Syngenta Thrive

by

Tight grain stocks, high commodity prices and strong farm income direct much attention to soaring farmland values and the rising production cost. At the intersection of farmland and production expenses are cash rental rates. For farmland owners, higher rents result in more income. For farmland renters, higher cash rents are yet another expense trending higher.

Dollars Per Acre

Figure 1 shows the cash rental rates for average-quality farmland in Indiana. While the level of cash rent paid varies greatly across the country, the general trend in recent years is similar. After rising to about $230 per acre between 2013 and 2015, cash rents fell to $205 per acre by 2016 because of lower commodity prices and farm incomes. In 2020, rental rates began increasing and again approached $230 per acre by 2021.

In 2022, rates peaked at $252 per acre. While it took nearly a decade for cash rental rates to exceed the previous high, these data alone don’t provide a complete summary of the situation.

A bar chart showing Cash Rental Rate for Average Quality Indiana Farmland, 2010-2022.
Figure 1. Cash Rental Rate for Average Quality Indiana Farmland, 2010-2022.

Dollars Per Bushel

As we’ve written in previous columns, considering only dollars per acre distorts our thinking, especially when productivity changes are a factor. Corn yields, for example, nationally trend toward increasing by 2.1 bushels per acre per year. While the management implications may be negligible on a year-to-year basis, the effects are significant over a decade. So how do 2022 rental rates compare with rates from a decade ago, when budgeted yields were roughly 20 bushels lower?

Figure 2 shows the Indiana cash rent data per bushel of yield. On a dollars-per-bushel basis, cash rental rates remain lower than they were a decade ago. More specifically, 2022 rental rates were equal to $1.32 per bushel in 2022, compared to the high of $1.43 per bushel in 2013. Furthermore, per-bushel rents were higher than 2022 levels between 2013 and 2015.

A line graph showing Cash Rent Per Bushel of Yield, Average Quality Indiana Farmland, 1990-2022.
Figure 2. Cash Rent Per Bushel of Yield, Average Quality Indiana Farmland, 1990-2022.

Wrapping It Up

While it’s hard to say how much higher cash rental rates will be in 2023 and beyond, these data highlight two important management implications.

First, producers should avoid using just one measurement – corn per acre, cost per bushel, etc. – when considering how expensive or burdensome production expenses have become. While per-acre cash rental rates are at all-time highs, productivity gains have chipped away at the cost per unit of output sold. In other words, yield increases have offset some of the price sting.

Second, these data suggest the possibility of additional upward pressure on cash rents. Producers were paying more per bushel of anticipated yield the last time commodity prices were this high. In today’s terms, 2013 cash rents at $1.43 per bushel – $0.10 per bushel higher than current levels – equate to $273 per acre, more than $20 per acre (+8.5%) higher than current cash rents. This is some context surrounding the current situation, not a forecast of future cash rents.

Finally, rental rates and trends vary across commodities and geographies, but management lessons remain the same. During significant, rapid changes in revenue and expenses, insights from cost-per-acre and cost-per-bushel provide considerable value.

David and Brent are the co-founders of Ag Economic Insights (AEI.ag). Founded in 2014, AEI.ag helps improve producers, lenders, and agribusiness decision-making through 1) the free Weekly Insights blog, 2) the award-winning AEI.ag Presents podcast – featuring Escaping 1980 and Corn Saves America, and 3) the AEI Premium platform, which includes the Ag Forecast Network decision tool. Visit AEI.ag or email David (david@aei.ag) to learn more. Stay curious.

by

Insects such as soybean aphids and stink bugs are a common problem for soybean growers, and without proper management, they can quickly eat up yields. Now that chlorpyrifos-based products can no longer be used due to updated Environmental Protection Agency guidance, some growers may find themselves without a solution.

Endigo® ZCX insecticide offers soybean growers another tool to help them control these pests. It contains thiamethoxam and lambda-cyhalothrin. These complementary modes of action provide broad-spectrum control of key Northern and Southern soybean pests, including pyrethroid-resistant pests and invasive species. The enhanced formulation contains 30% more active ingredient per acre versus previous Endigo formulations, providing fast knockdown and longer residual activity.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

by

Q. What is Sudden Death Syndrome, and how do you identify it?

A. Abigail Peterson, director of agronomy, Illinois Soybean Association: Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS) is a disease caused by a soilborne fungus, Fusarium virguliforme, that can survive in both corn and soybean residue systems. This fungal infection starts at soybean germination and is more prevalent in cool, wet growing conditions. The disease usually forms during the early reproductive stages. Growers sometimes misdiagnose SDS due to its resemblance to brown stem rot or stem canker. When scouting during the later vegetative stages, also known as the early reproductive stages, you’ll first notice leaf discoloration, which can range from yellow to brown. To eliminate the overlap of brown stem rot’s similar foliar symptoms, check the plant’s root. At the base of the plant, occasionally you will see a blue mold on the outside of the taproot – a sign of SDS. A final scouting step is to split the stem and evaluate if the internal tissue is discolored.

A. Dale Ireland, technical product lead, Syngenta: SDS is a “top five” soybean yield destructor – and has been for many years. It is an environmentally driven disease caused by Fusarium virguliforme, a commonly found soil fungus. Soy growers know the classic foliar yellow flecking is actually not the disease itself, but it is caused by F. virguliforme toxins produced in the root, plugging the vascular system within the soy plant. These toxins don’t allow proper nutrient flow between the root system and leaf canopy. The yellow flecks in the leaves coalesce and destroy much-needed leaf area during pod fill – often significantly impacting final yield.

''

Select soybean varieties with high-yield potential and with strong SDS scores.

Dale Ireland Technical Product Lead, Syngenta

Q. Do certain environmental conditions increase the likelihood of this disease?

A. Ireland: Environmental conditions highly impact SDS. An ideal SDS season begins with early planting in cooler, wetter conditions followed by a high-yield environment through much of the growing season. Some stress during early pod fill can create a load on the plant roots to deliver moisture and nutrients to the leaves, and this in turn increases the Fusarium virguliforme root infection toxins. Yellow flecks begin showing and coalescing and destroying leaf area, which is vital as it acts as a photosynthetic factory – producing what a plant needs to develop young soybeans in pods.

A. Peterson: Cool, wet soil conditions are usually a prime environment for SDS. The slowed germination from these conditions allows the fungus to infect the soybean roots. Wet conditions are a conduit for many soybean fungal diseases. SDS is unique in that its impact to a given area can be varied and unpredictable. Fields with a history of soybean cyst nematode usually have a correlation to SDS presence.

Q. When should growers be on the lookout for SDS?

A. Ireland: SDS typically begins showing up in spots – often field headlands or field entrances or compacted soil areas – in August. The earlier these symptoms show, often the greater the yield impact.

A. Peterson: It’s hard to predict or know the chance you’ll have the disease because SDS sometimes occurs later in the season. Know your field disease history and take good records of specific disease problems. Scout fields to accurately diagnose the problem. Detection from aerial plant health images can be a source of notification, although leaf tissue may be further intensified at that time than if you spotted it earlier during routine ground visuals. Also, contact your agronomist to check how products affect the health of your leaf tissue.

Q. What can growers do to mitigate this disease?

A. Peterson: SDS-infected fields can result in flower and/or pod abortion. Planting during warm, dry conditions isn’t always easy, but can help reduce SDS infection. It may help to plant historically SDS-prone fields later. Management practices that increase soil aggregation, reduce compaction, increase residue breakdown, and minimize soil loss can all reduce the risk of SDS. When reviewing varieties, choose soybeans that score well for both SDS tolerance and soybean cyst nematode resistance. Although SDS is associated with leaf tissue symptoms, a foliar fungicide will not affect a disease that infects the root system. To help reduce yield loss, evaluate seed treatments that have data provided from trials shown to protect yield in SDS conditions.

A. Ireland: Select soybean varieties with high-yield potential and with strong SDS scores. Managing your plant parasitic nematodes will help protect against SDS, too. Nematodes open the root system for Fusarium virguliforme infection and stress plants, leading to worse SDS infections. Another option is adopting a seed- and plant-safe seed treatment, like Saltro®, that protects against SDS and nematodes. Rotating away from continuous soybeans also helps. Not managing SDS leads to more SDS. Because Fusarium virguliforme can establish itself in soils, if you choose to ignore SDS, the longer you grow soybeans, the greater the chances of SDS becoming established and turning into a perennial problem.

by

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Unfortunately, that’s the wrong strategy when facing corn rootworm (CRW). The pest is adaptive and destructive. Now more than ever, monitoring and maneuvering are essential defense strategies.

“Corn rootworm is our No. 1 economic pest. When it’s bad, it’s really bad,” says Erin Hodgson, Ph.D., Iowa State University extension entomologist.

Andrew Nesseth, crop consultant with EXTended Ag Services of Lakefield, Minnesota, says CRW pressure and crop damage is increasing in his area as mild winters and more continuous corn acres create ideal conditions. Dry weather also amplifies yield losses, as damaged roots are less likely to regenerate, leaving fewer roots to take up moisture.

As frustrating as losses can be, Hodgson urges restraint in management. “We do not recommend the ‘kitchen sink’ approach,” she says. “Corn rootworm is a very adaptable pest. If you use every tool all the time, a small population will adapt and overcome.”

Instead, she says, growers should assess CRW pressure and build a strategic battle plan.

Assess the Enemy

The most significant damage from CRW occurs when larvae feed on brace roots in June and July. This is when to start scouting for the pest.

“It’s most accurate to dig corn and look for root injury, but it’s a time-consuming and miserable task in July,” Hodgson says, noting that using sticky traps to capture CRW adults is an easier and still effective option for scouting.

''

Most problematic situations occur when the same management practice is used year after year. Changing things up keeps the options we have working better for longer.

Bruce Battles Technical Agronomy Manager at Syngenta

If growers catch two or more beetles per card per day, it indicates pressure will exceed economic thresholds. Some CRW eggs undergo extended diapause, which is a period of suspended development. However, in areas of the Eastern Corn Belt where a variant exists that will lay eggs in soybeans, growers should also consider scouting soybean fields.

“It doesn’t take many larvae to reduce yields by 30 to 40%,” Hodgson says. “Beyond root damage, feeding opens roots to pathogens and other pests. It’s death by 1,000 papercuts.”

Build a Battle Plan

“Most problematic situations occur when the same management practice is used year after year,” says Bruce Battles, Syngenta technical agronomy manager. “Changing things up keeps the options we have working better for longer.”

Some options to mix and match based on crop history, planting date and expected and historical pest pressure include:

  • Low pressure: Use a non-CRW traited hybrid with or without a soil insecticide.
  • High pressure: Use a soil insecticide along with a single CRW trait, multiple CRW traits or a non-CRW traited hybrid.
  • Very high pressure: Rotate to a non-host crop for one or more years.

Traits are the baseline for most growers battling CRW, says Tim O’Brien, Syngenta traits manager. They provide easy, season-long CRW protection. And with stacked traits, growers can use one product to control multiple insects. One option is DuracadeViptera™ trait stack, which protects against 16 above- and below-ground pests.

But traits alone can’t hold the line in very high pressure CRW fields; A four- to five-year rotating strategy is a better option, Battles says. It might look like this: Following soybeans plant a non-CRW traited hybrid. Next season, use a CRW-traited hybrid and monitor CRW pressure. Depending on pressure, use a CRW-traited hybrid again the next year, but rotate or combine modes of action. If CRW pressure increases, use CRW-traited hybrids with soil-applied insecticides. In cases of particularly strong pressure, an in-season insecticide application to reduce adult CRW populations may provide some relief.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

Seed treatment can provide more protection, but isn’t a stand-alone alternative, Battles says. CruiserMaxx® Corn 1250 seed treatment is one effective option. It increases seedling vigor to help overcome root injury and provides short-term systemic protection for early roots. The CRW node injury scale is zero to three nodes, with one node being above economic thresholds. Battles says CruiserMaxx Corn 1250 can reduce damage by 0.25 nodes.

Identify Future Risk

Past and current field management are good indicators of future CRW populations. Scouting for root damage and tracking adult beetle populations are good predictors of expected CRW populations next season. Each corn rootworm adult female can lay 1,500 to 2,000 eggs. When those eggs hatch the following season, their larvae begin to feed on corn roots. When using traits, the larvae must take a bite for the trait to provide control. “If everyone comes to the table for a little nibble, that’s a lot of potential damage,” Battles says.

Planting date is also an important consideration, as CRW beetles tend to concentrate in fresh habitat, Nesseth says.

“They go to the youngest corn,” he says. “Beetles will concentrate in areas with late-planted hybrids or replanted acres.”

Longer-season corn can lead to greater problems, too. “It increases the length of time there’s good habitat for corn rootworm beetles. It’s a complex problem,” Nesseth says.

Rotating to a non-host crop like soybeans is the best way to derail increasingly heavy CRW populations. When scouting shows very high pressure, it’s time to rotate from continuous corn, O’Brien says.

“It is difficult for any CRW technologies to stand up to extreme, high-pressure situations,” he says. “We must rotate to maximize yield potential and protect the CRW management tools we have.”

by

It’s no secret that farmland values have been on a tear in recent years. Fueled by low interest rates and strong farm profitability, the most frequent question has been, “how much higher?” With many data sources and variations across states and regions, it’s helpful to step back and consider the trends.

The graph below shows the value of U.S. cropland since 2000. Over the 22-year period, values increased from $1,460 to $5,050 per acre. This is equal to an average annual rate of increase of 5.5%.

Over the last year, these values jumped 14.3%. That kind of jump happens periodically when you look across the last 22 years.

Historically, cropland has experienced short periods of big gains, followed by years of smaller changes. This is to say, the average annual gains of 5.5% are rarely observed. Large gains in valuations were posted in 2004 — when values increased by more than 17% — and again between 2011 and 2013 when double-digit annual increases were sustained. Since 2000, values increased by more than 10% annually on seven occasions — or 32% of the time. On the other hand, land values increased by less than 5% annually twelve times — or 55% of observations.

A bar chart showing the difference in U.S. cropland values over the years
Data Source: NSDA NASS.
The average doesn’t tell the story well. U.S. cropland values jumped by double-digits seven times between 2000 and 2022, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in August. The average gain over that span is 5.5%.

Big Variations Since 2010

The second graph shows the change in cropland values at the state level since 2010. First, keep in mind that a 100% increase means values doubled. Six states — those in the northern Great Plains and western Corn Belt — saw cropland values more than double. The largest gains occurred in North Dakota, up 180%. While one would expect considerable difference with county-level data, the average value of cropland in North Dakota increased from $840 per acre in 2010 to $2,350 in 2022. Large gains in cropland values were also observed throughout the Corn Belt, southern Plains and Delta region. It should be noted, however, that the “farmland boom” story varies across the United States. For example, cropland values in the Southwest, specifically Arizona and New Mexico, increased by less than 10% in total across the two decades. In these states, the total increase is what some states observed on an average, annualized basis.

Similarly, land values in the Southeast also were slow to increase. Why have farmland values increased so slowly in some regions? At a high level, it’s because farm economy expansion hasn’t impacted each commodity or region in the same way. In general, regions that were able to increase the production of profitable commodities, such as corn and soybeans, saw the largest gains in farmland values. A second consideration is regional challenges, such as water availability in the Southwest.

A map chart illustrating the change in cropland values by state from 2010 to 2022
Data Source: USDA NASS and AEI.ag calculations.
State-level changes in cropland values between 2010 to 2022 show values more than doubled in six states in the northern Great Plains and western Corn Belt. Across the country, the largest gains are in regions that were able to increase the production of profitable commodities, such as corn and soybeans.

Wrapping it Up

For many, the farmland boom since late 2020 builds on the gains of the last two decades. National-level data show that farmland posted small, modest increases in most years. However, there are a handful of years when large annual increases — greater than 10% — occur. The most recent data reveal the changes since 2021 are among those large gains.

Second, conditions vary significantly by region and state. Gains in the northern Great Plains were huge, while changes in the Southeast and Southwest were considerably less. Producers need to keep this in mind when sizing up how much local conditions have changed.

Lastly, news of higher farmland values is often met with excitement. This is because farmland accounts for a majority — around 80% — of the farm sector assets. In other words, a majority of farm assets are farmland. Additionally, farmland values tend to increase during times of strong profitability. However, it’s worth keeping in mind that higher farmland values are also reflective of higher costs of production through higher cash rents paid. It can also mean higher debt service obligations and lower rates of return for those looking to purchase new acreage.

While the farmland story has been largely positive in recent memory, the outlook will be dominated by uncertainty around rising costs of production, future commodity prices, and interest rates. At this point, a wide range of outcomes seems possible.

David and Brent are the co-founders of Ag Economic Insights (AEI.ag). Founded in 2014, AEI.ag helps improve producers, lenders, and agribusiness decision-making through 1) the free Weekly Insights blog, 2) the award-winning AEI.ag Presents podcast – featuring Escaping 1980 and Corn Saves America, and 3) the AEI Premium platform, which includes the Ag Forecast Network decision tool. Visit AEI.ag or email David (david@aei.ag) to learn more. Stay curious.

by

“Crop scouting is hot and sweaty,” says Guy Collins, Ph.D., extension cotton specialist for North Carolina State University (NCSU). “You’re going to pull some very long hours, but it’s one of the greatest jobs I’ve ever had.”

Many who scout crops share this sentiment. Perhaps that’s because of the education scouting provides in selection pressure and pest management technologies, and also in accountability. “Scouting teaches you responsibility because you’ve got someone’s livelihood at stake based on your job performance,” Collins says.

What’s the Point?

Crop scouting is monitoring for anything that helps farmers manage crops more profitably and sustainably. Examples include looking for fertility issues, collecting plant measurements and checking for pests.

J.R. Bradley, Ph.D., professor emeritus at NCSU, suggests that scouting is closely tied to pesticide development because there is no need to scout if what’s found can’t be managed.

Scouting and integrated pest management strategies are intertwined. “Scouting to threshold” means monitoring pests and managing them when doing so is cheaper than letting them continue reducing yields. This leads to better on-farm economic outcomes for farmers, as well as more sustainable agronomic practices.

Scouting is dynamic: Pests, practices and prices change. North Carolina cotton fields provide a clear lesson on how scouting must evolve as pest resistance increases, emerging pests challenge historical management programs, and new crop protection technologies create ripples across the pest spectrum.

''

We’re blessed with tools that help us get the insights we need more quickly. That efficiency hopefully creates more time for our families and personal lives.

Joe Ben Bogle Digital Ag Solutions Marketing Lead at Syngenta

One Principle, Many Crops

The boll weevil nearly destroyed the cotton industry in North Carolina. The pest was so destructive that cotton farmers made programmatic insecticide applications that required little scouting. In the 1980s, the boll weevil was eradicated thanks to researchers like Bradley and farmers like Marshall Grant, who was instrumental in getting The Boll Weevil Eradication Program established in North Carolina.

Once the frequent insecticide applications for boll weevil stopped, tobacco budworms and bollworms became the major cotton pests, and scouting to properly time insecticide applications for the worms became more important.

Years later, when farmers began planting Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton, which produces proteins that are toxic to bollworm and tobacco budworm larvae, insecticide applications again declined and stink bugs and plant bugs became the new problem pests. “As more fields were planted with Bt cotton,” Collins says, “The way we managed bollworms changed and other pests became more of a problem.”

Such changes demanded new scouting techniques, both to detect the economically damaging pests and reset bollworm thresholds. Those techniques include checking different parts of a plant, as well as using various tools to gather data.

Those cotton lessons also apply in other crops, says Nick Groenenberg, independent pest control advisor and owner of Nick Groenenberg Agricultural Consulting. He scouts tomatoes, almonds, pistachios and cotton in California. “When pistachios were first introduced,” Groenenberg says, “We were told they had no pests, but through the years they’ve developed several. We’d never had a problem with aphids in cotton and 15 years after I started in the business, they became a problem. We just keep adjusting.”

It’s a Drone, It’s a Plane, It’s a Satellite

Luckily, as pests evolve so does scouting technology.

Joe Ben Bogle, digital ag solutions marketing lead for Syngenta, helps streamline monitoring strategies with digital ag platforms like Cropwise™ Imagery and Cropwise Protector. “We’re blessed with tools that help us get the insights we need more quickly,” Bogle says, “That efficiency hopefully creates more time for our families and personal lives.”

Bogle believes digital ag tools deliver value through offering efficiency and insight scouts can take into the field. Aerial imagery is one useful option. “Today we have access to satellite, airplane and drone imagery,” Bogle says. “They all have their pluses and minuses.”

Scouts essentially have three ways to gather aerial imagery:

  • Satellite imagery, the most scalable and autonomous, can collect data daily. But it doesn’t offer the best resolution and can’t always take photos at the most opportune time of day.
  • Airplane imagery provides higher resolution, but at higher cost with lower collection frequency.
  • Drones, the most adaptable, can gather high-altitude images for a picture of overall field health and perform near canopy-level flights for greater detail. But to use drones, the scout or farmer must invest time and money in meeting regulatory requirements and either buying equipment or contracting for the service.

By whichever path, aerial imagery provides information about which areas of the field are under stress and which are high-performing. That knowledge can inform scouting strategies such as where to enter fields and prioritize sampling — saving a few steps that quickly become miles in the hot summer sun.

Harvesting Data

Bogle believes digital ag systems are successful when they turn data into something actionable.

For example, Cropwise Imagery automatically reviews satellite images of fields and identifies whether field health is rising or falling. “If somebody has a couple hundred fields to look after,” Bogle says, “Showing which five are most at risk helps them prioritize.”

Cropwise Protector accounts for geography, crop and scouting preference. For instance, the program averages individual sweep net collections to field level and then color codes fields that have active issues and those below threshold. Cropwise Protector also includes a timeline for all past scouting events, effectively acting as a digital filing cabinet.

However, nothing replaces walking the fields.

“I think there will always be boots on the ground,” Groenenberg says, “But the more informed scouts are then the better job we can do.”

Bogle agrees.

“We’re looking to integrate more predictive models and help remind those in the field what might be a factor, not replace boots on the ground,” he says.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

by

In the next year, we will read and hear a lot more about the Farm Bill. Once passed, the legislation will impact how we raise food, fuel and fiber — and how much risk is involved in those enterprises.

While its name suggests it’s all about farmers, the expansive Farm Bill governs policy that includes farm income support, food assistance, conservation programs, trade and more. Its three main pillars are:While its name suggests it’s all about farmers, the expansive Farm Bill governs policy that includes farm income support, food assistance, conservation programs, trade and more. Its three main pillars are:

  • To help farmers survive the ups and downs of a risky business.
  • To feed the hungry.
  • To protect the environment.

The bill must be renewed on a regular basis — usually every five years — and is on the docket in 2023.

A Rich History

The first Farm Bill was created in 1933 as part of the New Deal. It provided subsidies to farmers during the Great Depression by paying them to stop producing seven main crops in the hopes of decreasing supply, and thus increasing prices, of those crops. The bill also contained provisions related to conservation and support for farmers suffering from the effects of the Dust Bowl.

While the core elements of early farm bills were farm support and conservation programs, a major change occurred in 1973 when Congress added food assistance programs. That change was authored by well-known senators Bob Dole (R-KS) and George McGovern (D-S.D.) — both from big ag states and both prominent supporters of anti-hunger programs.

The senators married these programs because they needed a way to sway urban lawmakers to support a bill that historically benefited rural America. In turn, expanding the Farm Bill encouraged rural lawmakers to support anti-hunger programs that were, at that time, used mostly by the urban poor like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps.

Nutrition programs, the largest of which is SNAP, comprise 84% of all mandatory spending in the Farm Bill today. The other biggest spending areas are crop insurance (6%), commodity programs (5%) and conservation programs (4%). The remaining 1% includes trade, rural development, research, forestry, energy, livestock and horticulture/organic agriculture.

The projected price tag for the next Farm Bill is $1.3 trillion over 10 years, a substantial increase over 2018’s projected cost of $860 billion over 10 years. If that comes to pass, it will mark the first time in history that a Farm Bill exceeded $1 trillion.

Today’s Priorities

Components of the Farm Bill change every time the bill is re-written, but usually in an evolutionary way rather than a revolutionary one. Today, the commodity programs provide specific forms of income assistance, without interfering with the market, and are compatible with our free trade goals and obligations under the World Trade Organization. Crops covered include corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and rice; dairy, peanut and sugar producers also have programs.

The primary ag risk management focus is taxpayer-subsidized crop insurance, a tool that farmers in all 50 states can use to cover up to 120 crops in the case of weather and financial disasters. Meanwhile, SNAP helps 41 million low-income Americans afford groceries, and the Women, Infant and Children’s program and school breakfast and lunch programs assist many more.

While the bill still funds conservation programs for land retirement programs like the Conservation Reserve Program, it gives much more emphasis on working lands programs designed to help protect the environment.

It’s much too early to know the outcome of the 2023 Farm Bill, but we do know some things that will affect those decisions:

  1. The midterm election in November 2022 could change party control in both chambers of Congress. With current polling suggesting Republicans will likely win back the House and possibly the Senate, control of the chambers’ agricultural committees could change. A shift in power could mean a major adjustment in what the bill funds, such as agriculture versus nutrition or sustainability policy. Geography will also play a role, with members of Congress from different regions of the country prioritizing different farm policies due to the key commodities in their respective states or districts.
  2. Most farm groups are already lobbying for more funding for the next Farm Bill’s safety net, arguing that the support prices are far too low given current high commodity prices. That funding won’t be easy to attain, but it’s not impossible. The overall funding amount in the new bill will largely determine if this one is evolutionary or revolutionary.
  3. Expect efforts to increase conservation funding to address sustainability and climate change. It will be important that any new conservation or sustainability programs are voluntary for farmers and equitable across regions and crops. It’s also key that farmers who already employ these practices are rewarded for early adoption and not left out of new programs.

The Farm Bill has considerable ramifications for farmer livelihoods, national food security and the environment. It’s been said that “if you aren’t at the table, you are on the menu.” Farmers and ranchers who are hungry for adequate risk management programs and environmental legislation that doesn’t limit on-farm economic sustainability need to be at the table.

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

by

Farmers have always been dedicated stewards of the land and invested in the sustainability of their operations, but they haven’t always successfully shared these stories with the public.

In an increasingly digital world, consumers expect increased access to and transparency from companies. It’s no different when it comes to the food they purchase. People are more eager than ever to understand the ingredients in their food, how those ingredients were cultivated, and the environmental impact of it all.

The consumer’s quest for knowledge seeps through the agriculture supply chain, trickling all the way down to the growers whose crops are processed into grocery store offerings. How can the agriculture industry understand and share its sustainability story? Data, both quantitative and qualitative, plays an important role.

All About the Data

Agricultural sustainability encompasses environmental, financial and social sustainability. No matter which facet is examined, Jeff Lail, senior data analyst at Syngenta, says understanding sustainability at the farm level begins with gathering data points to set a baseline and support future tracking efforts.

“Data tracking on farm is similar to maintaining a household budget,” Lail says. “It’s easier to save money when you’re keeping track of what you’re spending. Similarly, having a good understanding of where your farm resources go will help you manage those resources better.”

Daniel Olson, a sugarbeet, pinto bean and wheat farmer from North Dakota, agrees that taking stock of your current sustainability efforts is important.

“You have to take inventory of where you’re at to establish if you’re headed in a positive or negative direction,” Olson says. “This baseline will also help you determine down the road if the practices you think are helping you actually are.”

While setting a baseline is a crucial first step in calculating sustainability, Lail says the real benefit is in the change that comes from that measurement. To help growers achieve both measurement and change, Syngenta created the Cropwise™ Sustainability app.

One Size Doesn’t Fit All

The Cropwise Sustainability app experience begins with a quick self-assessment called the Sustainable Outcomes in Agriculture (SOA) standard that gathers qualitative and quantitative information in six key areas: crop production, water impact, soil health, biodiversity and habitat, human and animal well-being, and community leadership. After completing the assessment, an intuitive digital dashboard populates with sustainability scores in each area, recommendations for improvement, and the opportunity to see how scores compare to other app users in a specified geography.

“The process of measuring and tracking sustainability followed by figuring out what to do with that data has been a real pain point for growers,” Lail says. “With the Cropwise Sustainability app, we tried to lower that difficulty level by identifying where a grower can improve the most and offering recommendations that don’t require overhauling farm operations.”

Olson, who completed the SOA standard, appreciated the diversity of sustainability practices considered by the assessment in addition to the geographical insights.

“There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to sustainability,” Olson says. “How I manage sustainability in North Dakota will be very different from someone in another geography.”

As helpful as this app is at the farm level, its impact extends deep into the agriculture supply chain.

A grower and rep look at a laptop and discuss sustainability solutions

Building Bridges Between Growers and Consumers

Trent Wimmer, key account sustainable solutions lead at Syngenta, helps growers and other agriculture industry partners tell their sustainability story with tools such as the Cropwise Sustainability app.

“Let’s say you’re a consumer packaged goods company, and you’re trying to understand your greenhouse gas footprint and communicate it to end-consumers,” Wimmer says. “You can only manage what you have in front of you, which is

the manufacturing of the products — you don’t have direct access to what went into the ingredients that you’re processing. That’s where Syngenta can help connect the dots between manufacturers and growers.”

For instance, Syngenta partnered with United Sugars, a sugar supplier, to help bridge the gap between growers and consumer packaged goods companies by implementing the SOA standard self-assessment with a group of sugarbeet farmers, including Olson, in Minnesota’s Red River Valley.

The assessment was mutually beneficial. Growers received sustainability insights and actionable recommendations as a result of the SOA standard, and United Sugars provided the anonymized data to their customers to help complete the sustainability picture for the foods they produce.

According to Wimmer, Cropwise allows Syngenta to “collect meaningful data from growers and in turn provide valuable sustainability insights.”

“Partners like United Sugars can take the data from the SOA standard and tell a much more unique sustainability story to their own customers,” he says.

Growers also benefit from these sustainability tools. “Syngenta is a grower-centric company that is also committed to regenerative agriculture,” Wimmer adds. “Helping growers understand and share their sustainability story is a way that we add value to growers beyond just yield.”

Donna Isakson, sales and marketing manager at United Sugars, values the partnership with Syngenta and the leadership they’ve provided in calculating sustainability efforts.

“The goal of our partnership with Syngenta is to be more transparent with our customers and show them what United Sugars is doing from a sustainability perspective,” Isakson says. “Syngenta has been so helpful in navigating this as they have expertise in both working with growers and in ag technology and data.”

by

“Unique.” “Educational.” “Relevant.” These are some of the most common words visitors have used to describe Grow More™ Experience sites in recent follow-up surveys. Since 2013, Syngenta has designed the sites to showcase its crop-protection and seed technologies, including NK® corn and soybeans. The sites also provide opportunities for attendees to engage in conversations about local agronomic practices that can help improve crop productivity. This year, Syngenta will continue the momentum by highlighting innovative solutions and practical advice that site visitors can use to secure a more promising future for their farms and businesses.

Local Point of View

With more than 80 locations across the U.S., Syngenta strategically selects Grow More Experience sites in areas based on geographically specific crops, weather, climate and pest patterns.

“We know each customer has a different in-season experience,” says Mike Moss, Ph.D., head of technical development at Syngenta. “Instead of offering one-size-fits-all solutions, our agronomic experts are there to listen and provide the best localized options for our customers.”

The sites’ purpose is to educate visitors on what they can do to continue to help mitigate pest issues and reach maximum yield. This process involves site leads discussing and comparing the top products in the industry, including competitors’.

“I was amazed by the fungicide trials, which compared almost everything on the market,” says Mike Feig, a crop consultant from Illinois, who visited the Grow More Experience site in Rend Lake, Illinois. “When a company normally does something like this, it’s biased. But at Grow More Experience sites, you can see the difference for yourself.”

by

It’s easy to get caught up in the latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates — and subsequent market response — but looking at the bigger picture is often more valuable. Many have noted that ending stocks are tight for several commodities. However, let’s look at just how tight conditions are across all commodities, and how that stacks up with historical observations.

The Data

Our team, the AEI team, has a unique way of considering the ending stock situation across all 13 primary crops. To measure overall abundance or tightness, we convert the quantity of ending stocks (i.e., bushels) for each crop to acres worth of production. For example, instead of thinking about U.S. corn stocks as 1.388 billion bushels worth, we use a measure of yield to calculate acres worth of ending stocks. This acre-equivalent measure has the benefit of being consistent across all commodities and, subsequently, ending stocks can be added together.

This broad measure provides insights such as how easily a tight corn situation might be resolved. If global stocks are abundant in other crops, such as soybean or wheat, acreage could be shifted to increase corn production. However, if ending stocks are tight across all crops, substituting soybean for corn isn’t as feasible. This is to say that new acres can sometimes be hard to steal from other crops and, in extreme circumstances, may require new acreage to come into production.

The U.S. Situation

Figure 1 shows the acre-equivalence of ending stocks across 13 crops. For 2021, ending stocks were tight, at nearly 33 million acres worth. For 2022, the situation is even tighter as current projections put ending stocks at nearly 30 million acres worth. For context, stocks reached nearly 60 million acres as the trade war got underway in 2018. Ending stocks across all crops harvested in 2022 are projected at half the levels seen just four years ago.

Historically, acre-equivalent ending stocks were as low as 28.7 million acres in 2013 and 25.4 million acres in 1995. While a bit off the record lows, the current U.S. stock situation is among the tightest observed since the 1970s, and conditions have spanned both extremes in a short period of time.

A line chart shows the number of acres of crop ending stocks for the 13 primary crops in the U.S.
Figure 1: U.S. crop ending stocks, on an acre-equivalent basis, have tightened in recent years. Data Source: USDA’s PDS database and AEI.ag calculations.

The World Situation

This method of measuring stocks also allows us to capture how tight — or abundant — grain inventories are at the global level. There are two challenges, however. First, China accounts for a large share of global grain inventories. To account for this, we can remove China’s quantity of ending stocks from the global total. The logic here is that China is a net importer of grains, so these bushels are unlikely to be exported. These adjusted data provide a measure of how much is available for global trade.

How big of a deal is this? In 2022, China accounted for roughly half of the acre-equivalent global ending stocks.

The second issue is that the global factory has expanded over time, and the 300 million acre-equivalence of ending stocks in 2022 is less burdensome today than it was 10 to 20 years ago.

Figure 2 reports global ending stocks, less China’s inventory, as an acre-equivalent share of harvested acres. This measure reports ending stocks available for trade relative to the size of the global acreage factory.

In 2022, global ending stocks are equivalent to 12.8% of global production, down from 13.3% in 2021 and a high of 14.7% in 2018. This measure of stocks shows conditions are considerably tighter than the 2013 lows (13.3%). Given all the factors, ending stocks across the board are arguably the tightest in two decades.

A line chart shows global ending stocks, demonstrated by the acre-equivalent basis as a share of harvested acres
Figure 2: Global ending stocks, demonstrated by the acre-equivalent basis as a share of harvested acres, show conditions are considerably tighter than the 2013 lows. Data Source: USDA’s PDS database and AEI.ag calculations.

Wrapping It Up

The grain end-stock situation trended tighter in recent years. While conditions in 2021 were tight, it seems they will be even tighter after the books are closed on 2022.

There are two key reasons monitoring these data is important. First, it provides us with background on how nervous markets will be about supply-related issues, such as weather, conflict or economic sanctions. Given the overall tight global situation, any hiccup could have significant implications.

Second, each commodity has its own story and degree of uncertainty, but the big picture consideration is that conditions across the board are tight. The implications are that any supply shocks won’t easily be solved with substitution acres. Instead, growers would need to bring new crop acres into production around the world to make up a shortfall.

Concerns about tight stocks will likely continue into 2023. The combination of usage, acreage and yields will ultimately determine when ending stocks turn higher, but we expect this to take place at some point.

Widmar and Gloy are the co-founders of Ag Economic Insights (AEI.ag). Founded in 2014, AEI.ag helps improve decision making for producers, lenders, and agribusiness through: the free Weekly Insights blog, the award-winning AEI.ag Presents podcast- featuring Escaping 1980 and Corn Saves America, and the AEI Premium platform, which includes the Ag Forecast Network decision tool. Visit AEI.ag or email Widmar (david@aei.ag) to learn more. Stay curious.