fewer soybean acres• Drop in cash rents and Iowa land prices• Moderate increase in grain prices and eventual improvement
in grain basis• Continued consolidation in farm size, but very small change
from baseline • Continued insurance-based safety net for U.S. producers• More cattle in Iowa to take advantage of DDGs• Extreme volatility in livestock markets due to increased export
dependence, that is compensated by a move to livestock insurance programs
Meat Exports• U.S. pork and beef exports have responded to previous
trade liberalizations• The baseline assumes no additional liberalization,
therefore the rate of growth in exports is slower than under the recent historical period.
• It makes more economic sense to ship boneless beef and pork than it does to ship animal feed
• It only makes economic sense to ship feed when a distortion exists
• For example, within the EU and the US internal markets, bulk grains are seldom shipped because it is more efficient to ship meat than grains.
Meat Exports (cont.)• After liberalization beef and pork exports respond quickly. Pork
exports grow faster than beef exports because Asia consumes far more pork than beef
• At some point about 10-12 years from liberalization, the U.S. uses all its corn and soybean surplus internally when U.S yields are low.
• At this point the growth in meat exports begins to slow• The removal of Canadian income guarantee programs cause the
U.S. sow herd to grow and the Canadian herd to shrink• In the absence of environmental and social constraints the upside
maximum potential for meat exports is about 3.5 times current levels.
• This allows an average residual export level of one billion bushels of corn.
• In the scenario corn exports equal about two billion bushels
U.S Beef Exports 1960:2004, and Predicted to 2024
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
1960
1963
1966
1969
1972
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
2023
Year
Thou
sand
Met
ric T
ons
(CW
E) Free Trade Scenario
Baseline Scenario
U.S. Pork Exports 1960:2004 and Projected to 2024
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Year
Thou
sand
Met
ric T
ons
(CW
E)
Baseline ScenarioFree Trade Scenario
Iowa Share of U.S. Meat Production
• Iowa is the principal source of grain exported from the U.S, and as this grain begins to be fed domestically Iowa gets a disproportionate share of the additional production
• The availability of abundant DDG’s causes an additional increase in beef feeding
• Iowa has borne the brunt of the expansion in the Canadian sow herd and it experiences a rebound in sow numbers when this program is removed
January 1 Cattle on Feed Iowa, 1965:2004 and Projected to 2024
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
Year
Thou
sand
Ani
mal
s
Free Trade ScenarioBaseline Scenario
Iowa's Share of U.S. Cattle on Feed 1965:2003 and Projected to 2024
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
Year
Perc
ent
Baseline ScenarioFree Trade Scenario
Dec 1 Market Hog Inventory in Iowa 1960:2003 and Projected to 2024
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
Year
Thou
sand
Hea
d
Free Trade ScenarioBaseline Scenario
Swine Breeding Herd in Iowa 1963:2003, and Projected to 2024
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
Year
Thou
sand
Hea
d
Free Trade ScenarioBaseline Scenario
Iowa's Share of U.S. Market hog and Swine Breeding Herd 1963:2003, and Projected to 2024
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023
Year
Perc
ent
Market Hogs: Free Trade Scenario
Breeding Herd: Free Trade Scenario
Market Hogs: Baseline
Breeding Herd: Baseline
Corn and Soybeans Baseline• Corn supplies will increase by 1/3 over the next 25 years with
no change in acreage. Soybean supplies will increase by 18%.
• Growth in per-acre yields fills all demand for corn from expanded ethanol production, expanded meat exports, and expanded meat production. Exports remain flat.
• Increased use of corn for ethanol will increase supply of DDGs with a corresponding reduction in demand for U.S. soybean meal.
• Brazil continues to displace U.S. in world soybean markets.• Per-bushel costs of growing corn relative to soybeans will
allow some farmers to move away from a corn-soybean rotation.
• Farm programs keep soybean acreage and corn acreage stable in the baseline.
Land in Farms in Iowa: 1987 to 2002 Using Census of Ag Data
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Year
1000
acr
es
Corn and Soybean Yields Per Planted Acre in Iowa: Actual and Trend
0
50
100
150
200
250
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year
bu/a
c
Corn Yields Corn Trend Soy Yields Soy Trend
U.S. Corn and Soybean Planted Acres: History and Baseline Projection
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
'000
acr
es
US corn acres - baseline US soy acres- baseline
South America• South America will continue its expansion in soybean
production.• Acreage will not be a limiting factor for next 20 years.• Yields will continue to grow but a bit more slowly.• Costs will also grow as disease and insect pressure
increases. • Infrastructure, capital costs, and perhaps government
stability will be the limiting factors in production.• Brazil will continue to be infested with FMD.
South American Soybean Production Baseline
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Year
mill
ion
bush
els
Liberalization’s Impact on Crops• Total planted acres will stay fixed at 23 million.• Expanded meat exports will increase the demand for corn
relative to soybeans.• Elimination of U.S. farm programs will cause farmers to switch
to corn nationally..• More acres holds down the basis improvement and price
increase that we would otherwise see for Iowa corn production due to expanded utilization in Iowa.
• Drop in U.S. soybean production will increase South American production allowing it to become the dominant player in soybean and soymeal production.
• The expansion in soybean supply in South America will increase payoff from domestic utilization of soymeal in a domestic livestock industry with a concentration on poultry in South America.
U.S. Corn and Soybean Planted Acres
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Year
'000
acr
es
US corn acres - baseline US soy acres- baseline
US corn acres - scenario US soy acres - scenario
Corn Used in Ethanol Production
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
Mill
ion
Bush
els
• 3.5 bbu of corn in ethanol production produces 29.7 million tons of DDGs
• The U.S. produced 37.6 million tons of soybean meal from the 2003 crop.
• An acre of corn grown for ethanol produces the same tonnage of DDGs as the meal produced on an acre of soybeans
• New technologies will develop to feed DDGs to hogs and poultry
• Soybeans will be grown primarily for oil
Ratio of Corn to Soybean Acres in Iowa
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Year
Rat
io
History Baseline Free-Trade Scenario
Iowa Corn and Soybean Acres
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Year
Mill
ion
acre
s
Corn baseline Soybeans baseline Corn scenario Soybeans scenario
South American Soybean Production under Free-Trade
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Year
mill
ion
bush
els
Baseline
Scenario
Iowa's Share of U.S. Corn and Soybean Planted Acres
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Year
'000
acr
es
IA corn share - baseline IA soy share - baseline
IA corn share - scenario IA soy share - scenario
Acreage effects• Iowa baseline corn acres will increase by a small amount to
reflect the relatively greater local demand growth for corn compared to soybeans.
• Under free trade this trend will be accelerated as Iowa and U.S. farmers respond to relatively lower production costs and higher demand for corn. Corn acreage increases by 5 million acres by 2030 while U.S. soybean acreage declines by 5 million acres .
• Iowa’s share of U.S. corn acreage will increase to 16% while its share of soybean acreage will drop to 13%. This change reflects Iowa’s comparative advantage in producing corn, strong local demand for corn from a growing livestock sector feed and ethanol plants, and some weakness in demand for soybean meal because of increased supply of DDGs and relatively weak overseas demands for U.S. soybeans.
Impact of free trade on farm income for a corn farmer
• Liberalization removes approximately $70 per acre in payments; subsidized crop insurance program remains.
• Impacts on farm finances are shown by comparing distributions of total cash revenue less variable cash costs of production for a corn farmer who a) cash rents and b) who farms their own land.
• Expected yield is 150 bu/ac. Expected price on the CBOT is $2.40 for the baseline and $2.45 under liberalization. Expected basis is $0.25 in the baseline and trends down to $0.15 in the scenario. The standard deviation of basis risk is $0.15. The farmer buys 75% RA with the harvest price option. Variable costs are set at assumed equal to $200 per acre.
• Land rent is $193 per acre under the baseline and $145 under the free-trade scenario.
Distribution of Total Revenue Less Variable Costs from Corn for a Farmer Who Owns their Land
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
$ per acre
prob
abili
ty
Baseline
Scenario
Distribution of Total Revenue Less Variable Costs from Corn for a Land Renter
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
$ per acre
prob
abili
ty
Baseline
Scenario
Impact of Liberalization on Crop Income
• The land owner is unambiguously worse off from the end of farm programs. The probability of low revenue is higher and the probability of high revenue is lower. Expected returns decline by approximately $48 per acre from $193 per acre to $145 per acre. This results in approximately a 25% decline in land values.
• The land renter is perhaps better off under the scenario. The decline in government payments is offset by a decline in land rent.
Impact on Farm Size
• No convincing evidence that farm programs have led to larger farm size – Ability and desire to work more land have
increased.– Technological changes have facilitated
specialization in crops or livestock. • With lower cash rents and lower land
values the pace of farm size expansion picks up slightly
Average Farm Size in Iowa 1960:2004 and Projected to 2024
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Year
Num
ber o
f Acr
es
Baseline ScenarioFree Trade Scenario
Number of Farms In Iowa 1960:2004 and Projected to 2024
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Year
Num
ber o
f Far
ms
Baseline ScenarioFree Trade Scenario
Demographics
• The expansion in the numbers of very large farms and very small farms continues to crowd out medium sized farms
• A very large share of total production comes from very large farms
• These two trends are not impacted by this particular scenario
Percentage of Iowa Farms by Value of Sales 1987 to 2002, and Projected to 2022
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022
Year
Percentage of Farms (%
)
Large
Small To MediumHobby
Percent of Iowa Agricultural Receipts by Value of Sales 1987-2002 and Projected to 2022
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027
Year
Percentage of Receipts (%
)
Large > $500,000 sales in 2002 Dollars
Small to Medium
Hobby < 10,000 in Sales in 2002 Dollars
New and Old Europe Scenarios• New Europe would mean that U.S. follows
Europe lead on– Facilitating development of farmer-owned brands– Payments for environmental stewardship– Movement to decoupled payments
• Old Europe would mean – Legislated higher grain and meat prices– Supply restrictions– Violation of WTO agreement– Drop in ethanol production– Exports controlled by government policy
Old Europe Impacts
• Taxpayers and consumer costs rise as production expands (i.e. current U.S. sugar program)– Likely path same as the transition Europe
took from Old Europe to New Europe• Production levels as well as farm prices
and profitability are determined by policy and not by markets, this makes it impossible to make justifiable projections
New Europe Impacts• U.S. grain prices rise as U.S. production falls.• Meat and grain exports are lower than in the multilateral
liberalization scenario because crop prices are higher.• Land owners may win or lose depending on the level of
decoupled payments • More producers remain in production as branded products
succeed• The share of total receipts from medium sized farms falls at a
much slower pace• Iowa brands emerge and are successful to the extent that meat
quality (and or the perception of meat quality) can be improved by meat producers
Top Related