Ag Lender Seminars feature Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economist

By Wm. Bruce Clevenger, Amanda Douridas & Rory Lewandowski, Extension Educators

The 2018 OSU Extension Agricultural Lender Seminars will feature keynote speaker, Courtney Cowley, Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Omaha, Nebraska.  Cowley will speak to each of the three regionally offered Ag Lender seminars scheduled in October 2018.  She will share her research and the role of the Federal Reserve Bank with her topic “Outlook for the U.S. Economy with Implications for the Ag Sector.”  Cortney Cowley is an economist in the Regional Affairs Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Her current research focuses on agricultural finance, commodity markets, farm management, and natural resource economics and policy. Cowley’s responsibilities also include writing for the Tenth District Survey of Agricultural Credit Conditions and the Federal Reserve System’s Agricultural Finance Databook.    Cowley joined the Bank in 2015 after completing her Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University. She also holds a B.S. degree in Biosystems Engineering from Oklahoma State and a M.S. degree in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University.

Additional speakers at each location include: Farm Policy & Commodity Outlook – Ben Brown, OSU CFAES, Farm Mgmt. Program Mgr.; Ohio Farm Economy & Production Economics – Barry Ward, OSU Extension, CFAES, Production Business Management; Dairy Production Economics – Dianne Shoemaker, OSU Extension, CFAES, Field Specialist; Hops, Barley & Ohio’s Specialty Crops – Brad Bergefurd, OSU Extension, CFAES, Extension Educator & Horticulture Specialist.

The three Ag Lender Seminars will be as follows:

Tuesday, October 16

Champaign Co. Community Center Auditorium

1512 South US Highway 68

Urbana, OH  43078

 

Wednesday, October 17

Putnam Co. Educational Service Center

Assembly Hall

124 Putnam Parkway

Ottawa, OH 45875

 

Thursday, October 18

Buckeye Agricultural Museum

877 West Old Lincoln Way

Wooster, OH 4469

Seminar programs begin promptly at 9:15 a.m. and conclude by 3:15 pm.  Registration information is available at: https://u.osu.edu/aglenderseminars/  or by contacting Bruce Clevenger, OSU Extension Educator, Defiance County at 419-782-4771 or clevenger.10@osu.edu.

OSU Extension conducts the seminars from input from Ag Lenders, County Extension Educators and Extension Specialists.  The seminars are designed to provide information that Ag Lenders will use directly with their customers, indirectly within the lending industry, and as professional development for current issues and trends in production agriculture.  OSU Extension has been offering Ag Lenders seminars for nearly 30 years.

 

 

Estimates for Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage Payments for Program Year 2017

by Ben Brown, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics- The Ohio State University

Click here for complete report with figures & tables

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 2014 ushered in two programs to the safety net for producers in Ohio and across the country: Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC0-CO) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC). Both programs serve as shallow loss programs protecting against large variations in revenue and price respectively. The two programs opperate differently and should not be compared as substitute programs. However, producers were allowed a one time choice at the beginning of the farm bill to enroll each commodity in either ARC-CO or PLC. Participation rates in Ohio largely followed the national participation rates for corn and soybeans but differed for wheat. The national participation rate for wheat favored PLC, whereas in Ohio, producers favored heavily toward ARC-CO. Nonetheless there are producers in Ohio that are enrolled in ARC-CO and PLC for corn, soybeans, and wheat. This report looks toward the end of the marketing year to estimate county level payments for ARC-CO and PLC in Ohio. As a reminder, payments finalized in October 2018 will be for program year 2017. This information will be important for producers and lenders wishing to estimate their autumn cash flow.

In October of 2017, the majority of producers in Ohio received some form of commodity program payment for the program year 2016. In fact, every county across Ohio triggered a corn ARC-CO payment except Ashtabula county. Soybean ARC-CO payments for Ohio in program year 2016 were smaller and sparce compared to corn. The majority of Ohio counties triggered a wheat ARC-CO payment, but smaller base acres of wheat exist. In program year 2017, it is estimated six counties triggered corn payments while nearly half triggered soybean payments and two thirds triggered wheat payments.

 

Data Source and Calucation:

ARC-CO payments are based on a formula seperated into two parts: historical revenue benchmark and actual year revenue. The historical revenue benchmark is the Olympic average of yields and prices for the five previous cropping years at 86% of the total. The actual year revenue is the current year yields multiplied by the Marketing Year Average (MYA) price for each commodity. In the case where the curent year revenue falls below the historical revenue benchmark, a payment is triggered up to a 10% cap. If the current year revenue is higher than historical revenue then no payment is triggered.

As a reminder both ARC-CO and PLC payments are calculated from a formula using Farm Service Agency (FSA) yields and marketing year average prices. The estimations for this report use National Agricultural Statistic Service (NASS) yields for 2017. It should be noted that FSA yields are historically lower than NASS yeilds and should be treated as a lower bound for possibile payments. NASS does not provide county yields for all counties, particially due to a low survey respone rate. Counties with a NASS yield are included.

The corn and soybean marketing year is September 1st to August 31st meaning that final prices won’t be known for several more months. Using World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) average prices from May, MYA prices of $3.40 for corn, $9.35 for soybeans, and $4.70 for wheat are applied. As the marketing year progresses, it is likely that these estimates will flucuate with price. Higher price results in a smaller payment, similarily, a lower price results a larger payment.

MYA prices used in the historical calculation are as followed:

 

MYA 2012/13 MYA 2013/14 MYA 2014/15 MYA 2015/16 MYA 2016/17
Corn $6.89 $4.46 $3.70 $3.70 $3.70
Soybeans $14.40 $13.00 $10.10 $8.95 $9.50
Wheat $7.77 $6.87 $5.99 $5.50 $5.50

 

Years where the MYA price finished below the fixed reference price are replaced with the respective value and represented in bold above. Payments would be lower if the actual MYA price was used in the calculation. Soybeans have never finished below the reference price. Crossed out prices represent the highest and lowest values; these are thrown out in the Olympic average.

Established in the program payment calculations is a limit for payments on 85% of base acres. For simplicity purposes, these figures are adjusted to rates that represent the payment on 100% of enrolled acres. Because of the Budget Control Act of 2011, a 6.8% government sequester has been applied similar to payments made in program years 2014, 2015 and 2016. There is uncertainty as to how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 will impact the sequestration level.

Corn Estimates

Expectations for program year 2017 corn ARC-CO payments will be smaller and rare across much of Ohio. This is largely because of the formula benchmark lowering each year as a result of lower prices. In previous years the historical five year revenue included high prices from MYA 2011/12 and 2012/13. Those have been worked out of the formula and the probability of triggering a payment has lowered. The 5 year olympic average price in 2016 was $4.79 compared to a price of $3.95 in 2017. Payment variations across counties happen due to variations in yields. Highland County tiggers the largest estimated payment at $24 per acre as a result of a 2017 yield of 167 bu/acre compared to a 2016 yield of 176. The average payment in 2016 was $57 whereas in 2017 it is estimated at $8. Fewer counties are expected to receive a payment with a smaller average payment in comparison from 2016.

Soybean Estimates

In a complete reverse of 2016, the majority of counties in Ohio are expected to trigger a soybean ARC-CO payment due to smaller county soybean yields and a lower historical revenue benchmark. County yields across Ohio were closer to historical trend than previous years and the five year MYA prce was $10.86 in 2017 compared to $11.86 in 2016. Payments are projected larger in the northern part of the state where soybean acres are more prevelant. In 2016, 29 Ohio counties triggered an ARC-CO payment whereas in 2017, 38 counties are expected to trigger a payment. The average payment in 2016 was $18, whereas in 2017 the average payment is projected at $23. In difference to corn more counties are expected to trigger a payment this year than last.

Wheat Estimates

Corn and soybeans represent the majority of commodity base acres in Ohio with over 4 million base acres of corn and over 3 million base acres of soybeans. Wheat has just over 800 thousand base acres enrolled in ARC-CO or PLC. However, 82% of wheat base acres have ARC-CO enrollment. In 2016, all but four Ohio counties triggered an ARC-CO payment with an average payment rate of $32. In 2017, the estimated average payment rate is $24 in roughly two-thirds of Ohio’s counties. The lower rate is a product of a higher expected MYA price for the current year of 2017/18. The largest payments are located along the Indiana/Ohio boarder.

PLC Payments

PLC county payments estimates can be made at this time, but with less certainty. Largely because the PLC program has a higher focus on the current MYA price, which is being replaced with the WASDE estimated average price. In Ohio, 3% of soybean base acres, 7% of corn acres and 18% of wheat acres are enrolled in the PLC program. PLC calculation includes taking the positive difference of the fixed reference price minus the current MYA price. Fixed reference prices are as followed: corn- $3.70, soybeans- $8.40, and wheat- $5.50. Given current WASDE projections for a high, low and average MYA price, a PLC payment is triggered at all three levels for corn and wheat with differing levels of size while soybeans do not trigger a payment at any level. PLC payments are expected to be larger for corn than last year while smaller for wheat. Soybeans have never triggered a PLC payment since the creation of the farm bill.

Summary

Payments for ARC-CO and PLC won’t be made until later in the calendar year, but for cash flow planning an estimate can be seen as important. Estimates for program year 2017 include fewer counties in Ohio triggering a corn ARC-CO payment in 2017 compared to 2016 with a smaller average payment of $8. This is due to a lower historical benchmark after high prices were removed from the five year Olympic average. In relation to 2016, more Ohio counties are expected to trigger a soybean ARC-CO payment with a higher per acre average payment rate. Yields closer to a historical trend line have created a higher probability of a soybean payment for half of Ohio’s 88 counties. Like corn, a similar story exists for wheat where fewer counties are expected to receive a payment with a lower average per acre payment rate compared to 2016. A higher expected current year marketing year average brings the current year revenue above the historical benchmark for a third of Ohio’s counties. PLC payment rates are expected to be higher for corn and lower for wheat in 2017 than 2016, but applies to a small percentage of Ohio base acres. Soybeans are not expected to trigger a PLC payment. Estimates for ARC-CO and PLC for each county are included in the appendix.

These are estimates of what payment rates could look like in the majority of Ohio’s 88 counties. Yields and prices will be finalized by the Farm Service Agency later in the calendar year.

Data Sources:

United State Department of Agriculture- Farm Service Agency. ARC/PLC Program. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, 2018.

United States Department of Agriculture- National Agricultural Statistics Service. County Yields. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, 2018

United States Department of Agriculture- World Agricultural Outlook Board. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, WASDE-574, February 8, 2018.

Ben Brown Program Manager: Ohio Farm Management Program College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics 235 Agricultural Administration, 2120 Fyffe Rd., Columbus, OH 43210-1067 614-688-8686 Office

World Supply and Demand Estimates for September 12, 2018

by Ben Brown, Program Manager- Farm Management Program College of Food, Agricultural, & Environmental Sciences  Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics 2120 Fyffe Road, Columbus, OH 43210

614-688-8686 Office

brown.6888@osu.edu

USDA released their monthly supply and demand estimates today and similar to years past the September WASDE was an important one given its proximity to the end of harvest in the United States. This year’s September WASDE could have more influence on final yields compared to years past taking into consideration how quickly the crops are progressing. The crop progress report that came out earlier this week reported that corn completion is 2% further along than our five-year average- an adjustment from 3% to 5%. However, considering the majority of the corn production is located in the Midwest and Upper Plains, the percent of corn entering dent stage is important. USDA reports that 86% of the U.S. corn crop is in the dent stage compared to the 5-year average of 75%. For soybeans the percent of the U.S. crop dropping leaves is at 31% compared to the five-year average of 19%. Historically the October report has been the best indicator of final crop yields, but since 1964 when a crop is this far along there is significant correlation with the September yield forecasts.

As far as commodity prices received to producers, this was another WASDE to burn. However, producers will have to shake it off because while complaining about prices might make one feel better, it historically hasn’t changed the result. The yield forecast confirmed early reports by the Pro-Farmer Tour and Ohio Ag Net that this had the potential to be a record crop. The Pro-Farmer Tour had results of 177bu./acre for corn and 53bu./acre for soybeans for a national average. Ohio yields were 184 bu./ acre for corn and 60 bu./acre for soybeans. Both would be new yield records for Ohio beating previous records of 177 bu./acre for corn in 2017 and 54.5 bu./acre for soybeans in 2016. The Crop Production Report released today had an Ohio corn yield of 188 bu./acre and a Ohio soybean yield of 58 bu./acre. Multiplied by expected harvested acreage, this would be Ohio’s second largest corn crop and largest soybean crop in terms of production. Total U.S. yields were 181.3 bu./acre for corn and 52.8 bu./acre for soybeans.

Preventive plant numbers and failed acreage reports filed through USDA have to this point been lower than the 5-year average. It is likely that the harvested acreage estimates won’t move much through the remainder of the growing season, which leaves yield as the determining factor for total production. Total corn production is estimated at 14,827 billion bushels. Total soybean production is estimated at 4,693 billion bushels. That’s a lot of grain to store and sell. Some farmers or cooperatives will have a blank space and they will probably use it to pile corn, given the large size of both crops and significant carry over from 2017.

Moving to the demand side, export numbers for soybeans would suggest the there is some bad blood in the water between the United States and China and develops the question “will the U.S. and China ever get back together”. Trade theory would suggest that the U.S. price will either be bid lower on excess supply and weakened demand or the rest of the world price (mainly large exporters like Brazil) will be bid higher on stronger demand for their product until the U.S. price plus the tariff is equal to the Brazilian price. With an additional 25% Chinese tariff on U.S. soybeans, that would mean that the U.S. soybean price will would need to be 80% of the rest of the world price (i.e. Brazil) for the two prices to be substitutable to Chinese buyers. That wedge as of today sits at 83%, meaning that the Brazil price is still not high enough or the U.S. price has not hit it’s floor yet. Sorry for the bad news.

Due to the higher world price, Chinese, Brazilian and European producers are getting the signal to produce more product. Similarly, Chinese consumers are getting the signal to consume less. This creates a decrease in the amount of soybean imports for China, holding everything else constant.

Looking at the May WASDE, which in this case represents the before tariff estimates and the September WADE, which represents post tariff estimates we can draw conclusions about use. Chinese soybean production in the September WASDE is increased from the May WASDE by 6%, and their imports of soybeans are decreased by 9 million metric tons or 8.7%. This follows the logic in the paragraph above.

Time for some good news. As expected, a lower commodity price will spur domestic use. Corn ethanol production is up 50 million metric tons compared to a year ago and finally we are seeing increases in the feed and residual use value- up 125 million bushels from 2017. This value was also increased 50 million bushels from the August report. Exports for the 2018 crop are still down from 2017, but raised from the August report on strong growth in sales to Egypt, Columbia, and Mexico.

Soybean use, shows a 15 million bushel increase in crush- driven by profit margin of soybean oil. Bio-diesel is increased 800 million pounds on the resulting increase in soybean oil. It’s like a peanut butter sandwich- to get a sandwich, one need equal parts of peanut butter and jelly. For soybeans, increased crushing to get more soybean oil also produces more soybean meal. The increase in soybean meal pushes down meal prices and a decrease of $20/ short ton is represented in the WASDE report. Soybean export continue to be stronger than normal right now to countries not named China. This increase in exports is not expected to continue through the remainder of the marketing year. Soybean export estimates have been reduced 70 million bushels compared to a year ago, even with the record crop.

Total soybean use is reduced to 24,200 million bushels and ending stocks are increased to 845 million bushels. For corn, total use is increased to 15,105 million bushels, but not enough to counter the large production, as ending stocks are also increased to 1,774 million bushels.

The markets were expecting corn production around 14.5 billion bushels. The larger than expected corn crop pushed futures prices lower today. December corn futures reached their lowest levels of their existence settling at $3.52/bu. November soybean futures traded sideways as the increase in production was close to expectation. The season marketing average for corn is now projected at $3.50/bu. and for soybeans at $8.60/bu. As a reminder the season marketing period for both corn and soybeans is September 1, 2018- August 31, 2019.

Grain marketing this winter and early spring will be tough for producers, because the low prices are expected to continue. Any talk of a resolution to the trade situation has been a positive sign to markets and one could expect that if resolved could send corn and soybean prices significantly above current futures prices. However, a large South American crop this winter followed by another above trend U.S. crop would possibly send U.S. prices to their lowest levels since the early 2000s. It’s completely their choice, but personally- I’d rather be safe than sorry.

 

Margin Protection Program Update

By: Dianne Shoemaker, Field Specialist, Dairy Production Economics

The Dairy Margin Protection Program (DMPP) underwent a substantial change earlier this year resulting from language included in the 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act. Program enrollment was re-opened from April 9 through June 8, 2018. Significant changes benefiting dairy farmers included a one million pound increase in a farm’s production history eligible for new Tier 1 premium rates. This change meant that the first 5 million pounds of a farm’s annual production history was eligible for substantially reduced premiums. Tier 2 premiums applicable to any production history above 5 million pounds remained unchanged. Other changes included monthly margin calculations and payments of any indemnities, and the 2018 sign-up being retroactive to 1/1/18.
As a result of these changes and 2018’s challenging milk prices, 888 Ohio dairy farms enrolled in the updated MPP program according to the Ohio Farm Service Agency. By July 26, 876 of those farms had been approved. USDA Farm Service Agency announced that through July 11, $7,071,360 in program payments were processed for Ohio dairy farmers, averaging $8,072 before premium costs for the 876 approved farms. Individual farm payments vary depending on each farm’s production history and margin coverage selections.

On June 25, 2018, the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Dairy Division reported 2,206 dairy farms in Ohio. This is a substantial decline from the 2,312 dairies recorded in October 2017. Since the Margin Protection Program was initiated in September 2014, 1,091 Ohio dairy farms have established their production history with the USDA Farm Service Agency. The current sign-up is 81.39% of farms that have established base with the FSA, or 40% of all Ohio dairy farms. It is unlikely that Ohio would experience a near-100% enrollment as the large population of Ohio’s Anabaptist farmers are not likely to participate in this type of program.

Find more details about the new MPP program and resources at this link

As Chinese Trade Tensions Build, Do Ohio Producers Need to Worry?

By Ben Brown and Ian Sheldon

The attached link is a report summarizing the impact of Chinese tariffs on U.S. soybeans, corn and pork.

https://bit.ly/2GoD0DW

A short summary follows:

Chinese tariffs on U.S. soybeans have not been implemented yet, but concern throughout the U.S. agricultural industry and Ohio exists because of uncertainty in export markets and commodity prices. Ohio exports $50 billion of products worldwide and $3.9 billion of agricultural commodities. The three largest markets for Ohio agricultural exports are Canada, China and Mexico with especially strong growth in the Chinese market since 2010. The U.S. is the second largest supplier, behind Brazil, of soybeans to China at 39%, and a tariff on U.S. soybeans would likely strengthen Brazil’s position in the market. Roughly, 31% of U.S. soybeans are exported to China, which would fall to 22%, a loss to Ohio of an estimated $241 million. Ohio exports to China of raw commodities are strongest for soybeans with large corn processing and domestic use limiting raw corn exports. Through calculations made based on a representative west central Ohio farm, and assuming an average degree of Chinese substitution between U.S. and Brazilian soybean import, it is estimated that average net income per year (2018-2024) would drop from $63,577 to $26,107 under the proposed tariff, which translates to a 59% decrease in net farm income. Import tariffs by the U.S. of Chinese steel will likely increase machinery costs and the cost to produce agricultural inputs that heavily rely on steel infrastructure by raising the domestic price. Weakening financial health through debt coverage and lower land values will continue to erode the financial health of Ohio farm families. The net worth of the representative farm decreased 6% from the baseline in projection year 2024 under the proposed tariffs. Larger farm incomes in the beginning of the decade would have showed a lower percentage decrease than the current farm margins.

These data should not be seen as a concrete prediction, as an analysis of external factors such as weather and shifts in demand could alter the outcomes. Reducing trade barriers with countries that depend on U.S. agricultural commodities strengthen the U.S. ability to sell in a world economy. The U.S. is currently renegotiating several of its free trade agreements while also encouraging bilateral deals with several of the world’s largest agricultural consuming countries. The North American Free Trade Agreement already allows most commodities to flow across the border at a 0% tariff, meaning that a new negotiated agreement between the countries will not increase exports to Canada and Mexico for corn and soybeans. The large agricultural disagreement in the NAFTA negotiations is around Canada’s dairy supply management program. The Korean- U.S. trade agreement named KORUS is also being reviewed, but talks have slowed after initial excitement over a completed agreement.

 

 

2018 Dairy Margin Protection Program Update

by: Dianne Shoemaker, Field Specialist, Dairy Production Economics

Largely considered a failure by dairy farmers, changes to the Dairy Margin Protection Program (MPP) included in the 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act earlier this year may be helpful for some farmers.

Dairy farmers should re-evaluate the use of the 2018 MPP before the June 1 signup deadline.  Originally initiated by 2014 Farm Bill legislation , the MPP intended to provide dairy farmers with a tool to manage risk by insuring a margin between the Statistical Uniform Milk Price and a calculated feed cost based on a set equation and monthly corn, soybean and hay prices.  This program replaced the MILC and support price programs.  Now farms can choose to participate in either the MPP, the Livestock Gross Margin Insurance Program, or neither.

Farmers that choose to participate in the MPP pay a $100 administrative fee and receive coverage for a $4 per cwt “catastrophic margin” (CAT), on 90% of their production history.  They can also choose to “buy up” coverage up to an $8 margin for 25% to 90% of their production history.

Changes Made

Administration Fee:

Farms that participate must pay a $100 administration fee.  Now this fee will be waived for limited-resource, beginning, veteran, and disadvantaged farmers.

Premiums: Tier 1 premiums now cover the first 5 million pounds of production history.  Previously, they applied to the first 4 million pounds.  Tier 1 premiums are also substantially less, offering new opportunities for farms covering up to 5 million pounds of milk.  Tier 2 premiums are unchanged.  See Table 1 for old and new premium rates.  Note that on the first 5 million pounds (Tier 1), coverage up to a $5.00 margin is now available at no cost.

Production History: No changes here.  Production history (PH) is based on the highest annual production from 2011, 2012, or 2013.  Farms that participated previously and paid their fees in a timely manner receive annual production increases with rates announced annually by Farm Service Agency (FSA).  Farms that started milking cows after 2013 should work with their FSA office to establish their farm’s production history.

Indemnity Calculations: Will be made and paid monthly in 2018.  Previously, margins were calculated and announced each month, but for program purposes, 2 months were averaged together and any indemnity payments were made on those 2-month averages.  For example, under the old rules the indemnity for January/February would have been based on an average of the January margin of $8.11705 and February’s $6.88349, or $7.50027.  If a farm had bought up coverage for an $8 margin, the indemnity payment on covered pounds would be $8 – $7.50027, or $0.49973 per cwt.

Under 2018’s revised rules, the indemnity for January is zero since the actual margin was more than $8.  February’s is ($8 – $6.88349) or $1.11651 per cwt, resulting in a higher overall indemnity payment for a farm that buys up coverage to the $8 margin.  These monthly calculations and payments can increase the dollars received by the farm, and result in faster payments to the farm.

No Play, No Pay:  Last fall, this option was initiated by the Secretary of Agriculture, and continues under the new rules.  Even if a farm had signed up for coverage prior to 2018, it may opt-out of the program for 2018.

Sign-ups reopened: The original sign up period for 2018 coverage opened and closed in 2017.  With the rollout of the new rules, a new sign-up period opened April 9th and continues through June 1.  If you signed up in 2017, even at the minimum level, you must sign up again!  If you do not, you will not be enrolled in the program for 2018.

Retroactivity: The sign up period is for January 1 through December 31, 2018, and coverage is retroactive to January 1.  This puts us in the interesting position of knowing the margins for January, February, and March before making a program decision.  By the end of May, we will also have a pretty clear idea of what the April margin will be plus or minus a few cents.

Making Decisions: The Margin Protection Program Decision Tool is updated with the new rules and Tier I Premiums.  Futures market data is updated daily by Mark Stephenson’s group at the University of Wisconsin which developed the tool.  Find it at https://dairymarkets.org/MPP/.  Plug in your production history and use the “Select Coverage” feature to see the administrative fees and premiums, expected payments and expected net returns for each margin coverage level at the percent of PH coverage that you select.

Projections:  Using futures market data available on April 30th, the MPP Decision Tool is projecting that the margin will stay below $8 per cwt through June.  If this is what actually happens, the decision tool projects an expected payment of $24,082 for a farm with a production history of 5 million pounds buying up coverage for an $8 margin on 90% of their production history (4,807,827 pounds of milk is covered).  The administrative fee and premiums for this coverage will cost $6,927 with the $100 administrative fee due at sign up, and the balance due by September.

If milk price improves, and/or feed prices decline, the expected payment could be considerably less.  The projections do not guarantee the actual performance of the program.  It projects what will happen based on yesterday’s futures market data.  Each farm has to make a final participation decision based on today’s information and your expectations of what will happen in the market place for the rest of 2018.

What we know for sure: What we do know for sure is that for a farm purchasing coverage at the $8 level, there will be indemnity payments for February ($1.11651) and March ($1.23163).  A logical next question is, “how much of the fees and premiums will that cover?”

For our example farm covering 90% of their 5 million pound beginning PH, the covered annual production is 4,807,827 pounds.  (A farm participating each year receives an annual increase to their PH, so their 2018 program PH is 5,342,030.)  To calculate monthly payments, the covered PH is divided by 12, regardless of when milk is actually produced on the farm.  Continuing with our example above, the farm’s monthly covered PH is 4,807,827 lbs/12 = 400,652 lbs or 4,006.52 cwt.

February          $1.11651 x 4,006.52 cwt =            $4,473

March              $1.23163 x 4,006.52 cwt =             $4,935

$9,408

Estimated 6.6% sequestration deduction            –    621

Feb/March Payment to the farm                     $8,787

 

Note: Farm Bill payments are subject to a sequestration deduction related to budget-balancing efforts.  Current estimates are that the deduction rate for MPP payments will be around 6.6%.

For our example farm, we know that the payments for February and March will return more than the $6,927 administrative fee and premiums.  It appears very likely that the margin forecasted for April will also be well under $7 with May and June currently forecasted above $7 but less than $8.  So, in this case, a farm can sign up knowing that the fees will be covered, and there will be some net return to assist with a few bills.

More than 5 Million Pounds: Our example farm at 5 million pounds of PH would be representative of a farm milking 200 cows selling 25,000 pounds of milk per cow per year.  How does MPP look for farms with more than 5 million pounds of milk?

Here we have to consider two important factors.

  • Tier 2 premiums for milk over 5 million pounds are considerably higher than the Tier 1 premiums for the first 5 million pounds of milk. For example, $8 coverage costs 14.2¢ per cwt for the first 5 million pounds, and $1.36 per cwt for any milk above that level.
  • Only one level of coverage can be selected for the first 5 million pounds, and any milk above 5 million pounds.

Because of this stipulation, farms with more than 5 million pounds will want to cover whatever percent of their PH that gets their covered milk as close to 5 million pounds as possible.  If your farm has more than 20 million pounds of PH, even at 25% coverage, you will be purchasing some Tier 2 protection.  Those high rates can quickly eat up any indemnity payments.  Use the MPP Tool to see what coverage optimizes net returns for your farm.

Because of the higher Tier 2 premiums on the milk over 5 million pounds, some farms will find that the February and March payments will cover less than half of the fees and premiums.  These farms will want to look carefully at the cost and probability of the program helping their farm business, factoring in their own market projections.

It is likely that farms with over 25 million pounds of production history will find that the fee and premiums will cost more than the projected indemnities.  Run the Decision Tool again shortly before the sign-up deadline as market projections will change.

Bottom Line:

  • Significant changes were made to the 2018 Dairy Margin Protection Program.
  • Farms who signed up in 2017 for the 2018 program must sign up again by June 1.
  • Sign up is retroactive to January 1, 2018 and coverage is for January through December 2018.
  • Sign up at your County Farm Service Agency office.
  • Farms should use the Margin Projection Program Decision Tool to evaluate their farm’s participation. Your County Extension Educator can assist you with the tool.
  • The MPP Decision Tool is updated with new futures markets information daily. Results and projections change because results are projections based on yesterday’s market data.
  • Combine MPP Decision Tool projections with your projections about this year’s markets and what we already know about January, February, and March margins to make the best decision for your farm.
  • Premiums must be paid in full by September 1. It makes sense to pay off the premium with indemnity payments received before using MPP payments to pay other bills.

The good news is that these changes may bring a few dollars to cash strapped farms.  Will it substantially help with pervasive cash flow issues?  No.  However, for 2018, it might help pay a bill or two.

Resources:

Program on Dairy Markets and Policy Website https://dairymarkets.org/

Margin Protection Program Decision Tool            https://dairymarkets.org/MPP/Tool/

Farm Service Agency Margin Protection Program for Dairy including announced prices and margins, you can also access the Decision Tool from this site

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/Dairy-MPP/index

USDA MPP Terms and Conditions Update https://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/efcommon/eFileServices/eForms/CCC782_APPENDIX.PDF

 

Market Reacts to Proposed Tariffs

Source: Ben Brown, Program Manager- Farm Management Program, College of Food, Agricultural, & Environmental Sciences, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics

Here is an update on where we stand today on corn and soybean exports and how the markets are responding to the tariff announcements between the US and China. Several of you have probably followed the story in the news and are already aware of what’s going on.

Quick recap of the timeline- The Administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and 10 percent tariff on steel and aluminum imports for all trading partners and then started to provide exemptions for countries that were willingly working on a free trade agreement. The United States is a net importer of steel with most of our imports coming from Canada and the European Union. China is the world’s largest producers of steel but only 2% of their product is exported to the United States. President Trump removed the steel tariffs on Mexico, Canada, Kora, EU and some of the other trading partners but left the tariff on China. This accounts for about a 3-billion-dollar loss to the Chinese. On Monday the Chinese announce tariff on U.S. pork imports at 25%. This is a huge blow to an industry that was already seeing breakeven to negative per head returns. Our estimate given current budgets was a loss of about 10 dollars per head.

Yesterday the Administration announced proposed tariffs on intellectual property rights and other Chinese products to the tune of about 50 billion dollars. That was met with response today with China announcing tariffs on 100 plus agricultural good at a rate of 25% to be enacted the day the U.S. enacts their tariffs. Important to note that the tariffs are not in place, but the market is reacting to uncertainty.

That brings us to where we are today. Half of the U.S. soybean crop is exported and 62% of the exports go to China, meaning that one third of the U.S. production of soybeans goes to China. Given tariffs at 25%, my estimate from the model shows that we could lose 60-70 percent of our export market to China. That means that if these tariffs go into effect only a fifth of our soybean production would go to China or 1 in 5 soybean rows. Those soybeans will need a buyer. Some will be kept in the United State and fed for feed grain and some will be exported to other world markets because of the lower price.

Argentina has mostly harvested their crop and while it was down in total production due to a drought, they will pick up some soybean market share in China. The big winner is Brazil. They had a relatively strong soybean crop and will be ready to export soybeans. Their second growing season this year is in large percentages corn, but they will also have some soybeans harvested in a couple of months. Like the U.S. drought of 2012, the U.S. will lose market share of soybean exports and it is not certain when we could gain that back. The lower soybean price will lower cost for hog producers and my estimate is now a 7 dollar per head loss.

The United States exports very little corn to start with, only 15% of production not taking into account ethanol exports, and of that the bulk goes to Mexico and Japan. The 25% Chinese tariff won’t affect the corn price as much as the soybean price. However, with a lower world soybean price an incentive to grow corn presents itself. More corn acres would pull down the price of corn. Right now the corn market is down about 7 cents but has been down 12 cents. The perspective planting report that came out Thursday showed an intention by U.S. producers to plant 88 million acres of corn or roughly 2% less than last year. Weather will be the big player between now and June when the next planting report comes out as a wet spring will push some corn acres into soybeans. Even with the tariffs on corn today, I’m still optimistic for a rally in corn prices this summer into harvest. I think we will see an increase in the marketing year average price for corn next week in the WASDE based on the assumption that our feed usage of corn stays between 35 and 40% for the second half of the marketing year.

To the average U.S. consumer these tariffs could cheapen food products at the expense of higher manufactured goods like technology imported from China. Food consumption makes up a relatively small portion of our expenditures meaning that the higher manufactured goods could be higher than the gain from cheaper food.

From a farm management stand point, this could mean higher equipment and input costs along with lower output prices. A double whammy for farmers.

In Ohio we saw a decrease in the amount of corn held in storage which likely means a weakening of basis while soybean on hand was larger signaling a strengthen in basis.

All in all, the markets are reacting to uncertainty. However, if the Administration does move forward with the tariffs we could continue to see decreases in soybean prices and possibly modest decreases in corn prices. The futures market for soybeans is down 38 cents right now but was 60 cents down when I woke up this morning. I look for a little bit of a rebound later today and tomorrow as I think the markets over reacted to some extent, but will not return to the level they were prior to today.

This will also complicate the farm bill adding another hurdle to the already narrow window that existed of getting it done this year.

Estimates for Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage Payments for Program Year 2017

by: Ben Brown, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics- The Ohio State University

Click Here to Access the Entire Article With Figures/Tables

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 2014 ushered in two programs to the safety net for producers in Ohio and across the country: Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC0-CO) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC). Both programs serve as shallow loss programs protecting against large variations in revenue and price respectively. The two programs operate differently and should not be compared as substitute programs. However, producers were allowed a one time choice at the beginning of the farm bill to enroll each commodity in either ARC-CO or PLC. Participation rates in Ohio largely followed the national participation rates for corn and soybeans but differed for wheat. The national participation rate for wheat favored PLC, whereas in Ohio, producers favored heavily toward ARC-CO. Nonetheless there are producers in Ohio that are enrolled in ARC-CO and PLC for corn, soybeans, and wheat. This report looks toward the end of the marketing year to estimate county level payments for ARC-CO and PLC in Ohio. As a reminder, payments finalized in October 2018 will be for program year 2017. This information will be important for producers and lenders wishing to estimate their autumn cash flow.

In October of 2017, the majority of producers in Ohio received some form of commodity program payment for the program year 2016. In fact, every county across Ohio triggered a corn ARC-CO payment except Ashtabula county. Soybean ARC-CO payments for Ohio in program year 2016 were smaller and sparce compared to corn.  The majority of Ohio counties triggered a wheat ARC-CO payment, but smaller base acres of wheat exist. In program year 2017, it is estimated fourteen counties triggered corn payments while nearly half triggered soybean payments and two thirds triggered wheat payments.

Data Source and Calculation:

ARC-CO payments are based on a formula separated into two parts: historical revenue benchmark and actual year revenue. The historical revenue benchmark is the Olympic average of yields and prices for the five previous cropping years at 86% of the total. The actual year revenue is the current year yields multiplied by the Marketing Year Average (MYA) price for each commodity. In the case where the current year revenue falls below the historical revenue benchmark, a payment is triggered up to a 10% cap. If the current year revenue is higher than historical revenue then no payment is triggered.

As a reminder both ARC-CO and PLC payments are calculated from a formula using Farm Service Agency (FSA) yields and marketing year average prices. The estimations for this report use National Agricultural Statistic Service (NASS) yields for 2017. It should be noted that FSA yields are historically lower than NASS yields and should be treated as a lower bound for possible payments. NASS does not provide county yields for all counties, particially due to a low survey response rate. Counties with a NASS yield are included.

The corn and soybean marketing year is September 1st to August 31st meaning that final prices won’t be known for several more months. Using World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) average prices from February, MYA prices of $3.30 for corn, $9.30 for soybeans, and $4.60 for wheat are applied. As the marketing year progresses, it is likely that these estimates will flucuate with price. Higher price results in a smaller payment, similarily, a lower price results a larger payment.

MYA prices used in the historical calculation are as followed:

MYA 2012/13 MYA 2013/14 MYA 2014/15 MYA 2015/16 MYA 2016/17
Corn $6.89 $4.46 $3.70 $3.70 $3.70
Soybeans $14.40 $13.00 $10.10 $8.95 $9.50
Wheat $7.77 $6.87 $5.99 $5.50 $5.50

Years where the MYA price finished below the fixed reference price are replaced with the respective value and represented in bold above. Payments would be lower if the actual MYA price was used in the calculation. Soybeans have never finished below the reference price. Crossed out prices represent the highest and lowest values; these are thrown out in the Olympic average.

Established in the program payment calculations is a limit for payments on 85% of base acres. For simplicity purposes, these figures are adjusted to rates that represent the payment on 100% of enrolled acres. Because of the Budget Control Act of 2011, a 6.8% government sequester has been applied similar to payments made in program years 2014, 2015 and 2016. There is uncertainty as to how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 will impact the sequestration level.

Corn Estimates

Expectations for program year 2017 corn ARC-CO payments will be smaller and rare across much of Ohio. This is largely because of the formula benchmark lowering each year as a result of lower prices. In previous years the historical five year revenue included high prices from MYA 2011/12 and 2012/13. Those have been worked out of the formula and the probability of triggering a payment has lowered. The 5 year olympic average price in 2016 was $4.79 compared to a price of $3.95 in 2017. Payment variations across counties happen due to variations in yields. Highland County triggers the largest estimated payment at $37 per acre as a result of a 2017 yield of 167 bu/acre compared to a 2016 yield of 176. The average payment in 2016 was $57 whereas in 2017 it is estimated at $12. Fewer counties are expected to receive a payment with a smaller average payment in comparison from 2016.

Soybean Estimates

In a complete reverse of 2016, the majority of counties in Ohio are expected to trigger a soybean ARC-CO payment due to smaller county soybean yields and a lower historical revenue benchmark. County yields across Ohio were closer to historical trend than previous years and the five year MYA prce was $10.86 in 2017 compared to $11.86 in 2016. Payments are projected larger in the northern part of the state where soybean acres are more prevalent. In 2016, 29 Ohio counties triggered an ARC-CO payment whereas in 2017, 49 counties are expected to trigger a payment.  The average payment in 2016 was $23, whereas in 2017 the average payment is projected at $19. In difference to corn more counties are expected to trigger a payment, but similar to corn the payments are expected to be smaller in 2017.

Wheat Estimates

Corn and soybeans represent the majority of commodity base acres in Ohio with over 4 million base acres of corn and over 3 million base acres of soybeans. Wheat has just over 800 thousand base acres enrolled in ARC-CO or PLC.  However, 82% of wheat base acres have ARC-CO enrollment. In 2016, all but four Ohio counties triggered an ARC-CO payment with an average payment rate of $32. In 2017, the estimated average payment rate is $24 in roughly two-thirds of Ohio’s counties. The lower rate is a product of a higher expected MYA price for the current year of 2017/18. The largest payments are located along the Indiana/Ohio boarder.

PLC Payments

PLC county payments estimates can be made at this time, but with less certainty. Largely because the PLC program has a higher focus on the current MYA price, which is being replaced with the WASDE estimated average price. In Ohio, 3% of soybean base acres, 7% of corn acres and 18% of wheat acres are enrolled in the PLC program. PLC calculation includes taking the positive difference of the fixed reference price minus the current MYA price. Fixed reference prices are as followed: corn- $3.70, soybeans- $8.40, and wheat- $5.50. Given current WASDE projections for a high, low and average MYA price, a PLC payment is triggered at all three levels for corn and wheat with differing levels of size while soybeans do not trigger a payment at any level. PLC payments are expected to be larger for corn than last year while smaller for wheat. Soybeans have never triggered a PLC payment since the creation of the farm bill.

Summary

Payments for ARC-CO and PLC will not be made until later in the calendar year, but for cash flow, planning an estimate can be seen as important. Estimates for program year 2017 include fewer counties in Ohio triggering a corn ARC-CO payment in 2017 compared to 2016 with a smaller average payment of $12. This is due to a lower historical benchmark after high prices were removed from the five year Olympic average. In relation to 2016, more Ohio counties are expected to trigger a soybean ARC-CO payment with a smaller per acre average payment rate. Yields closer to a historical trend line have created a higher probability of a soybean payment for half of Ohio’s 88 counties. Like corn, a similar story exists for wheat where fewer counties are expected to receive a payment with a lower average per acre payment rate compared to 2016. A higher expected current year marketing year average brings the current year revenue above the historical benchmark for a third of Ohio’s counties. PLC payment rates are expected to be higher for corn and lower for wheat in 2017 than 2016, but applies to a small percentage of Ohio base acres. Soybeans are not expected to trigger a PLC payment. Estimates for ARC-CO and PLC for each county are included in the appendix.

These are estimates of what payment rates could look like in the majority of Ohio’s 88 counties. Yields and prices will be finalized by the Farm Service Agency later in the calendar year.

Data Sources:

United State Department of Agriculture- Farm Service Agency. ARC/PLC Program. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, 2018.

United States Department of Agriculture- National Agricultural Statistics Service. County Yields. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture, 2018

United States Department of Agriculture- World Agricultural Outlook Board. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, WASDE-574, February 8, 2018.

 

Economic Contribution of Agricultural and Food Production Cluster to Ohio Economy – County Level Analysis

 

Contributors: Ben Brown, Ryan Brune, Connor Frame, and Megan Ritter

Click here for the entire PDF Article for the County Level Report

In November of 2017, researchers in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics released The Economic Contribution of Agricultural and Food Production to the Ohio Economy report with analysis of Ohio’s entire Agricultural and Food Production Cluster. Details of that report are included, but this serves as a parallel analysis of agriculture to each of Ohio’s eighty-eight counties. Key results match initial assumptions in those counties with large concentrations of equipment manufacturing, professional services and diary & milk production led total economic contribution by the production agriculture subsector. In addition, counties containing relatively high food processing see the largest total sector contributions, and that counties with relatively small populations experience a higher percentage of employers involved in food and agriculture related careers. Large population centers within Cuyahoga, Franklin and Hamilton counties produced high economic contributions, but had low total population participation in agriculture. Data obtained from IMPLAN, a North Carolina based economic software company, provided the most recent total values, while the North American Industry Classification System was used to determine the percent agriculture contributed to each sector. The IMPLAN model estimates value added for 536 separate subsectors within Ohio’s economy. Unlike the statewide report, these county level calculations do not include the contribution from restaurants and bars. It also includes Farm Inputs, Equipment and Farm Professional Services in the agricultural production subsector.

Key findings in the statewide report: Ohio’s Agricultural and Food Production Cluster plus Restaurant and Bars account for $1 in every $13 of Ohio’s GSP and 1 in 8 jobs in Ohio. Each county differed in these ratios, but as expected large population counties were negatively correlated with small population counties in economic contribution and percentage of workforce involved in agriculture. The total statewide economic value added contribution of the Agricultural and Food Production Cluster minus Restaurants and Bars was $32.5 billion dollars and accounted for a little over 5 percent of the state’s gross state product. Value added being the sum of sales minus input costs for each sector. Example: corn production minus seed, fertilizer, ext. The sector employed 402,874 Ohioans in 2015 and because of purchases outside the cluster; a multiplier of 1.6 was used for every dollar of valued added making the total contribution $53 billion. Multipliers are a way of capturing the money spent within Ohio made from an agricultural sector that is then used to purchase additional products, like household items, into the economic contribution.

Declining commodity prices for corn, soybeans and milk in recent years have lowered the value added contribution of some counties, especially those that have corn, soybeans and milk ranked in the top three subsectors. Other subsectors including fruit and vegetable production have shown an increase to the value added contribution. Along with decreasing commodity prices, increasing productivity due to technology advancements have correlated with a decrease in employment within agriculture and food production. Ohio’s characteristic as a top agriculture producing state remains strong, but external factors like increasing pressure on land values could be seen as a potential challenge for the production agriculture subsector.

The three main divisions of the Agricultural and Food Production Cluster: Agricultural Production, Agricultural and Food Processing and Food Wholesale/Retail are included in Table 1 with subsectors broken out under their respective division. Different from the statewide report is the inclusion of Farm Inputs, Equipment and Professional Services under the division of Agricultural Production instead of an isolated division.

Table 1: Classification of Sectors

Agricultural Production Agricultural and Food Processing Food Wholesale/ Retail  
Farm Inputs, Equipment and Professional Services Processed Meat, Fish, Poultry & Eggs Food and Forestry Wholesale
Dairy Cattle and Milk Production Dairy Processing Food and Forestry Retail
Beef Cattle Production

 

Processed Food & Kindred Products
Poultry & Egg Production

 

Grain Milling & Flour
Hogs & Other Farm Animals Fats & Oils Processing
Grain Production

 

Beverage Processing
Soybeans & Other Oil Seeds Wood/ Paper/ Furniture Manufacturing
Misc. Crops, Hay, Sugar, Tobacco & Nuts
Fruit & Vegetable Production
Greenhouse, Nursery & Floriculture Production
Forestry, Hunting & Fishing
Sum of Agriculture Production Sum of Food Processing Sum of Food Wholesale/ Retail Total Agricultural and Food Production Cluster

 

Starting with Total Value Added from the Agriculture and Food Production Cluster it is not surprising to see in Figure 1 that the top five counties also match five counties with large population centers. With Franklin, Hamilton, and Cuyahoga counties being the location of Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland respectively, it was expected and found that the contribution of production agriculture in terms of both value added and employment was the smallest division contributor, with food processing being the largest contributing division in Franklin, Hamilton, Butler, and Stark Counties. Food wholesale/ retail was the largest contributing division for Cuyahoga County.  Statewide, the food processing sector was the largest contributing division at $14,986 million and 2.43% of the states’ Gross State Product (GSP).

Franklin County had a high food processing contribution due to the beverage processing sector at $916 million. Notable companies in the area include Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc., BrewDog USA, Coca-Cola and others according to the Columbus Economic Development Annual Report. Employment within the Cluster was also largely contributed from the beverage processing subsector. For Hamilton county, the beverage processing subsector was also the largest contribution to the food processing division. Boston Beer Company, the parent company of Sam Adams Beer, and The J.M. Smuckers Co., parent company to Folgers Coffee are major contributors to the subsector. Boston Beer Company produces 20 percent of all Sam Adams Beer within Hamilton County. Cuyahoga County was the lone county in the top five where the top contributing division was Food Wholesale/Retail. Multiple subsectors in this division contributed to the large value, but noticeable was the smaller value for the beverage processing subsector in the Food Processing division. Analysis was not conducted across all 88 counties, but based on the top total value added counties, counties with large beverage processing subsectors had food processing divisions that made up the largest portion of the county’s Agricultural and Food Cluster contribution. While Cuyahoga, Franklin and Hamilton Counties are only 3 out of 88, the population represents roughly 29 percent of Ohio’s population based on U.S. Census Bureau data and make up a large portion of the Cluster’s impact to Ohio.

Figure 1: Top Five Value Added Counties

In Figure 1, counties producing the largest total values of economic contribution from agriculture and food were identified, and it isn’t surprising that counties with relatively large total economies also had the largest contributions of agriculture. However, in none of the top five producing counties was production agriculture the top contributing division. To look at the relative value of production agriculture to a county’s economy we can use the value added from agricultural production as a percent of the counties total economic output and indeed counties with larger agricultural output in regards to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) do rise to the top.  However, this should not be interpreted as the five counties with the largest total value contribution from production agriculture. The 2016-2017 Ohio Agricultural Statistics Annual Bulletin shows that land use for agricultural purposes in Mercer, Darke, Paulding, Putnam and Union Counties are 93%, 89%, 83%, 99% and 88% respectively, where land use is the sum of cropland, pastureland, and woodland. Figure 2 illustrates where the five counties lie within Ohio.

Figure 2: Top Five Counties

County agriculture contribution profiles for Mercer and Darke counties were similar as both counties had the same two subsectors contributing the majority of value added products to the county economies: Poultry & Egg Production and Pork Production. For Paulding and Putnam counties there was not a specific subsector that stood above the rest, but more of a balanced distribution. Soybeans & Other Oil Crops had relatively high values for both counties. In contrast, Union County had a top contributing subsector of Farm Inputs, Equipment & Other Professional services that made up 9% of the entire counties economy. This subsector made up 90% of the contribution of the Agricultural and Food Cluster.

While one indication of contribution to a county’s economy is through the value added calculation, another indicator is the number of people employed with-in the Cluster. Similar to the total contribution illustration above in Figure 1, counties with high food processing and relatively large populations also have the largest total number of employment in agriculture, but have a low percentage in relation to the entire county population. Figure 3, identifies the five counties with the highest percentage of the population involved in the Agriculture and Food Cluster. As seen above, Franklin County had the largest total value added to the economy and the highest employment at almost 38 thousand people, but represents roughly 4% of the counties workforce. Whereas Jackson County did not make the top five in total value added contribution, but has 25 percent of its workforce involved in the Cluster.

Figure 3: Percent of Population involved in Agriculture and Food

Summary

Understanding components of the statewide economy are important, as trends within the sector help identify strengths and weaknesses. However, county analysis helps those within and around the industry become stronger more informed decision makers in issues relevant to the Agricultural and Food Production Cluster. Not surprising, counties with larger populations had the highest total value added contribution to the county’s economy and the highest number of employees within the work force, but had lower percentages of the county total in values and employees to those counties with small populations. In counties with large value added from the entire cluster, Food Processing was the largest contributing division for the majority of counties in the top five. A strong beverage-processing subsector helped elevate the Food Processing division for these counties.  Isolating the Production Agriculture division including Farm Inputs, Equipment and Professional Services as a percent of the county’s total economy identified five counties that have relatively high land use in agriculture and high total sales from agriculture commodities.

Individual county fact sheets for all eighty-eight Ohio counties are listed here:

https://aede.osu.edu/research/osu-farm-management/agricultural-impact/contribution-agriculture-county

Appendix I. includes a list of counties and their value of total contribution, value of production agriculture contribution, and employment. State rankings are in parentheses.

References:

“Columbus Region: Food and Beverage.” Columbus 2020, 2017.

DiCarolis, Janice. et al. The Economic Contribution of Agricultural and Food Production to the Ohio Economy. 2017.

IMPLAN. 2017. 2015 Ohio state data package. www.implan.com

Turner, Cheryl, and Brooke Morris. Ohio Agricultural Statistics 2016-2017 Annual Bulletin. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2017.

US Census. 2017a. County Business Profiles. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html

  Agriculture Production Value Added Ag Production % of Employment Total Cluster Value Added Total % of Employment
Adams $26,132,407 (72) 10% (5) $56,773,236 (77) 14% (13)
Allen $78,125,934 (19) 2% (65) $319,126,539 (24) 7% (64)
Ashland $74,074,340 (24) 5% (36) $184,902,491 (48) 10% (38)
Ashtabula $46,313,267 (52) 3% (56) $170,069,071 (50) 8% (59)
Athens $10,832,931 (82) 2% (63) $84,474,544 (69) 6% (74)
Auglaize $71,793,513 (25) 4% (39) $265,307,529 (34) 10% (33)
Belmont $48,773,321 (50) 3% (58) $145,203,550 (55) 8% (54)
Brown $32,761,777 (68) 7% (20) $61,715,467 (76) 11% (28)
Butler $49,768,789 (48) 1% (81) $1,323,431,575 (4) 6% (73)
Carroll $27,087,761 (71) 6% (22) $52,115,212 (78) 10% (37)
Champaign $41,533,589 (62) 5% (28) $106,563,182 (65) 11% (30)
Clark $49,500,983 (49) 2% (69) $287,447,821 (29) 7% (62)
Clermont $38,145,667 (65) 2% (70) $290,746,554 (27) 6% (75)
Clinton $53,920,762 (42) 4% (42) $132,673,146 (57) 8% (51)
Columbiana $56,804,685 (35) 3% (54) $264,737,172 (35) 9% (41)
Coshocton $60,830,386 (31) 7% (17) $187,589,390 (47) 15% (7)
Crawford $56,705,986 (37) 4% (40) $94,785,325 (67) 8% (57)
Cuyahoga $97,944,901 (9) >1% (86) $2,870,230,295 (3) 4% (88)
Darke $239,806,461 (4) 8% (12) $301,799,993 (25) 12% (23)
Defiance $74,738,470 (21) 5% (33) $132,202,917 (58) 9% (43)
Delaware $71,115,273 (26) 1% (78) $414,656,942 (15) 5% (81)
Erie $40,597,271 (64) 2% (62) $168,143,020 (51) 6% (68)
Fairfield $57,092,509 (34) 2% (64) $286,483,386 (30) 7% (66)
Fayette $41,430,653 (63) 4% (44) $203,165,951 (45) 13% (19)
Franklin $163,203,968 (5) > 1% (87) $4,233,913,386 (1) 4% (86)
Fulton $74,574,695 (22) 5% (34) $195,829,037 (46) 10% (32)
Gallia $15,592,444 (77) 6% (27) $37,233,957 (81) 8% (49)
Geauga $56,208,056 (38) 3% (61) $237,554,367 (40) 7% (63)
Greene $43,688,591 (56) 1% (77) $215,452,629 (43) 4% (83)
Guernsey $20,965,101 (75) 6% (26) $74,530,511 (72) 10% (35)
Hamilton $111,589,093 (8) >1% (88) $3,094,701,906 (2) 4% (85)
Hancock $56,118,896 (39) 2% (67) $385,962,349 (18) 9% (46)
Hardin $82,800,471 (14) 8% (13) $138,666,355 (56) 15% (11)
Harrison $10,621,659 (83) 7% (18) $28,975,047 (84) 13% (16)
Henry $54,239,652 (41) 6% (24) $334,766,774 (21) 18% (3)
Highland $45,616,926 (55) 9% (9) $76,818,531 (71) 13% (18)
Hocking $6,799,259 (87) 5% (32) $47,538,393 (79) 12% (22)
Holmes $132,411,907 (7) 7% (16) $385,876,069 (19) 22% (2)
Huron $89,862,265 (11) 5% (37) $324,490,460 (22) 11% (26)
Jackson $22,937,105 (74) 4% (47) $239,977,669 (39) 25% (1)
Jefferson $9,879,886 (84) 2% (71) $79,391,785 (70) 6% (69)
Knox $50,521,887 (47) 5% (30) $122,081,622 (62) 10% (34)
Lake $82,942,001 (13) 1% (80) $630,592,252 (10) 6% (76)
Lawrence $6,325,381 (88) 4% (41) $40,616,956 (80) 8% (55)
  Agriculture Production Value Added Ag Production % of Employment Total Cluster Value Added Total % of Employment
Licking $80,959,369 (17) 3% (57) $290,176,991 (28) 7% (61)
Logan $47,525,570 (51) 4% (45) $129,164,871 (61) 8% (58)
Lorain $75,209,443 (20) 1%  (73) $376,334,667 (20) 5% (78)
Lucas $65,557,760 (29) >1% (84) $745,401,227 (9) 4% (87)
Madison $69,435,722 (27) 4% (38) $113,507,126 (64) 8% (53)
Mahoning $43,627,477 (57) 1% (82) $413,002,404 (16) 5% (80)
Marion $82,089,222 (16) 3% (50) $261,902,767 (36) 10% (36)
Medina $67,362,783 (28) 2% (72) $492,849,630 (13) 6% (67)
Meigs $12,179,096 (81) 9% (6) $22,478,977 (87) 13% (17)
Mercer $287,020,607 (2) 7% (15) $486,428,489 (14) 16% (5)
Miami $41,628,715 (61) 3% (59) $320,490,163 (23) 9% (44)
Monroe $13,856,148 (79) 12% (2) $21,979,543 (88) 15% (12)
Montgomery $53,434,618 (43) >1% (83) $965,102,826 (8) 4% (84)
Morgan $13,011,573 (80) 9% (8) $23,902,013 (86) 14% (14)
Morrow $42,743,432 (59) 9% (7) $70,494,294 (73) 12% (20)
Muskingum $30,721,596 (70) 3% (55) $272,726,649 (33) 8% (47)
Noble $8,823,935 (85) 10% (4) $29,242,985 (83) 16% (6)
Ottawa $42,511,100 (60) 4% (43) $89,869,973 (68) 8% (56)
Paulding $54,709,543 (40) 12% (1) $66,561,674 (75) 15% (9)
Perry $14,860,292 (78) 8% (14) $30,646,479 (82) 12% (24)
Pickaway $58,449,378 (33) 5% (29) $104,937,335 (66) 9% (42)
Pike $20,526,229 (76) 4% (48) $69,036,918 (74) 11% (25)
Portage $33,902,467 (66) 1% (75) $282,939,009 (31) 5% (79)
Preble $52,009,567 (46) 9% (10) $171,486,943 (49) 15% (10)
Putnam $145,093,953 (6) 10% (3) $299,022,297 (26) 13% (15)
Richland $60,865,434 (30) 2% (66) $241,549,299 (38) 6% (72)
Ross $33,267,855 (67) 3% (52) $281,600,791 (32) 10% (39)
Sandusky $74,346,534 (23) 3% (53) $212,843,255 (44) 8% (48)
Scioto $24,304,785 (73) 3% (51) $117,445,217 (63) 7% (60)
Seneca $56,748,780 (36) 6% (25) $153,350,740 (52) 10% (31)
Shelby $80,446,033 (18) 3% (49) $226,462,435 (42) 9% (45)
Stark $82,669,192 (15) 1% (79) $1,225,863,198 (5) 7% (65)
Summit $53,052,421 (44) >1% (85) $1,086,245,523 (6) 4% (82)
Trumbull $46,191,278 (54) 1% (74) $256,092,067 (37) 6% (77)
Tuscarawas $52,437,891 (45) 3% (60) $227,995,907 (41) 8% (52)
Union $459,647,601 (1) 7% (21) $549,639,730 (12) 9% (40)
Van Wert $89,276,531 (12) 7% (19) $131,848,326 (60) 11% (27)
Vinton $8,559,330 (86) 8% (11) $27,107,972 (85) 17% (4)
Warren $46,224,334 (53) 1% (76) $552,430,711 (11) 6% (70)
Washington $30,966,222 (69) 4% (46) $132,119,584 (59) 8% (50)
Wayne $283,008,467 (3) 5% (31) $1,002,275,825 (7) 15% (8)
Williams $43,262,519 (58) 5% (35) $145,407,816 (54) 11% (29)
Wood $97,920,671 (10) 2% (68) $387,193,635 (17) 6% (71)
Wyandot $60,516,234 (32) 6% (23) $149,052,657 (53) 12% (21)

 

Review of “Constructed wetlands for water quality improvements: Benefit transfer analysis from Ohio”

by N.B. Irwin, E.G. Irwin, J.F. Martin and P. Aracena

Bodies of water provide many benefits to residents through recreation and use but run-off from agriculture and urban areas can impair water quality. While Ohio has worked on improving water quality in its rivers and large streams, with 80 percent meeting aquatic life goals, less than 13 percent of its lakes meet such a standard. A possible solution to this problem is the construction of treatment wetlands to remove excessive nutrients from water bodies. Constructed wetlands utilize the natural environment as a form of water treatment and act as a filter to remove excessive nutrients and pollutants in runoff water.  Compared to other forms of water treatment, wetlands deliver water quality improvements with significantly smaller lifetime operation and maintenance costs.

This study examines the feasibility of using constructed wetlands to improve water quality in sample of 24 inland lakes from Ohio. Using water quality data collected from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, data on population, housing prices and incomes from the U.S. Census, and information on recreational visitors, the total cost of creating and operating free surface water wetlands to improve water quality by 10 percent through the removal of phosphorous is estimated. Additionally, the study derives the willingness-to-pay for a 10 percent water quality improvements by both homeowners and recreation users. Nearby residents benefit from improved water quality through higher house prices while recreation users value the changes in water quality through an expansion of possible outdoor opportunities.

The total cost of constructing wetlands for all 24 lakes is over $107 million, with size and surrounding land cost for each lake differing greatly. The willingness-to-pay estimates for both the surrounding homeowners and recreation users averages over $606 million, depending on the model specification. The most conservative estimates indicate that constructed wetlands could provide a lifetime cost benefit ratio of 1:2.92 or a $2.92 return for every $1 invested. The average per capita benefit per resident or recreation user would be $68. These results indicate that wetlands are clearly an effective means of both reducing nutrient loadings in surface water and providing positive economic returns to homeowners and recreational users.

The study also examines the cost implications for constructed wetlands to be used as a strategy to meet hypothetical statewide standards for phosphorous concentrations in lakes at 50 µg/L and 25 µ/L per lake. At the lower standard of 50 µg/L the estimated cost is $870 million, whereas at the stricter standard of 25 µg/L costs would exceed $2.7 billion and require 0.5% of all arable land in Ohio. Using wetlands for achieved phosphorus reduction goals is not a cost-effective strategy. Instead, a comprehensive approach to nutrient reduction and water quality is necessary.

To read the complete article follow the link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479717310460

 

Summarized by Ben Brown, Program Manager: Farm Management Program