Have Land Values and Cash Rents Finally Stabilized?

8th federal reserve district

The Federal Reserve branch located in St. Louis representing the 8th Federal Reserve District, recently published the results of its quarterly survey on agricultural credit conditions and general financial status for the 2nd quarter of 2014.

Quality Farm Land:

Overall, quality farm land values appear to have leveled off, or declined slightly, with a current value per acre of farmland across the 8th district of $5,473/acre.  The survey shows land down modestly (0.5%) from quarter 1 of 2014 and down 3.5% from where land values were in the 2nd quarter of 2013.  A large share of survey respondents expect quality farm ground to continue to decline in price over the remainder of 2014.

Pastureland:

The 2nd quarter 2014 survey found the average sales price of pastureland across the district to be $2,313/acre.  This price is down 7.5% from quarter 1 of 2014 and down 2.5% from the 2nd quarter of 2013.  Like quality farm ground, expectations form survey respondents are that pastureland will decline further in the next quarter of 2014.

Cash Rents:

Despite the modest drop in the sales price of quality farm ground, cash rents increased from quarter 1 to quarter 2 of 2014 by 4.8% yielding an average rental rate of $191/acre.  At the same, time rent for pasture land fell modestly from $62/acre to $59/acre.  Overall, cash rental rates for the 2nd quarter of 2014 were higher than rental rates during the same period a year ago for quality farm ground, and slightly higher for pasture ground in the 2nd quarter of 2014 relative to the 2nd quarter of 2013.

There appears to be no consensus among those surveyed as to the direction of cash rental rates on quality farm ground for the remaining quarters of 2014. However, most believe that rental rates for pastureland will increase overall in the coming months.

 

 

A reduction in land prices stirs thoughts of a bursting bubble

A report by agrimoney.com show that farm land values have seen their first decline in nearly 5 years falling 1% in the first quarter of 2014.  The decline was triggered by a substantial drop in grain prices at the end of 2013.  In the south central plains, dryland prices declined 1.4% while irrigated crop ground increased at a modest 4.3%.   In the corn-belt states such as Illinois and Indianan, price dropped by 4%.Tractor

At the same time, pasture land values have increased.  Falling feed grain prices which have spurred the slowdown in crop land values have conversely improved profit margins for the cattle industry increasing the value of the product produced on pasture ground.

Pasture

The questions on most farmers, ranchers, lenders, and economists minds during the recent run-up in land prices are: How high will land prices go, and will there be a bust similar to the 1980’s?  Some economists believe that an agricultural land bust similar to the 1980’s will not happen.  They cite crop insurance programs, who do a better job stabilizing revenue, as one reason such that lean years today won’t be as lean as years past.  The other main reason is that the level of indebtedness has been reduced by farmers. Current reports show that, in aggregate, farms are not has highly leveraged today as in the 1980’s and the average farm has a higher buffer for times of financial hardship.

A repot by Allen Featherstone at Kansas State University acknowledges that farms in Kansas had an average debt to asset ratio much lower than in 1979.  However, Featherstone points out that there is a higher percentage of farms in Kansas with a debt-to-asset ratio greater than 70% today than during the 1980’s bubble. The fact that more farms are highly leveraged today than before is critical according to the report since defaults typically occur within this group.  Featherstone also points out that the bubble of the 1980’s was started by a significant drop in the value of farmland production over a two year period, and that a similar drop today over a similar period of time would not be substantially mitigated by price/revenue supports.  Therefore, Featherstone concludes that it will not be leverage that will begin a bust cycle for land, but may increase the problem.

I love a good Pareto improvement story

But then again, who doesn’t? In order to help migratory birds, rice farmers are being paid to keep their fields flooded for longer than they otherwise would:

The program, called BirdReturns, starts with data from eBird, the pioneering citizen science project that asks birders to record sightings on a smartphone app and send the information to the Cornell Lab of Ornithologyin upstate New York.

By crunching data from the Central Valley, eBird can generate maps showing where virtually every species congregates in the remaining wetlands. Then, by overlaying those maps on aerial views of existing surface water, it can determine where the birds’ need for habitat is greatest.

The BirdReturns program, financed by the Nature Conservancy, then pays rice farmers in the birds’ flight path to keep their fields flooded with irrigation water from the Sacramento River as migrating flocks arrive. The prices are determined by reverse auction, in which farmers bid for leases and the lowest bidder wins.

Farmers aren’t required to participate, so they’ll only do so if they think they’ll be better off accepting the payment and not drying their fields. Since prices are determined by reverse auction, the Nature Conservancy pays relatively less for the service. And presumably they are paying farmers only because “they” (that is, the people whose interests the Nature Conservancy represents) think it’s worth it. But does this program really have much affect? They’re still collecting and analyzing the data, but there are some promising initial results:

The project’s first season ended last month, as birds headed north from newly flooded fields. Researchers said all of the birds whose numbers they hoped to improve were seen on “pop up” wetlands — a temporary steppingstone for the birds’ journey north. This happened when the field would have ordinarily been drained, an indication that the approach was working. More analysis will be done this month.

What about effects on the market for rice?

In this first year, 10,000 acres (out of 500,000 devoted to rice farming in the Central Valley) owned by 40 farmers were flooded for four, six or eight weeks, at an average of 200 to 250 acres each. (Many farmers did not participate because of California’s drought.)

So only about 2% of acres participated in the program. And that’s just in the Central Valley, California. And generally, farmers still have time to dry out the fields for planting, so the effect on the rice market is probably negligible:

Even for farmers who have enough water, the program can require some careful calibration. “If we put our water on late, the fields might not dry out” in time for planting, said Doug Thomas, who grows sushi rice for Rue & Forsman Ranch near here and who took part in the program this year.

But he added that the compensation was better than adequate and that he liked the private-sector nature of the initiative.

And I like the way the program is described by a Nature Conservancy representative:

Dr. Hallstein, of the Nature Conservancy, said that at first it was a difficult to get farmers to make the shift, but that it helped when they thought of shorebird protection as just another crop, like rice.

NYTimes.

Makes sense. Just think of helping migratory birds as one thing people are willing to pay farmers to do with their land. Producing rice is another. Agritourism might be another. Etc.

Agricultural Loans and Interest Rates 2014

The St. Louis branch of the Federal Reserve publishes quarterly reports on financial conditions pertaining to agriculture in the 8th federal reserve district which includes the northern half of Mississippi and the Delta Region.  Surveys from around the region show fixed interest rates for operating loans  averaging 5.39% on fixed loans and 5.01% on variable operating loans.  Intermediate-term loan interest rates averaged 5.65% and 5.21% for fixed and variable loans respectively. Farm real estate loans averaged 5.23% and 4.93% for fixed and variable loans.  The above interest rates were slightly higher than the same quarter a year ago where variable rates were between 4.48% for land and real estate and 4.77% for intermediate loans while fixed interest rates were as low as 4.87% for real estate loans and 5.45% for intermediate land and machinery loans.

 

Surveyed lenders expect demand for agricultural loans will be higher in 2014 than a year ago while also reporting ample quantities of loanable funds available to meet demand.  Minutes from the March meeting from the Federal Open Markets Committee were released on 9-APR-2010 where members indicated that a push to increase interest rates will not occur until at least 2015. The implication of these two conditions are that agricultural loan interest rates will remain low for all three types of loans through 2014.

Growth in Overall Farm Wealth Expected to Slow in 2014

The latest forecast from the USDA Economic Research Service predicts a slowdown in the growth of overall farm wealth in 2014.  Expectations are that overall farm debt will increase 2.3% while farm assets are expected to rise 2.4% yielding a net increase of 0.1%.  This level of wealth generation in the agricultural sector is much lower than the 1.5% growth that ag. has enjoyed over the last 10 years.  The decline in asset growth stems primarily from a decline in the growth in land values around the country, brought about by a slowdown in accumulation of agricultural land, and an expected decline in commodity prices.

Despite the slowdown in asset value growth, financial solvency is expected to continue its improvement moving to a national average debt-asset ratio of 10.5 in 2014 which is down from a modest spike of 11.8 in 2010, and the lowest it has been in about 60 years.

debttoequity

However, solvency  measured using the debt-to-asset ratio is subject to change  should land price fall.

Is beef production as inefficient as some lead us to believe?

A recent article in The Economist takes a look at livestock and meat production from an environmental point of view. One of the conclusions that the article makes is that cattle need to be managed more intensively and feed should be switched to grains rather than grass to improve efficiency:

Among the lessons of the research is that white meat wins out over red for environmental reasons as well as health ones. It takes 2kg of feed to produce 1kg of chicken; 3kg for 1kg of pork. The ratio for lamb is between four and six to one; for beef, between five and 20 to one.

Even without switching between types of protein, there is scope for big productivity gains in South and South-East Asia, Africa and the Middle East, where 45-80% of pig and chicken farms are smallholdings. In America and Europe 70-98% are run at industrial scale. A cow in America or Europe eats 75-300kg of hay and other dry matter per kilo of protein; in Africa, which has the largest number of traditional pastoralists, she needs 500kg or more. On the dry rangelands of Ethiopia and South Sudan, the figure is up to 2,000kg.

Switching from pastoralism to feeding cattle with grain would dramatically improve efficiency.

This switchover would also reduce the damaging build-up of nitrogen and phosphorus in soil, since intensive methods turn the nutrient in feed into meat more efficiently. And it would slash greenhouse-gas emissions. Cattle on dry rangelands produce 100 times as much per unit of meat as cattle in America or Europe. Three-quarters of the total comes from cattle, for 59m tonnes of beef a year. Poultry and pigs produce 10%—for four times as much meat.

Industrial-scale livestock farming can encourage the spread of diseases that humans share with animals. And animals may suffer in factory farms (though they bear a big burden of endemic diseases in pastoral systems). Such downsides are cited by environmentalists who would prefer less factory farming and more traditional pastoralism. But efficient livestock farming makes better use of scarce basic resources—and is far better for the planet.

But are resources really being used inefficiently? Yes, grain will grow cattle more quickly and efficiently on a pound-for-pound basis than grass, but it is not always the most efficient resource allocation, particularly for young calves and breeding females. Often times, a combination of grass and grain diets at different stages of production is the most efficient means of beef production. For example, in the U.S. cattle are typically on a grass diet for the first several months before being transitioned to a grain-based diet.

Cattle are unique in that they are ruminants. They have the ability to turn tough, dry, fibrous grasses into a usable feed source; something that poultry or hogs cannot do. This allows cattle producers to utilize grassland to produce food for human consumption. Much of the grazing land is unsuitable for grain production. For example, it is difficult, if not impossible to grow corn in parts of the Nebraska Sandhills or the West Texas Plains, but grass grows just fine. There are many other grassland areas across the U.S. and globally that are too wet, too dry, too rocky, or too steep to produce crops, but cattle are able to thrive. In those cases, grazing cattle, when managed properly, really is the most efficient (and environmentally friendly) resource allocation. As more drought resistant grain varieties are developed, efficiency may be improved by growing and feeding additional grain to livestock, but until then grazing will remain the most efficient use of those areas.

Cash Rental Rates

Cash rental rates have trended upward throughout Mississippi in all four geographic/soil regions while share rental rates have remained relatively constant.  However, cash rental agreements have become more common relative to share contracts as the number of share contracts have dwindled according to surveys conducted by Mississippi State.

Rental rates for corn producers have seen rate increases of around 25% since 2008 with the exception of the Hills Region which was about the same in 2012 as in 2008. Soybean producers have seen more modest increases in cash rental rates during the same period with the exception of the lower delta with a rate increase of 21%. Generally cotton producers are paying higher rental rates as well, especially in the hills region where rates were 75% higher than those in 2008.

Year/Region

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

——Cash Rent Corn—–

Upper Delta

80.80

97.44

83.43

89.32

87.36

101.04

97.94

115.79

Lower Delta

70.19

89.23

85.73

95.95

116.82

111.19

112.31

118.46

Loam/ Lower Coastal

65.80

74.38

54.06

47.84

62.06

54.38

49.71

60.23

Hills Region

36.00

49.16

34.46

56.38

39.63

44.72

56.81

55.01

——% Share Rent   Corn——

Upper Delta

21.8

.

26.5

.

24.0

.

24.0

.

Lower Delta

.

20.0

25.0

20.0

23.3

.

20.0

20.0

Loam/ Lower Coastal

25.0

20.0

18.8

16.7

20.0

20.0

20.0

25.0

Hills Region

22.1

25.2

23.3

23.8

23.3

20.0

21.7

22.1

Year/Region

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

——Cash Rent Soy—–

Upper Delta

61.60

62.80

63.04

73.04

77.08

89.44

92.69

70.27

Lower Delta

58.87

69.36

77.58

80.62

90.34

91.94

78.06

97.62

Loam/ Lower Coastal

43.43

58.25

50.45

50.25

45.74

55.16

56.42

54.00

Hills Region

37.37

28.75

34.28

39.44

37.55

41.42

36.11

41.42

——% Share Rent   Soy——

Upper Delta

25

25

25

22

25

25

25

25

Lower Delta

.

.

.

25

25

23

20

25

Loam/ Lower Coastal

24

23

24

20

20

20

23

21

Hills Region

22

24

23

22

23

34

22

20

Year/Region

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

——Cash Rent   Cotton—–

Upper Delta

85.96

97.44

79.68

94.46

85.36

93.33

109.21

105.75

Lower Delta

83.41

89.23

88.88

100.00

106.84

106.95

116.92

120.62

Loam/ Lower Coastal

71.93

74.38

66.94

75.00

77.50

87.50

89.85

71.25

Hills Region

51.66

49.46

41.42

49.00

42.50

58.57

69.35

85.90

——% Share Rent   Cotton——

Upper Delta

25.00

0.00

21.66

20.00

25.00

22.50

.

23.33

Lower Delta

.

20.00

.

.

20.00

20.00

.

21.66

Loam/ Lower Coastal

23.00

20.00

20.00

22.00

21.11

21.11

21.66

21.66

Hills Region

23.88

25.20

18.85

0.00

25.00

25.00

20.00

20.00

corn cotton and soybeans 7 year

While commodity prices have declined in 2013.  Rental rates and land prices can be slow to react and expectations of higher prices in the future may continue upward pressure on prices or support rates from the previous year.

 

 

The Return of Interest?

Interest rates as a percentage of annual agricultural expenses have continued to decline reaching a low of 2.4% for U.S. farms.  This marks a decrease of nearly 56% in interest’s contribution to total agricultural expenses since 2002 when, on average, interest accounted for 5.4% of total operating costs. This is due in part to the fact that input costs such as seed, chemicals, fuel, ect. have risen swiftly, and high commodity prices have allowed greater percentages of new land and equipment purchases to be paid for with cash. Continue reading “The Return of Interest?”