Features,  Honors & Awards,  Ag Announcements

Calendar,  Ag News Elsewhere  (fresh daily from the Web)

Features

Weekly outlook

Soybean price strength
changes marketing strategies

[NOV. 5, 2002]  URBANA — Three weeks ago, when the cash price of soybeans was near the CCC loan rate, the recommended marketing strategy was to store soybeans and place them under loan in order to generate cash flow and provide downside price protection. With rising soybean prices, however, that recommendation has changed.

"Now that the cash price of soybeans is well above the loan rate, the loan price provides less protection from lower prices," said Darrel Good, University of Illinois Extension economist. "So one alternative would be to buy put options, thereby protecting the current price of soybeans stored on the farm. Nearest-the-money March put options, for example, have a premium of about 22 cents. Owning the put options would still allow producers to participate in higher prices but would provide protection from lower futures prices in the form of an increased premium. In addition, producers could collect marketing loan gains, should the price drop below loan value."

Good says another alternative is to sell cash beans at the higher prices now being offered. Then, if you expected higher prices, you could purchase call options to replace the cash inventory.

Several key factors have led to the recent price recovery of soybeans, especially the unchanged U.S. production forecast in the USDA’s October Crop Production Report.

"This report confirmed the need to reduce consumption of U.S. soybeans during the current marketing year. Less-than-ideal weather conditions in some areas of South America have delayed plantings somewhat and raised questions about the potential size of the 2003 harvest. Two consecutive weeks of large export sales of U.S. soybeans were also price supportive," Good said.

For the year, the USDA has projected that the shortfall in U.S. production will play out in the form of reduced exports.

"At 850 million bushels, the projection of exports for the current marketing year is 20.2 percent less than the current estimate of exports during the 2001-02 marketing year. Through the first nine weeks of the 2002-03 marketing year, cumulative export inspections are 15 percent less than during the same period last year, with almost all of the decline being in shipments to the European Union," Good said.

"As of Oct. 24, however, unshipped sales of U.S. soybeans totaled 307 million bushels, only five million (1.6 percent) less than outstanding sales of a year ago. Sales to the European Union are still relatively small, but sales to China and unknown destinations (perhaps China) are 39 percent larger than at this time last year. The recent jump in export sales of U.S. soybeans and the slow start to the South American planting season may be related."

[to top of second column in this article]

Most of the recent increase in soybean prices has resulted from higher prices of soybean oil, according to Good.

"On a close-to-close basis, the December 2002 soybean meal futures price increased $5.60 per ton (3.4 percent) from Oct. 9 to Nov. 1. In contrast, the December 2002 soybean oil futures price increased by .0265 cents per pound (13.8 percent). Compared to prices on the same date last year, the average cash price of soybeans in central Illinois on Nov. 1 was 35 percent higher, the average price of soybean meal in central Illinois (rail, 48 percent protein) was 1.8 percent lower, and the average price of soybean oil (crude, central Illinois) was 50 percent higher.

"Soybean oil prices are continuing to recover from the 30-year low established in February 2001 as production of competing oilseeds declines and U.S. and world inventories of soybean oil are being reduced. The expectations of declining consumption of U.S. soybean meal this year, and the resulting smaller crush, should result in further reductions in soybean oil stocks."

The direction of soybean prices over the next few months will be dictated by a combination of the rate of U.S. export sales, the development of the South American crop and the size of the USDA’s November forecast for the U.S. crop.

"Low prices in the face of a smaller U.S. crop were based on the expectation that South America would be able to fill the gap left by the shortfall in U.S. production. While that may still happen, there is less certainty now than a month ago. The size of the shortfall in U.S. production is still uncertain. The USDA will release a new forecast of the size of the U.S. harvest on Nov. 12. There is some expectation that the crop size will be increased in that report. In recent history, the November forecast has been above the October forecast about 65 percent of the time," Good said.

Good emphasizes that there is really no way to predict the exact outcome of these reports.

[U of I news release]

[NOV. 5, 2002]  URBANA — Addressing decision-making challenges in a risky environment is the theme of a University of Illinois Extension workshop to be offered at four locations in December. "Farm Income 2003" will be offered Dec. 10 at Mount Vernon, Dec. 11 at Springfield, Dec. 12 at Rochelle and Dec. 17 at Urbana. The workshops run from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

"Recent farm income variability, the implementation of a new farm bill, an uncertain economic outlook and continued competition in the world market provide significant challenges for farm and farm-related business managers," said Darrel Good, U of I Extension marketing specialist who is organizing the workshop.

Good said the workshop will consist of three general sessions — "Illinois Farm Income Situation," "Outlook for Commodity Prices" and "Which America Will Produce Soybeans?" — and four breakout sessions.

"One of the breakout sessions addresses farm land lease options and will provide an overview of trends in farmland leases, issues associated with alternative leases and an evaluation of lease alternatives," said Good.

"The second breakout will address a number of new developments and pressing issues in agricultural policy and law, including elevator failure, genetically engineered crops and impact of the farm bill.

[to top of second column in this article]

"The third breakout deals with crop insurance and will help producers make an informed decision on crop insurance.

"The final breakout will address issues such as assessing producer marketing performance and development of successful approaches to marketing grain."

Presenters include Good and U of I colleagues in the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics: Dale Lattz, Gary Schnitkey, Robert Hauser, Donald Uchtmann, Bruce Sherrick and Scott Irwin.

Preregistration is $25 per person, and registration at the door is $30, as space permits. The fee covers handout materials, coffee breaks and lunch. Registration can be completed online at http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu, or a registration brochure can be obtained from the local U of I Extension office. Questions can be directed to Darrel Good at (217) 333-4716 or
d-good@uiuc.edu.

[U of I news release]

[NOV. 4, 2002]  ^"After four months of above-average temperatures throughout Illinois, the trend was reversed in October, and precipitation was 15 percent higher than average. Temperatures 3.1 degrees colder than average (51.6 F) were accompanied by 3.35 inches of precipitation, nearly half an inch above average," says Jim Angel, state climatologist with the Illinois State Water Survey, a division of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

"Although too late to benefit crops, ample rainfall in southern Illinois during October allowed recovery from extremely dry conditions this past summer," says Angel. Northwestern Illinois also was wet, and precipitation in central and northeastern Illinois was below average in October, but these areas were not as dry as southern Illinois last summer.

Hutsonville reported the warmest temperature, 93 on Oct. 2. Mount Carroll reported the coldest temperature, 21 on Oct. 20, and also the largest one-day rainfall, 2.43 inches on Oct. 2. Belleville reported the largest monthly rainfall total, 5.30 inches.

What kind of winter can we expect? Sea-surface temperatures along the equator in the Pacific Ocean this year are warmer than average due to a weak El Nino. Strong El Nino events typically have brought Illinois mild winter weather with warmer temperatures and less snowfall. In fact, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Prediction Center is calling for an increased chance of warmer-than-average temperatures this winter.

[to top of second column in this article]

However, the six previous winters in Illinois since 1950 when weak El Ninos were present paint a different story. Four of those winters were colder than average (starting with the coldest: 1977-1978, 1976-1977, 1969-1970 and 1963-1964), with lots of snowfall in 1976-1977 and 1977-1978. Winter 1970-1971 was near average, and only winter 1994-1995 was above average.

"Still other factors, such as a stronger-than-predicted El Nino, the amount of snow cover to the north and tropical storm activity to the south may also have an influence on what winter will be like. My best advice? Be prepared because even an average winter includes snow, ice and cold temperatures," says Jim Angel.

[Illinois State Water Survey press release]

[NOV. 4, 2002]  URBANA — Two John Deere 9650 combines moving side by side through the same Illinois cornfield in the fall of 2001 looked identical in all respects from the outside. But deep inside the engines, there was a major difference between the twin machines. One combine ran on pure diesel fuel, the other on a blend of 10 percent ethanol, 89 percent diesel and 1 percent additive.

"The operators reported that they could not tell the difference between the two machines day to day," said Alan Hansen, a University of Illinois agricultural engineer who has been conducting side-by-side studies each spring and fall since 2000. "Producers found that the combine running on the ethanol-diesel blend could keep up pretty well with the combine running on diesel only."

Although performance was not noticeably different to the operators, Hansen said there were still some differences. For example, because ethanol has less energy content than diesel, machinery using the blend had slightly greater fuel consumption — an increase of 3 to 5 percent.

The same increase in fuel consumption showed itself in other side-by-side tests conducted with John Deere 9400 tractors and 9650 Caterpillar Challenger tractors.

The ethanol-diesel blend, better known as E-diesel, may not have as much energy content as pure diesel, but politically it packs a lot of punch. Backers see E-diesel as a major new market for ethanol and Midwestern corn, not to mention an effective way to help engine manufacturers meet tough new emission standards from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

According to Hansen, emission tests performed at national laboratories have shown consistent results: "With a 10 percent blend, you can expect as much as a 25 to 30 percent reduction in particulate emissions — soot and smoke."

The prognosis for E-diesel is good, Hansen noted, but there are still many hurdles to surpass before engine manufacturers will feel confident backing warranties for engines that run on the blend. In particular, concerns revolve around durability, safety and performance.

U of I researchers, led by Hansen, fellow agricultural engineer Qin Zhang and agricultural economist Rob Hornbaker, have been conducting in-lab durability tests since 1999 on engines running on E-diesel. Funding and support has been provided by the Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, the Great Lakes Regional Biomass Energy Program, and the Illinois Corn Marketing Board.

In their first series of laboratory tests, U of I researchers used a 15 percent ethanol-diesel blend in a Cummins 5.9 liter engine, which has an injector system that relies entirely on fuel for lubrication.

[to top of second column in this article]

Ethanol lowers a fuel’s ability to lubricate the engine, Hansen noted, although the additive in the blend does contain a small amount of a lubricity agent.

After running for 500 hours in the laboratory, the Cummins engine came through in good condition, but there was some abnormal deterioration of the resin that encapsulates a sensor in the injection system.

"There are some nonmetal components in the fuel injection system that you have to be careful about," Hansen said.

A second 500-hour test was performed on a different engine, using a 10 percent ethanol-diesel blend this time. The engine, currently being taken apart and studied, is expected to be in pretty good condition, Hansen said. However, there appears to be some swelling of nonmetal seals in the injection pump as a result of the ethanol.

These laboratory tests have proven to be somewhat more severe than in-field tests, he added. The studies of E-diesel used on tractors and combines under actual field conditions have not shown any such wear problems on the engine.

Performance may also be an issue with ethanol, Hansen said, because the rule of thumb is that for every 5 percent of ethanol that you add to a blend, energy content goes down by 2 percent. That is why fuel consumption is slightly higher with E-diesel; it takes more fuel to supply the same power.

When it comes to safety issues, the concern is flammability. Ethanol is not as flammable as gasoline, but it is more flammable than diesel. So to use E-diesel, diesel fuel tanks will need safety features similar to those found in gasoline fuel tanks.

According to Hansen, some of the national laboratories are "looking deeply into the safety issue, developing guidelines on how the blend can be used."

While researchers search for ways to make E-diesel an effective and economical alternative for off-road vehicles, such as farm machinery, engine manufacturers will be watching closely.

As Hansen pointed out, it can take five to 10 years for manufacturers to phase in new engine designs that reduce emissions and meet tough new EPA standards. But if you switch to E-diesel, the environmental benefits are immediate.

[U of I press release]

[4-H news release]

Commercial corn plot results

[OCT. 28, 2002] 

Thanks to the following for their cooperation and assistance:

State Bank of Lincoln

Fort Trust Farms

Scott Wurth Family

Cooperating Corn Companies

Syngenta for providing check corn

Average of hybrids: 152.99

Average of check: 150.58

Average of plot: 152.19

Results of non-replicated plots should always be used in conjunction with other plot results and your own experience when selecting hybrids.

[John Fulton]

Honors & Awards

Ag Announcements

Back to top