1. Looks like Trump Admin did not appeal Tenth Circuit SRE ruling. Unless the last second hail Mary legal move by a refiner to seek an "en banc" hearing succeeds, then the Pruitt-SRE program is effectively dead.
2. Key thing to consider is that Federal courts have now twice confirmed that the North Star of the RFS really is the North Star. That is, the RFS is a MARKET FORCING LAW intended to increase the use of biofuels in transportation fuel supply of the US.
3. See the #FDD article last week for a discussion of the North Star of Congressional intent when they passed the RFS. farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2020/03/epa-an… Love it or hate it, this is the law of the land.
4. What will follow? I think only a brief pause in the #RFSwars while refiners and their allies in the EPA consider their next moves. Expect a major move to put in a RIN price cap justified some way, maybe the current CV emergency. But be sure they will be back.
5. If refiners are boxed in legally (but never under-estimate the creativity of their highly paid lawyers), then the state of play may be back to Congress. This would be much more favorable for ag.
6. My view is that the first priority for ag is to preserve the reallocation of expected SRE gallons in the final 2020 rulemaking. Don't be surprised if first move by refiners is to go after this. EPA would have to redo final 2020 rulemaking.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Count me as one of the people very surprised about the NASS revision of the US corn yield by 3.4 bpa. I was definitely on the side of big yield all summer. Clearly, late dry weather dinged yields, but this much? That is the question.
2. Lots of discussion in the trade this fall about the impact of harvesting low moisture crops on yields. In theory, everyone should be discussion yields standardized to 15% moisture. The USDA does this for the objective yield (field sample) estimates. However, they take what farmers report to them based on whatever moisture assumption farmers make. This may bias yield reports from farmers down compared to standard 15% moisture bushels. This would in turn bias USDA yield estimate overall downwards. Any bias would be amplified in January report (today) because it is mainly based on the large December agricultural survey of farm operators.
3. If this is actually happening, then if the bias is large enough, it may show up in quarterly grain stocks reports which are supposed to be based on pounds of 56 standard moisture bushels. There could be a clue in that regard in today's corn grain stocks estimate. The Dec 1 grain stock estimate today was 12,074 million bushels. The average trade expectation was 12,147 million bushels. This looks like a bullish surprise of 74 billion bushels because stocks are 74 million less than expected.
1. I have been reading lately some market commentary that the USDA is going to have to lower corn and soybean yield estimates in Nov or Jan due to so much being harvested at below standard moisture levels. So, how likely is this to actually be true?
2. A simple example will clarify things. Assume a farmer delivers 14,000 lbs. of corn to the elevator from one acre of production. 14,000/56 = 250 bushels. Let's further assume that the moisture level is 13%. This means that the 14,000 pounds delivered to the elevator contains 1,890 pounds of water and 12,110 pounds of dry matter.
3. Since No. 2 yellow corn is conventionally priced at 15% here in the Corn Belt, let's figure out the number of bushels if the farmer could have harvested the corn at exactly 15% moisture. The dry matter pounds would be exactly the same on the one acre of production---12,110 pounds. If you do a little math, you can figure out that a water content of 2,143 pounds yields 14,286 pounds total delivered to the elevator. 2,143/ 14,286 = 15% moisture. In this alternative case, the yield on the acre of corn is 14,286/56 = 255.1 bushels.
1. We keep getting rain around here. About a half an inch last night. We are pushing 7 inches this week in Champaign County. I went out to what I call the Field of Dreams to walk our dog this morning and it is still hard to believe how good the corn and beans look. But, call me paranoid, this got me thinking about whether we were starting to get too much rain this month?
2. So, you know me, I ran back to my computer and starting digging out the data to check out the relationship between July precip and corn yields. I was relieved to see that, no, we are not in the territory of too much July precip.
3. Note that the y-axis is deviation from a simple linear trend over 1980-2023 for the Illinois state average yield. Precip is the average for the state too. The data scatter shows that there is no real dip in trend deviations all the way out to about 8 inches. I know the quadratic regression I used shows the yield deviation turning down above six inches of July precip but that is more the result of forcing this functional form on the data, which probably is better modeled by a linear function up to around 5 inches and then going flat.
1. Man, I really hate to do this tonight after a day like this in the grain market. But we gotta start talking about the potential scale of financial losses for producing corn and soybeans in 2024. This is an updated budget from this FDD: farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2024/06/revise…
2. I am going to use the following yield/price combinations just to get the convo started. Corn: 240 bu./$3.70. Soybeans: 75 bu./$10.30. I use higher yield expectations based on the expectation that Beryl rains will go a long ways to improving prospects. Mr. Market sure thinks so. Without taking into account LDP and crop insurance proceeds, this results in estimated farmer returns of -$244/acre for corn and -$98/acre for soybeans. For farms with 50/50 rotations that results in average farmer returns for all acres of -$171 per acre.
3. We are getting close to where 85% crop insurance policies will trigger based on price alone. Feb price was $4.66. For the 85% policy, Dec 24 futures have to drop to $3.96 to trigger payments at APH yields. With the increased yields I used, looks like still aways to seeing insurance payments. But need to wait for my colleagues who are much more expert in this regard to chime in. My sense is that crop insurance right now is not likely to help much. I am not sure about ARC/PLC payments. Maybe more help there.
1. I guess today is the day to talk about corn yields. Just received an email from @aaea announcing a new Choices article "A Slowdown in US Crop Yield Growth" by David Boussios. Here is the link: choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazi…
2. The author of the Choices article argues: "The statistical evidence of a productivity slowdown in crop yield growth builds each year. The linear yield growth trends since 2013 for corn, soybeans, and wheat are all statistically lower than one starting in 1988. Models, forecasts, market participants, and policy makers should consider that yields in the future will probably be lower than forecasted by the USDA and that extrapolating trends into the future without revision is problematic."
3. This argument is especially interesting because I have seen similar arguments in the grain trade in the last few years. We can all agree that the US average corn yield has been relatively flat since around 2013. That is obvious looking at a chart of corn yields. But one has to be extremely careful in then leaping to the conclusion that productivity growth in corn yields has also slowed. The reason is that runs of poor or good weather can mask the true underlying trend in small samples of years.
1. Recommended Reading for the Day: Fascinating new FDD from my colleagues on the farmdoc team, led by Carl Zulauf. Long-term look at real crop prices. farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2023/10/the-po…
2. It has long been a staple of economic thinking that real (inflation adjusted) commodity prices have a strong tendency to decline over time. Probably the most famous example of in this regard is the bet about real commodity prices between Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich in 1980. See the details here:
3. Carl and team put together the data for a USDA index of real crop prices going back to 1912. This is the chart shown below. Lots of interesting history here, but the 30 year period of stable real crop prices that began around 1990 is unmistakable. The question is whether this is a pause in a very long run downward trend or something new.