Spring 2016 Logan County
Farm Outlook Magazine

Predicted decline of local farm economy
By Nila Smith

Send a link to a friend  Share

[March 27, 2016]  Will farm profitability fall for another year, and will the Logan County Farmer survive? - It is often said that grain and livestock producers are “eternal optimists,” but looking into the farm season ahead, many are wondering if their optimism might be lost in a quagmire of high costs and low revenues.

A quick review of the 2015 harvest season shows that yields on corn, which appears to be the predominant crop in Logan County, were down considerably over 2014 and 2015. The price per bushel at the elevator was also down, making for a “lose-lose” situation for farmers in the Midwest, and particularly in the heart of Illinois.

What was the cause? There are several factors playing into this new recession in the Ag industry.

The weather did play a big role in production this year as heavy rains in the early growing season drowned out fields, and affected yields on a large portion of Logan County Farms. The end result, an average yield that was about 50 bushels per acre lower than 2014 and also lower than the national average.

In the big picture, this might be a good thing. How can that be? Because we are experiencing record stockpiles of corn in the U.S., and that goes back to the basic economic rule of supply and demand. The value will drop as supply increases, and this is a part of the reason grain crops are falling consistently.

But why do we have such a supply, with little demand?

There was a time when the local agricultural community only knew what was going on at the local elevator, and there was less understanding of how the world markets and world trade impact local farms. Today we have, through technology, a greater understanding of the role the world plays in our local economy. And the world is not in good shape.

The U.S dollar is strong in the world markets right now, and that should be a good thing, but for foreign buyers it is not. Because we have added value to our currency, countries like China that are suffering a very weak economy right now, cannot afford to purchase our products.

According to an article written by Philip Abbot, Professor of Agricultural Economics at Purdue University, “The reduction in export sales is a key influence on sharply lowering U.S. farm income.” He goes on to state that Ag exports dropped $12.6 billion in 2015 compared to 2014, and he predicts additional declines in 2016.

Because the dollar is strong, according to a podcast delivered by Logan County farmer Bill Graff on February 8th, U.S. currency is a commodity and foreign countries are in a crunch because they don’t have the dollar, and they need it to rebuild their economies.

Graff said that the reason they are missing dollars is because the U.S. has become less dependent on foreign oil. He noted that as the U.S. works to provide its own energy resources, it is buying less oil from foreign countries, deflating the value of the product, and also creating a cash crunch in those countries, that is ultimately having a circular effect and impacting the U.S. in a negative way.

So, is the answer that the U.S. should back off on its fuel production? Some are afraid that it could go that direction, especially with ethanol. If oil is cheap, and foreign trade needs our dollars to rebuild their economies, will the U.S. back off on the production of grain fuels? And if that happens, what will be the impact on Logan County farmers? More grain with less marketing options equates to higher supply and lower prices, and here we go again.

Low yields and low prices make farmers a high risk

In Graff’s podcast number 120 – “Farm Finances, it's ugly out there” posted at the end of December, he noted that it is a fact that 70 to 80 percent of Illinois farmers lost money in 2015 based on their accrual accounting.

In that accounting process, those farmers looked not only at the decrease in yields and dollars per bushel but also at the deflation of their longer term assets. Grain in the bin was worth less in October of 2015 than in October of 2014. Those who were holding on to older crop as their rainy day umbrella were seeing holes punched in the canvas, and the profits were running out like water.

With 2015 being less than a break-even year on a cash basis, fewer investments were made in farm machinery. That equated to older equipment on the asset sheet, and again a decrease in value, and a decrease in net worth.

Land prices are also falling. According to Graff’s podcast, the year of $14,000 per acre land has passed, and in 2015 land prices fell by about 7 percent. Land is often considered to be the wealth of the farm, but if the value is depleting, then so is the wealth.

In January of this year, United States Congressman Darin LaHood held a roundtable discussion in Logan County, calling together farmers and agricultural suppliers throughout his district to create an agriculture advisory committee of his constituents.

In that meeting, there were several who expressed concern over the economy, and one attendee noted that the Central Illinois farmer is going to be considered a high risk in the banking industry this year. He noted that the bank may go along with financing operating costs for one more year, but if the downward spiral continues, that banker will probably not go the second year.

So what is the solution to this downward spiral? Short answer – quit farming. Seriously. Even Graff noted that he lost money in 2015 and was willing to lose money in 2016 if it works out that way, but he said he would not do it in 2017.

For some of the small farmers with less than a thousand acres, it may be time to look at becoming a landlord. While cash rents also appear to be on a downward trend, there is still money in cash rent for the landlord. With even 500 acres in the low one-third land quality bracket price of $275 an acre, as noted in John Fulton’s introduction, the landowner can yield $137,500. After taxes, and depending on if there are current farm loans to pay off, this could bring in enough cash for the family household. The idea is that the larger farmers can better handle the risk than the small farm. Considering the risk involved in being unable to pay a bank loan, that ultimately over the next year or two could even lead to bankruptcy, it is a reasonable option, for the small farmer.

For the larger producer, this may not be the best option simply because they have too much invested in their operation, and to simply stop farming would not solve their financial issues. That will mean that these farms must determine how to reduce the operating costs while producing a crop, and hope that the prices will eventually come back up.

Graff mentioned in his podcast that one plan is to plant with a lower plant population, thus reducing seed costs. Another idea, be conservative in chemical applications and plan on running that combine another year even though it is depreciating. Also, this may be the year not to contract fertilizer and other inputs.

Buying early can often result in lower pricing, but will it this year? When we buy early, we are guaranteeing the demand for a product. This could be a year to offer no guarantees. If the manufacturers cannot see that demand on the books, will they respond by lowering prices? Probably so.

And, as frightening as this may sound, our future as a farming industry may depend much on the federal government. LaHood recently announced that he will co-chair a U.S. and China Working group. The goal is to build the diplomatic relationship between the U.S. and China and strengthen both economies. If this program proves to be successful, it could have a positive impact on many of the economic sectors of the U.S., including agriculture.

[to top of second column

LaHood is also optimistic about improving trade relationships with Cuba and noted that trade with Cuba would be good for Illinois farmers, as well as the Illinois-based manufacturer, Caterpillar.

Another program that sounds good in theory is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Again this is a program that LaHood supports saying that it will be good for the farm economy in the Midwest. In that plan, the U.S. may participate trade in agreements with several countries that have borders on the Pacific. Among those are Japan, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Chili, Peru, Mexico, and Canada.

The TPP has met with some negative feedback based on its composition. The partnership agreement covers a wide range of issues: pharmaceutical regulations, state-owned industries, foreign investment, labor rights, environmental protections, copyright law, government procurement, e-commerce, and more. Opponents of the partnership say there is too much restriction, and that it will have a negative impact on some very important world issues such as digital innovation and the global effort to combat AIDS.

However, proponents of the agreement say that it will open trade doors for the U.S. by lowering some of the barriers that are now in place, and make trade with the U.S. more affordable and more attractive to the partnership members.

Hanging our hopes on ethanol

And finally, the future of ethanol is still strong, and must be exploited for the sake of the family farm. According to the Renewable Fuels Association in November of 2014 and March of 2015, ethanol exports topped out at 84 million gallons. From March 2015 to August 2015 the exports dwindled down to a mere 34 million gallons. However, in January of this year, the U.S. hit a new all-time high when the exports totaled 87.1 million gallons. Notably, one-third of that market was purchased by China.

Production of biofuels will continue to grow according to mandates passed by the federal government. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 outlines the growth of renewable fuels to a total of 22 billion gallons by 2022.

Though there is a mandated demand, there is also concern about the price at the pump and whether or not consumers will purchase ethanol when gasoline is less expensive. However, there are other factors coming into play that offset consumer decisions.

While petroleum-based gasoline is competing strongly at the pump with ethanol, ethanol is competing strongly with the octane enhancers used to manufacture various octane levels of gasoline, keeping up the demand for the grain-based product.

At the pump, gasoline products are marketed as Regular, Mid-grade, or High-Octane. The difference in the products is the octane level of each. That octane level is reached through the chemical compounds commonly known as aromatics added to the gasoline at the refinery. Aromatics used in gasoline include Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene.

In addition to these chemicals, ethanol is becoming a major player in the gasoline additive market, because as an additive, it is cheaper than the three chemical compounds.

In a February 3, 2016, article in Farmdoc Daily, Scott Irwin and Darrel Good of the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics at the University of Illinois offered price comparisons from January 2013 to January 29, 2016.

In the article, the authors provide a visual that demonstrates that over the three-year period ethanol was consistently less costly than the chemical compounds. What should also be noted on the chart is that in November of 2013, Benzene was the most expensive aromatic at well above $5 per gallon. Since that time, the price of all the aromatics has fallen and in January of this year were at their lowest. Even so, ethanol is still about half-price to the three aromatics.

So, is it possible to conclude this article with an optimistic view? Let’s compare ourselves in 2015 to ourselves in the 1970’s and 80’s, rough, rough years for farming. Most of us came through then, and most of us will come through this as well. Let us hope for higher demand, higher yields, and higher prices, lower input costs, and we’ll get by just fine!


Purdue Agricultural Economics Report
Outlook for the Agricultural Economy in 2016

Farm and Ranch Country
Logan County Farmer Bill Graff
123 – Strong Dollar, Cheap Oil & Farm Economy

Renewable Fuels Association
Ethanol Exports Surge in December; DDGS Exports Set New Annual Record
By Geoff Cooper in E-blog Posted February 8, 2016

Farmdoc Daily
February 8, 2016 - Weekly Outlook: Exports of Ethanol and Distillers' Grains Remain Strong
By Darrel Good Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics - University of Illinois

Farmdoc Daily
February 3, 2016 - The Competitive Position of Ethanol as an Octane Enhancer
Scott Irwin and Darrel Good
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics - University of Illinois


Read all the articles in our new
Spring 2016 Logan County
Farm Outlook Magazine

Spring 2016 Ag Perspective 4
Predicted decline of local farm economy 7
Will 2016 see the effects of El Nino end and La Nina begin? 14
What is going on in farmland sales? 17
Input sector continues to take a hit 20
How equipment dealers might weather the decline 24
WOTUS - to 'What, us?' 29
'Ag in the Classroom' and 'Teen Teachers' raising awareness of our life dependency on agriculture 35
2015 County Crop Yields Released 42

< Recent features

Back to top