{"title":"Will Pork Industry Have a Better 2019","authors":"C. Hurt","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.284383","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.284383","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":329270,"journal":{"name":"farmdoc daily","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127933653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jonathan W. Coppess, C. Zulauf, G. Schnitkey, K. Swanson, Nick Paulson, B. Gramig
{"title":"2018 Farm Bill Updated: Conference Negotiations Begin","authors":"Jonathan W. Coppess, C. Zulauf, G. Schnitkey, K. Swanson, Nick Paulson, B. Gramig","doi":"10.22004/ag.econ.282942","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.282942","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":329270,"journal":{"name":"farmdoc daily","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126753055","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jonathan W. Coppess, G. Schnitkey, Nick Paulson, C. Zulauf
On Thursday, April 18, 2018, the House Agriculture Committee reported its version of the farm bill titled the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (House Ag Committee Press Release, April 18, 2018). The vote to report the bill to the full House was 26 to 20 and notable because the vote was partisan; no Democrats voted for it, no Republicans voted against it (Brasher, Agri-Pulse, April 18, 2018). The partisan nature of the committee’s initial steps in reauthorizing the farm bill may signal further difficulties for passing a bill in Congress this year. Significant focus has concentrated on three key changes in the bill; revisions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), elimination of the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and alterations to farm programs, including payment limitations and eligibility requirements. The following is a brief review of the 2018 House farm bill.
{"title":"Initial Review of the House 2018 Farm Bill","authors":"Jonathan W. Coppess, G. Schnitkey, Nick Paulson, C. Zulauf","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.282869","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.282869","url":null,"abstract":"On Thursday, April 18, 2018, the House Agriculture Committee reported its version of the farm bill titled the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 (House Ag Committee Press Release, April 18, 2018). The vote to report the bill to the full House was 26 to 20 and notable because the vote was partisan; no Democrats voted for it, no Republicans voted against it (Brasher, Agri-Pulse, April 18, 2018). The partisan nature of the committee’s initial steps in reauthorizing the farm bill may signal further difficulties for passing a bill in Congress this year. Significant focus has concentrated on three key changes in the bill; revisions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), elimination of the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and alterations to farm programs, including payment limitations and eligibility requirements. The following is a brief review of the 2018 House farm bill.","PeriodicalId":329270,"journal":{"name":"farmdoc daily","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134615245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The election of Donald Trump in conjunction with a Republican Majority in Congress opens a new chapter of farm bill history. While history may not repeat itself, it does seem to recycle, and it is that recycling that could offer perspective on the issues, politics and challenges facing the upcoming farm bill effort (Logevall and Osgood 2016). With that in mind, this article begins a review of chapters in farm bill history (farmdoc daily, November 11, 2016). It begins with the last farm bill written by a united Republican government, the Agricultural Act of 1954.
{"title":"Reviewing Farm Bill History: the Agricultural Act of 1954","authors":"Jonathan W. Coppess","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.282589","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.282589","url":null,"abstract":"The election of Donald Trump in conjunction with a Republican Majority in Congress opens a new chapter of farm bill history. While history may not repeat itself, it does seem to recycle, and it is that recycling that could offer perspective on the issues, politics and challenges facing the upcoming farm bill effort (Logevall and Osgood 2016). With that in mind, this article begins a review of chapters in farm bill history (farmdoc daily, November 11, 2016). It begins with the last farm bill written by a united Republican government, the Agricultural Act of 1954.","PeriodicalId":329270,"journal":{"name":"farmdoc daily","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122359248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The recent volatility in the corn and soybean markets has increased the uncertainty related to expected swine finishing feed cost. Since planting there have been wide swings in corn and soybean meal prices. For example, the December corn futures contract price ranged from $3.50 to $4.50 from early May to early July, and was approximately $3.70 in mid-July. Similarly, the December soybean meal futures contract ranged from $330 to $420 during the same time period, and was approximately $380 in mid-July. This article documents the impact of corn and soybean meal prices on feed cost indices for a swine finishing enterprise. It is important to note that the swine finishing enterprise assumes the finishing of an early-weaned pig. The ration for this enterprise consists of corn, soybean meal, dry distillers’ grain, and supplements. Corn prices represent averages for Indiana as reported by USDA-NASS. Soybean meal and distillers’ grain prices are obtained from Feed Outlook, published monthly by USDA-ERS. Information from Agricultural Prices, a monthly USDA-NASS publication, was used to compute supplement prices. Future prices for corn and soybean meal are used to project feed indices through 2017. Feed cost indices are reported on a closeout month rather than a placement month basis.
{"title":"Impact of Corn and Soybean Meal Prices on Swine Finishing Feed Cost","authors":"M. Langemeier","doi":"10.22004/ag.econ.283320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.283320","url":null,"abstract":"The recent volatility in the corn and soybean markets has increased the uncertainty related to expected swine finishing feed cost. Since planting there have been wide swings in corn and soybean meal prices. For example, the December corn futures contract price ranged from $3.50 to $4.50 from early May to early July, and was approximately $3.70 in mid-July. Similarly, the December soybean meal futures contract ranged from $330 to $420 during the same time period, and was approximately $380 in mid-July. This article documents the impact of corn and soybean meal prices on feed cost indices for a swine finishing enterprise. It is important to note that the swine finishing enterprise assumes the finishing of an early-weaned pig. The ration for this enterprise consists of corn, soybean meal, dry distillers’ grain, and supplements. Corn prices represent averages for Indiana as reported by USDA-NASS. Soybean meal and distillers’ grain prices are obtained from Feed Outlook, published monthly by USDA-ERS. Information from Agricultural Prices, a monthly USDA-NASS publication, was used to compute supplement prices. Future prices for corn and soybean meal are used to project feed indices through 2017. Feed cost indices are reported on a closeout month rather than a placement month basis.","PeriodicalId":329270,"journal":{"name":"farmdoc daily","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128436885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The recent volatility in the corn and soybean markets increases the uncertainty related to swine feed costs and margins. This article documents the impact of corn and soybean meal prices on feed cost indices for a farrow-to-finish enterprise and a hog finishing enterprise, and provides projections for both swine enterprises. It is important to note that the hog finishing enterprise assumes the finishing of an early-weaned pig. Rations for both enterprises consist of corn, soybean meal, dry distillers’ grain, and supplements. Corn prices represent averages for Indiana as reported by USDA-NASS. Soybean meal and distillers’ grain prices are obtained from Feed Outlook, published monthly by USDA-ERS. Information from Agricultural Prices, a monthly USDA-NASS publication, was used to compute supplement prices. Future prices for corn and soybean meal are used to project feed indices through 2017. Feed cost indices are reported on a closeout month rather than a placement month basis.
{"title":"What Lies Ahead for Swine Feed Costs","authors":"M. Langemeier","doi":"10.22004/ag.econ.283277","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.283277","url":null,"abstract":"The recent volatility in the corn and soybean markets increases the uncertainty related to swine feed costs and margins. This article documents the impact of corn and soybean meal prices on feed cost indices for a farrow-to-finish enterprise and a hog finishing enterprise, and provides projections for both swine enterprises. It is important to note that the hog finishing enterprise assumes the finishing of an early-weaned pig. Rations for both enterprises consist of corn, soybean meal, dry distillers’ grain, and supplements. Corn prices represent averages for Indiana as reported by USDA-NASS. Soybean meal and distillers’ grain prices are obtained from Feed Outlook, published monthly by USDA-ERS. Information from Agricultural Prices, a monthly USDA-NASS publication, was used to compute supplement prices. Future prices for corn and soybean meal are used to project feed indices through 2017. Feed cost indices are reported on a closeout month rather than a placement month basis.","PeriodicalId":329270,"journal":{"name":"farmdoc daily","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132748485","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There continues to be a lot of discussion about the likely magnitude of U.S. soybean production in 2016, with much of current focus on planted acreage. Low commodity prices, along with the 2.8 million acre reduction in winter wheat seedings and the likelihood that there will be fewer prevented plantings in 2016, create uncertainty about the likely magnitude of total acreage of spring planted crops, as well as uncertainty about the acreage of individual crops. For the most part, current expectations are that total planted acreage may decline from that of 2015, but expectations for soybean acreage are very mixed. The Grains and Oilseeds Outlook at last week’s USDA Outlook Forum projected plantings of the 8 major crops would decline by 5.5 million acres (2.2 percent) in 2016/17 and that soybean acreage would decline by 0.2 million acres (0.2 percent) to a total of 82.5 million acres. The USDA will release the results of its March survey of 2016 planting intentions in the Prospective Plantings report to be released on March 31.
{"title":"Forming Expectations for the 2016 U.S. Average Soybean Yield: What About El Niño?","authors":"S. Irwin, D. Good","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.233945","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.233945","url":null,"abstract":"There continues to be a lot of discussion about the likely magnitude of U.S. soybean production in 2016, with much of current focus on planted acreage. Low commodity prices, along with the 2.8 million acre reduction in winter wheat seedings and the likelihood that there will be fewer prevented plantings in 2016, create uncertainty about the likely magnitude of total acreage of spring planted crops, as well as uncertainty about the acreage of individual crops. For the most part, current expectations are that total planted acreage may decline from that of 2015, but expectations for soybean acreage are very mixed. The Grains and Oilseeds Outlook at last week’s USDA Outlook Forum projected plantings of the 8 major crops would decline by 5.5 million acres (2.2 percent) in 2016/17 and that soybean acreage would decline by 0.2 million acres (0.2 percent) to a total of 82.5 million acres. The USDA will release the results of its March survey of 2016 planting intentions in the Prospective Plantings report to be released on March 31.","PeriodicalId":329270,"journal":{"name":"farmdoc daily","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126538642","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"2015 and 2016 ARC-CO Payment Estimates using the ARC-CO PLC Payment Estimator","authors":"G. Schnitkey, Nick Paulson, Jonathan W. Coppess","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.233953","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.233953","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":329270,"journal":{"name":"farmdoc daily","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130310244","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：