Biofuels

US House Passes Bill Allowing Year-Round Sales of E15 Gasoline

Thu, 14 May 2026 16:40:34 GMT

The U.S. House passed legislation on Wednesday that would allow nationwide year‑round sales of gasoline containing 15% ethanol, handing a major win to biofuel producers and farm groups while raising concerns among refiners about higher compliance costs.

The H.R. 1346 bill , or the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act, approved by a vote of 218 to 203, would permit fuel retailers to offer E15 year‑round, removing seasonal restrictions linked to smog concerns.

The legislation would need to pass the Senate, where it needs 60% of votes, and get a signature from President Donald Trump to be enacted.

Supporters say allowing year-round E15 sales would expand biofuel demand and help lower fuel prices that have spiked since the start of the Iran war. Critics argue it risks raising costs for refiners already facing higher compliance burdens under federal biofuel mandates.

Some lawmakers have also raised fiscal concerns, with Representative James McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, saying the measure will add billions to U.S. debt.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would increase direct spending by $2.7 billion while raising revenues by $0.4 billion, resulting in a net deficit increase of about $2.3 billion between 2026 and 2036, based on an assumption that the legislation would take effect in August 2026.

High fuel prices due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, conduit for a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies, have become a major vulnerability for President Donald Trump and his Republican party ahead of the November midterm elections.

(Reporting by Siddharth Cavale in New York; Editing by Sonali Paul)

House Ag Committee Chairman says farm bill pesticide provisions could cause concern in the Senate

Fri, 08 May 2026 18:55:31 GMT

After a flurry of debate, votes and finally movement, the Farm Food and National Security Act of 2026 passed the U.S. House with a 224-200 vote. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson calls the legislation “transformational,” adding that 96% of GOP members in the House, the most in history, and 14 Democrats supported the bill.

“That’s the most members of the minority party who voted for a House farm bill since 2008. So, [that’s] a strong endorsement in a bipartisan way as this bill winds up in the Senate for consideration,” he says.

Despite his optimism, Thompson expressed concern over a key amendment introduced by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna. The addition stripped the farm bill of pesticide liability provisions. Before the amendment, the bill’s original language reaffirmed EPA as the sole agency capable of determining the information listed on a pesticide label. Critics, including Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) advocates, worry the language would shield pesticide manufacturers from liability claims.

“I have some concerns with the pesticide provision that was added,” Thompson says. “I think it may put farmers’ health at risk and certainly drive up affordability and open the door for foreign-manufactured pesticides to flood into our country.

“I have significant concerns that the amendment that was put forward is going to create chaos [in the Senate],” he later added.

Thompson says he’s supportive of year-round E15, but because it falls under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, it will likely be taken up for a vote mid-May.

Moving Forward

Thompson says, overall, he thinks farm bill conversations in the Senate are positive. The chairman says he’s kept Sen. John Boozman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, well informed about the bill over the last year.

“I kind of pictured my good friend, John Boozma, with a catcher’s mitt, ready to receive the Farm Food and National Security Act,” Thompson says. “He’ll have to make some modifications, and I think he’s hoping to do that mid- to late May. He knows how ... our farmers need this bill today, not tomorrow or not next year.”

New Legislation Impacting H-2A Reform

Thompson says in three to four weeks, he will likely release draft language for public discussion that would make reforms to the H-2A program. After the draft, he’ll be introducing a bill with bipartisan support, he says.

“We’ve already had some very positive discussions with our [House] Judiciary [Committee] Chairman Jim Jordan — so, [I’m] looking forward to breaking that 45-, almost 50-year gridlock of really not doing anything in this space. I think we have a great opportunity to provide certainty to agriculture workforce, which quite frankly is necessary for both food security and ultimately national security.”

Trump Confirms Support for Year-Round E-15 Deal

Wed, 28 Jan 2026 15:48:12 GMT

President Donald Trump made a planned visit to Iowa — his first since July 2025 — on Tuesday, focusing on affordability, saying Iowa families are “winning” again under his leadership. Standing in front of a packed crowd in Clive, Iowa, with signs posted on the stage and scattered throughout the crowd that said “lower prices” and “bigger paychecks,” the visit unofficially kicked off the midterm elections where costs for consumers are expected to be one of the main political talking points.

While in Iowa, President Trump highlighted what the White House calls improving economic conditions for Iowa families, pointing to lower fuel prices, tax savings and agriculture-driven growth as signs the state is “winning again.” The President touted all the trade wins, including China buying soybeans and the EU agreeing to buy U.S. ethanol. He says by removing those trade barriers, exports are starting to flow to countries that had stopped buying U.S. ag goods before he took office.

But the reality is agriculture is at a crossroads, especially on the row crop side. Even with the recent trade deals, current economic pressures are creating a crisis in agriculture. Trump did briefly mention that crisis, blaming it on former President Joe Biden.

Trump Pushes Year-Round E15 During Iowa Visit

During his speech in Iowa, President Trump reaffirmed his campaign promise to support year-round E15, signaling a major win for corn growers and the ethanol industry.

“But I’m also working hard to expand your markets domestically,” Trump says. “In the campaign, I promised to support E15 all year round. I did. E15 all year round if I get elected, and I want to let you know, we’ll start right now.”

The statement sparked applause as Trump emphasized that efforts are underway in Congress to finalize approval, calling on House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Leader John Thune to deliver a deal that benefits farmers, consumers, and refiners, including small and mid-sized operations.

“I’m trusting Speaker Mike Johnson, who’s great, and Leader John Thune, who’s great, to find a deal that works. They’re very close to getting it done,” he says. “And I will sign it without delay.”

The president framed year-round E15 as a key part of his broader strategy to expand markets for U.S. corn, support rural communities, and strengthen domestic energy production.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump announces Congress is actively working on a deal to allow E15 ALL YEAR ROUND that works for farmers, consumers, & refiners.

"Congress is working on a deal, and when they send it to my desk — I will sign it without delay."pic.twitter.com/TOpo3VUDI4
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 27, 2026

Trump Highlights “Historic Turnaround” for U.S. Manufacturing, Touts Deere’s Stock Hitting All-Time High

During his Iowa visit, President Trump touted what he called a historic one-year economic turnaround, pointing to manufacturing growth and new investments across the country.

“And America is respected all over the world like they’ve never been respected,” Trump says. “I thought it would take us two years. This has been the most dramatic one-year turnaround of any country in history in terms of the speed.”

Trump spotlighted John Deere as an example of American manufacturing success. He welcomed the company’s chairman at the event and praised the expansion of production facilities, including what he called two massive new plants.

“You’re opening one in North Carolina, one someplace else, and then you’re expanding all over the place. You’re doing a great job,” he says. “I bought a lot of John Deere stuff. Great country, great company, it’s an honor to have you here.”

The president attributed much of the growth to tariffs and economic policies aimed at attracting investment back to the U.S.

“It is because of tariffs and it is also because of the fact that we had such a tremendous November 5th. That November 5 brought spirit back to our country,” Trump says.

Trump then said that proof in the growth is in the stock market’s performance, including Deere stock hitting an all-time high of 529.51 on January 21, 2026.

But with strains in the farm economy, farm equipment sales saw a steep decline in 2025. Deere and Company, which has a large footprint in the Quad Cities and Des Moines, has laid off over 3,500 employees since October 2023. That downsizing, which the company says is driven by decreasing demand and lower sales, has hit the company’s manufacturing facilities hard, including locations in Waterloo and Ankeny.

John Deere Expands U.S. Manufacturing with Two New Facilities

President Trump highlighted John Deere’s plans to open two major U.S. facilities, marking a significant boost for American manufacturing and rural jobs. The president saying Deere’s decision was due to tariffs.

After the president’s remarks, the company sent out a press release, with John Deere announcing a major expansion with two new U.S. facilities coming soon to the U.S .

Dere says it will build:

A state-of-the-art distribution center near Hebron, Indiana, and a $70 million excavator factory in Kernersville, North Carolina, both set to open within the next year.
The North Carolina factory will bring excavator production back from Japan to the U.S., making John Deere the top domestic producer of excavators.

Together, Deere says the projects are expected to create hundreds of new American jobs, strengthen local economies, and advance John Deere’s commitment to $20 billion in U.S. manufacturing investments over the next decade.

John Deere executives emphasized the expansion as a continuation of their mission to “build America”, enhance innovation, and support the nation’s agriculture, construction, and manufacturing sectors.

The Strong Push for E15 to Help Turn The Ag Economy Around

As corn growers pressed for year-round E15 ahead of the president’s visit, ethanol advocates say the issue is no longer about executive action. It’s about Congress finishing the job.

Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy, says the Trump administration has already taken every step available to it through regulatory action.

Leading into Tuesday’s talk, biofuels leaders pushed for the president to focus on E15, saying rural America’s financial stress is colliding with a narrow policy window to get things like E15 done, and that could generate more demand, quickly changing the outlook for corn and soybean growers.

“What we hear from the team around the president is he did what he could,” Skor told Chip Flory during “AgriTalk” on Tuesday. “He issued an executive order. EPA gave us the summer waivers for last summer. We all know that what we need right now is an act of Congress.”

Skor says the White House wants lawmakers to deliver a bill that can be signed into law and end the seasonal E15 debate for good.

“The conversation has to be ‘Congress, do your job,’” she says. “The White House wants to see Congress get something done so they can bring a bill to his desk, so he can sign it and we can be done with this once and for all.”

That urgency is being echoed across agriculture, she says.

“I’ve got CEOs of all kinds of agriculture trade groups calling me saying: ‘What can we do to be helpful? We’ve got to get this done,’” Skor says. “All of agriculture is supportive of this.”

Iowa’s Reality: Corn Prices Below Cost of Production

Ahead of Trump’s second visit to Iowa in less than a year, corn growers and renewable fuels advocates used the moment to renew pressure for nationwide, year-round access to E15. Corn groups say the timing is critical, as lawmakers continue to stall on permanent E15 access despite strong Midwestern support. To make the push even more visible, Iowa Corn and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA) released an open letter on Tuesday , thanking the president for his past support of E15 and urging him to help push the policy across the finish line in Congress, while also running a full-page ad in Tuesday’s “Des Moines Register”.

ICGA and @iowafuel today released an open letter thanking @POTUS for his constant support of nationwide, year-round #E15 and asking for his help to finally push E15 access through Congress @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/cxACXijKMN
— Iowa Corn (@iowa_corn) January 26, 2026

According to the letter, corn growers across the country, and especially in Iowa, are struggling as prices remain well below the cost of production. That pressure, they say, is rippling through the broader state economy.

The groups cite recent data from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank, which ranked Iowa 50th among states for economic growth. They say expanding E15 is one of the fastest ways to reverse that trend.

“The best way to boost corn prices and create meaningful market demand is the immediate authorization of nationwide, year-round E15,” the letter states.

After Trump’s announcement on Tuesday, saying a deal is close, Iowa Corn Growers Association Vice President and farmer from Knoxville, Iowa, Steve Kuiper, expressed Iowa Corn’s appreciation, while highlighting what this could mean for farmers at a critical time.

“Iowa’s corn growers appreciate President Trump shining light on E15 and recognizing the weight this legislation holds to us as corn growers. Farmers are struggling with low commodity prices, high input costs and lack of markets. Passage of year-round E15 is the lifeline many of us need to be able to continue farming,” says Kuiper. “A recent study by Iowa Corn and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association shared the positive effects year-round E15 would mean for corn growers. This is a goal we have been working towards for over a decade and getting this issue to the president’s desk and across the finish line is a win we all desperately need. The fact that the President sees this problem and promises a solution is coming is very encouraging and valued by us as farmers.”

Fun fact: today when @realDonaldTrump referenced supporting year-round E15 on the campaign trail, that started on January 19, 2016 at the Iowa Renewable Fuels Summit, where he was a speaker.

The next Summit is on February 5th and is FREE and open to the public. You might want to… https://t.co/g0G57UWrbF
— Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (@iowafuel) January 28, 2026

Leading up to today’s statements by Trump, both Iowa Corn and Iowa Renewable Fuels reminded the Trump administration that year-round E15 would immediately expand domestic demand for corn at a time when farmers are under intense financial pressure. Even with the latest round of financial aid through the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program payments, 92% of agricultural economists surveyed in Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor said the row crop side of agriculture is in a recession. More than 90% said that will accelerate consolidation in agriculture — something Iowa agriculture is seeing firsthand.

Biofuels Seen as Economic Pressure Point and Opportunity

Kurt Kovarik, vice president of federal affairs at Clean Fuels Alliance America, appeared on “AgriTalk” before Trump’s talk on Tuesday. He says the group sent a letter to the president earlier this week urging the administration to focus on two immediate policy opportunities.

“We’re excited to see him head to Iowa,” Kovarik says. “We were briefed that the purpose of the conversation was to highlight economic opportunity, perhaps domestic energy dominance.”

Kovarik says Clean Fuels asked the administration to spotlight progress on renewable fuels, particularly finalizing renewable volume obligations under the Renewable Fuel Standard and issuing long-awaited guidance on the 45Z clean fuel production tax credit.

“I’m sure you’ve had a lot of conversations around E15 — that’s in the hands of Congress,” he says. “So, what we want to do is highlight for the president the EPA’s efforts to finalize the renewable volume obligations under the RFS as an opportunity to provide market certainty and growth for our industry, as well as finalizing the 45Z clean fuel production tax credit guidance, which we do not yet have.”

That certainty, Kovarik says, has been missing, and the consequences have been felt across rural America.

“Our industry had a really, really tough 2025,” he says. “Following a really great ’24, ’25 was really poor, as it was along the farm economy.”

He says the downturn wasn’t driven by demand alone, but by uncertainty around federal policy.

“It was a lack of profit, lack of margin, which meant reduced capacity,” Kovarik says. “In fact, we’ve had a lot of plants idling.”

After producing more than 5 billion gallons of clean fuels domestically in 2024, Kovarik says output dropped sharply in 2025. Plants across the industry operated at just 60% to 70% of capacity.

“In some cases that may be a plant dialing back to 80%,” he says. “In a lot of cases, particularly the smaller plants, maybe in Iowa, those that don’t produce their own feedstock came offline entirely.”

But it’s not just corn at a crossroads. He says that slowdown directly affects farm demand, especially for soybean oil.

“If our industry got those two things in the near term, we would flip around this industry nearly immediately,” Kovarik says. “Turn these plants back on, buy more soybean oil, add value to the soybean farmer and get this fuel to the consumer.”

Kovarik points to renewable volume obligations as a key pressure point. Under the Biden administration’s final three-year RFS rule, biomass-based diesel volumes for 2025 were set at 3.35 billion gallons — well below what the industry was capable of producing.

“We produced over 5 billion gallons in 2024,” he says. “So, that’s part of the reason our industry had a tough year.”

Looking ahead, Clean Fuels, petroleum refiners and agriculture groups asked EPA to raise 2026 volumes to 5.25 billion gallons. EPA’s proposal came in even higher.

“EPA actually proposed an estimate around 5.6 billion gallons,” Kovarik says. “They were even above ours.”

If final numbers land near that range, Kovarik says it would send a powerful market signal.

“Our feeling is if it comes down anywhere in the neighborhood between what we asked and what EPA proposed, it’s going to be a very, very strong market signal,” he says.

Timing matters, too. Kovarik says EPA has indicated the rule could be finalized soon.

“Our expectation is EPA is committed to have it done within the first quarter of 2026 — that means the end of March,” he says. “Hopefully early- to mid-March.”

As corn growers push for year-round E15 and broader biofuels support during Trump’s Iowa visit, Kovarik says optimism is returning, even after a difficult year.

“Although most folks are really feeling bad about how ’25 was, they’re also very optimistic about 2026,” he says. “Because of what we feel we’re on the cusp of.”

Corn Growers Disgusted as Congress Leaves E15 Out of Government Spending Bills

Just last week, E15 and corn groups were dealt a blow. That’s because year-round E15 was left out of the latest spending package , something corn and renewable fuels groups had been pushing to get included in the latest bill.

When asked how year-round E15 failed to advance earlier this year, Skor points to political realities inside the House.

“Parochial politics,” Skor said on AgriTalk Tuesday. “It’s incredibly frustrating.”

Despite broad ag support and mounting corn supplies, Skor says narrow vote margins and competing interests stalled progress.

“We have been a chorus saying, ‘We want markets, not handouts. We want markets,’” she says. “Look at how much corn we’ve grown in the U.S. We need to find markets.”

Skor says House leadership ultimately pulled the issue from budget negotiations due to concerns over securing enough votes, particularly from members tied to small refinery interests.

“He knew that he could not get the votes he needed to pass the budget,” she says. “So he said, ‘We’re going to table this. We’re going to create a council. We’re going to deal with this separately.’ And that’s what happened.”

Looking ahead, Skor says attaching year-round E15 to a must-pass spending bill remains possible, but unlikely in the near term.

“I’m never going to say never,” she says. “But I think the realistic, immediate path for us is trusting our champions.”

She points to Rep. Randy Feenstra of Iowa as a key leader on biofuels policy.

“He’s fantastic on our issues,” Skor says. “He proved to be very, very strong in advocating for the Clean Fuel Production Tax Credit, 45Z.”

Skor says biofuels groups are now unified behind a legislative compromise that protects liquid fuels while expanding growth opportunities for American ethanol.

“We have the vast majority of liquid fuels united behind a legislative proposal,” she says. “We’ve done a really good job coming up with a compromise that has a future for liquid fuels and growth opportunities for American biofuels.”

As farmers look for demand-side solutions amid tight margins and large corn supplies, Skor says the message to Washington during Trump’s Iowa visit is straightforward: permanent E15 isn’t a wish list item. It’s a market fix agriculture needs now.

In the letter Iowa Corn and IRFA sent this week, both also pointed to Congress’ decision to sidestep E15 language in recent spending bills, instead creating a task force to study the issue. That task force, which is co-chaired by Feenstra, is scheduled to take action by February 28.

“Without permanent access to this market, the long-term viability of our state’s largest economic driver is at serious risk,” the groups wrote. “Today, we are asking for your help to finally push E15 access through Congress.”

It’s that same sentiment that was relayed in a statement from National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) president Jed Bower last week, who said corn growers “were disgusted, disappointed and disillusioned” after spending years of calling on Congress to pass E15.

“I met with Speaker Johnson back in November. He said he was frustrated because DOGE had pulled this out last year. He said he would get something done, and here we are again,” said the Ohio farmer. “The same thing we get all the time. Let’s step on and push on the farmers because there’s not very many of them and we can get away with it.”

Small Refiners Still a Roadblock to Year-Round E15

Even with support from major oil groups, Skor says a small group of refiners continues to wield outsized influence in Washington — enough to stall year-round E15 despite broad backing from agriculture and much of the energy sector.

“Well, enough that they could hamstring the speaker and they could hold up the votes on the budget,” Skor says, responding to questions about whether small refiners still carry weight in Congress.

Skor says the current proposal on the table represents a significant compromise, one she believes should be moving now.

“Let’s get year-round E15. Let’s reform the small refinery program so fewer refiners get it and we have more clarity,” she says. “We are supportive of that.”

She argues the small refinery exemption program has been abused, pointing to a growing number of legal challenges.

“There are over 15 lawsuits that have been filed in 2025 because of these small refiners. They’re greedy,” Skor says. “They’re whiny. They claim and allege hardship, and then they get on investor calls and talk about all the money they made in the quarter. You can’t have it both ways.”

Skor says the ethanol industry and its allies are now focused on exposing what she calls that hypocrisy while maintaining pressure on lawmakers.

“We have a very strong coalition now that should win the day,” she says.

Corn Growers Argue E15 Is a ‘No-Cost’ Solution

Iowa Corn and IRFA frame E15 as both an economic and regulatory fix, calling the current restrictions outdated and unnecessary.

“Removing the outdated regulatory hurdle for E15 is exactly the type of government efficiency you’ve worked for,” the groups wrote, urging Trump to continue applying pressure as Congress debates the issue over the coming weeks.

They also emphasize permanent E15 access would come at no cost to taxpayers, while strengthening American energy dominance and providing a critical lifeline to corn producers.

“Permanent nationwide access to E15 is a common-sense, no-cost solution,” the letter sent earlier this week concludes. “Now is the time.”

With the task force deadline looming and the president back in Iowa, corn growers hope the renewed push will translate into action and finally deliver year-round E15 access they’ve been seeking for more than a decade.

Trump Defends Tariffs, Says Farmers Will Be “Biggest Beneficiary”

Ahead of his Iowa talk, President Trump made an appearance at the Machine Shed restaurant in Urbandale, where he had an exclusive interview with Fox News. During that interview, Trump strongly defended his use of tariffs, calling them “indispensable” to economic growth and long-term benefits for farmers.

“Tariffs have been indispensable toward success,” Trump says. “We’ve taken in $600 billion in tariffs.”

Trump says some of that revenue has already been directed back to agriculture, including the Farmer Bridge program payments, which are scheduled to be in farmers’ bank accounts by the end of February.

“I gave the farmers $12 billion last week and took them out of tariff money,” he says.

When asked about concerns from Iowa farmers who worry tariffs could hurt exports and commodity prices, Trump says the benefits will take time to materialize.

“It’s going to take a little while to kick in,” he says. “But I think the farmers are going to be the biggest beneficiary.”

Trump points to protections against foreign crops being sold into the U.S. at below-market prices.

“When you used to have people coming in and dumping their crops into the United States, you guys were hurt,” he says. “They’re not allowed to do that because we’re tariffing those crops.”

He also draws parallels to his first-term trade battles, particularly with China.

“The farmers stuck with me the first time, and I was right,” Trump says. “We gave them $28 billion then. Now we gave them $12 billion, sort of a minimal payment.”

While acknowledging legal challenges could arise as the Trump administration awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump still signaled tariffs, or similar tools, will remain part of his strategy.

“If the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs, we will find something — some other way of doing a similar thing,” he says. “But it’ll be more inconvenient.”

As Trump delivers his message in Iowa, tariffs remain a flashpoint for rural America, balancing promises of long-term protection with near-term uncertainty for farmers navigating tight margins and volatile markets.

Economists Forecast Farm Economy to Stabilize, But High Costs and Policy Uncertainty Block a 2026 Rebound

Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:26:39 GMT

As 2026 ushers in a fresh start, agricultural economists say the U.S. farm economy has stopped sliding, but it’s far from fully healed.

The December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows month-to-month sentiment is improving, but deep structural strain remains — especially in row crops. Meanwhile, livestock markets continue to provide strength. Crop producers face another year of tight margins driven by high input costs, weak prices and unresolved trade and policy uncertainty.

“There’s cautious optimism,” the economists say, “but very little belief that 2026 will bring a meaningful rebound without cost relief or stronger demand.”

Those themes mirror the perspective of Seth Meyer, former USDA chief economist and now director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri. In a recent interview, Meyer connected the dots between narrow margins, policy responses and what might actually move the dial for U.S. agriculture heading into 2026.

Stabilizing, Not Recovering

December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Economists see the ag economy holding its ground — but not gaining strength.

54% say the ag economy is somewhat better than one month ago.
Compared with a year ago:
- 42% say conditions are worse
- 33% say they are better
Looking ahead 12 months:
- 46% expect conditions unchanged
- 38% expect improvement
- 15% expect conditions to worsen

“Momentum has improved since mid-2025,” Meyer notes, “but tight margins have been with us for a long time. Turning that around requires demand growth, not just price stabilization.

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Grant Gardner, assistant Extension professor at the University of Kentucky, tells AgriTalk’s Chip Flory: “I think as we move into kind of this next marketing year, you’re looking at what looks like a breakeven and not a loss, but breakeven still doesn’t look great after three years of breakeven or losses.”

He says even with the $11 billion in Farmer Bridge Program payments , it won’t drastically change the outlook for the farm economy.

“Purdue had a good survey about a month ago, where they looked at what were these payments going to go to, and research would show that a lot of these payments go into long-term assets, and so land tractors, but I think over 60% of producers right now are in such a tight cash crunch that you’re going to see a lot of these payments go into that short-term debt,” Gardner says.

Consolidation a Growing Threat

Economists are nearly unanimous that the crop sector remains under extreme financial stress. 83 percent say row crops are currently in a recession. That isn’t about production declines — acres and yields haven’t collapsed — but about persistently weak profitability.

“Negative returns for at least the third consecutive year across nearly all row crops,” one economist wrote in the survey.

Another said: “Margins remain below full costs of production for many producers.”

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes)

Meyer traces that back to how abruptly agriculture moved from the high prices of 2021 and 2022 into today’s tighter margins.

“We moved very quickly from a very high price environment and good profitability in 2022 to very tight margins,” he says. “That usually happens coming off price peaks, but this time it happened really rapidly.”

A minority of survey respondents argued farms are “treading water,” supported by strong land values and government aid rather than eroding further, which Meyer acknowledged aligns with how risk and safety nets have interacted this year.

But when you look at how the current stress in the farm economy could impact consolidation, the ag economists say it’s the economic pressure combined with demographic trends causing the acceleration. In fact, 92% of them say consolidation is underway and unavoidable.

“Markets go to the lowest-cost producers,” one economist wrote. “That sorting is consolidation on the production side.”

Aging producers exiting and rent-heavy operations under pressure only add fuel to that trend, with one economist saying: “Consolidation happens because producers have to exit, not because they want to.

What’s Driving the Farm Economy Right Now

When economists were asked to identify the two most important factors shaping agriculture’s economic health today, their responses clustered around a familiar, but increasingly sharp, divide: strong demand in livestock and the protein sector versus persistent oversupply and cost pressure in crops, all layered with trade and policy uncertainty.

Several economists pointed to continued strength in beef demand, both domestically and through export channels, as a key stabilizing force. While the dairy sector is an area that shows signs of weakness for 2026.

“Livestock revenues are a bright spot,” one respondent noted, underscoring why the livestock sector continues to outperform crops financially.

Looking to 2026, economists overwhelmingly point to input costs, not interest rates, as the biggest barrier to profitability. Nearly 70% cited input prices as the largest challenge as well, far ahead of trade concerns or capital availability.

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

“We have too much supply and not enough demand for row crops,” one economist wrote.

Another said: “Input costs are still too high.”

Trade remains a central wild card, especially relationships with China and uncertainty around global supply. Several respondents cited trade disputes and agreements as critical factors, along with questions about the size of South American crops and how that could shape global competition in the months ahead.

Policy uncertainty was also featured prominently, with economists pointing to domestic biofuels policy, government payments and broader market signals as factors influencing both short-term cash flow and longer-term demand growth.

Overall, economists say the ag economy is being pulled in opposite directions: strong livestock demand providing support, while crops struggle under high costs, oversupply and unresolved trade and policy questions — a dynamic that helps explain why the broader farm economy feels stable, but far from healthy, as 2026 approaches.

Livestock: A Continued Bright Spot

Livestock continues to stand out as the most financially healthy segment of the ag economy. Every economist surveyed rated beef as above average or excellent, supported by strong domestic demand and tight supplies. Dairy and pork were viewed as stable to moderately strong.

That success creates a stark contrast with row crops, where corn and cotton were cited by 38% each as the commodities most at risk financially in 2026.

What Could Move Crop Prices in the Next Six Months

Looking ahead to the first half of 2026, economists say crop prices will hinge less on domestic fundamentals and more on global supply, trade flows and policy clarity.

Across responses, South America emerged as the dominant influence, with economists repeatedly citing Brazilian weather, the size of the South American harvest and how those supplies compete with U.S. exports. Several noted that clarity around South American production will be critical in setting price direction for corn, soybeans and wheat.

Trade, particularly with China, remains another key swing factor. Economists emphasized not just the announcement of trade agreements, but whether purchases translate into actual shipments.

“China purchases of U.S. crops, but also if and when actual shipments occur,” one respondent noted, adding that details within any trade deal, including purchase commitments, will matter just as much as headlines.

Domestic factors still play a role, but economists see them as secondary in the near term. Input prices, early U.S. planting conditions and assumptions about 2026 acreage were all cited as important — especially as markets begin to trade expectations for next year’s crop mix.

Policy uncertainty also hangs over the outlook. Economists pointed to ongoing questions around trade policy, biofuels policy and broader economic conditions as variables that could amplify or mute price moves.

Economists say crop prices over the next six months are likely to be driven by how global supply unfolds, whether export demand materializes and how quickly policy uncertainty is resolved, rather than by any single domestic production shock.

Biofuels Policy: A Potential Turning Point?

One of the clearest themes Meyer highlights as a possible game changer for demand, and ultimately prices, is biofuels policy.

For economists, policy levers like year-round E15, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volumes, 45Z investment tax credits and how small refinery exemptions are handled could meaningfully influence demand for corn and soybeans in 2026 and beyond.

“It’s one of the places where policymakers actually have levers to help with tight margins in the row crop sector,” Meyer says.

He emphasizes that final rules on RFS volumes and how biobased credits are implemented could impact feedstock demand.

“For the next couple of crop seasons, RVO (Renewable Volume Obligations) and how EPA reallocates small refinery exemptions are big factors,” Meyer says. “Should we raise the RVO to soak up that pool like a sponge? Should imported feedstocks get full 45Z credit? Those decisions could move demand.”

On year-round E15, a long-sought policy priority for corn growers, Meyer is cautiously optimistic.

“I do think it matters,” he says. “Maybe it’s not a huge swing this year, but offering certainty and building demand over multiple seasons is supportive. Other countries like Brazil are ramping up their biofuels production too, so this isn’t happening in a vacuum.”

Policy Uncertainty Still Looms

Economists also flagged top priorities for 2026 policy action:

Year-round E15 (row crops)
Trade policy clarity (row crops & livestock)
Labor reform and regulatory issues (livestock)

They also highlighted under-covered risks, which include pressure on land rents and values, labor shortages, biofuels policy details (such as 45Z credits) and slower population growth affecting long-term demand.

What Could Move Livestock and Dairy Prices in the Next Six Months

When economists look ahead to livestock and dairy markets in early 2026, they see a mix of strong demand signals, supply-side risks and policy uncertainty shaping price direction.

Consumer demand remains the cornerstone of the outlook, particularly for beef. Several economists pointed to continued buying interest from U.S. consumers as the primary support for cattle prices, even as affordability pressures rise. At the same time, some warned that a more “K-shaped” economy could begin to shift demand, pulling some consumers away from beef and toward pork.

Supply dynamics and herd trends are another major focus. Economists cited herd size, potential herd expansion and the availability of feeder cattle as critical variables. The expected resumption of feeder cattle imports from Mexico was highlighted as a key factor that could influence cattle supplies and pricing, depending on timing and volume.

Animal health risks also remain on the radar. Issues such as avian influenza, screwworm and other disease threats were mentioned as potential disruptors that could quickly alter supply conditions in both livestock and dairy markets.

Policy and trade uncertainty continues to hover over the sector. Economists pointed to ongoing questions around tariffs, restrictions on live animal trade with Mexico and the next steps under the USMCA as factors that could impact both imports and exports. Political uncertainty more broadly was also cited as a potential source of market volatility.

For dairy, economists noted that beef-on-dairy dynamics are likely to continue weighing on milk prices by increasing beef supplies while complicating dairy herd decisions.

Taken together, economists say livestock and dairy prices over the next six months will be driven by a delicate balance between strong consumer demand, evolving supply conditions and unresolved trade and policy questions, with any shift in one of those areas capable of moving markets quickly.

Acreage Expectations: Stress, Not Shock

Despite margin pressure, economists do not expect dramatic acreage pullbacks in 2026. Most expect:

Corn: 93 to 95 million acres
Soybeans: 84 to 86 million acres
Wheat: 44 to 45 million acres
Cotton: 9 to 10 million acres

Corn acreage expectations have edged lower since November, as economists backed away from another year above 95 million acres. At the same time, soybean acreage expectations have firmed, with 75% now targeting 84 to 86 million acres, suggesting stronger relative economics for beans.

“Export demand has helped keep corn acres supported,” Meyer says. “The question is whether that demand holds and whether policy supports it.”

As for acreage, the major impact on prices would be a large acreage reduction, which is unlikely.

“That’s what it comes down to, too. What I’ve been thinking about is what else can you use land for? And you’ve got the pushback on urban sprawl, you’ve got pushback on other uses for ag land. But right now, the simple fact is we’ve got way too much production. Without that slowing, or a drastic increase in demand, I don’t see prices improving to very lucrative levels,” Gardner says.

Overall, The Ag Economy Is a Grind, Not a Rebound

When you look at all the results from the December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, economists paint a picture of an industry that has stopped getting worse, but has not yet found a path to durable profitability.

Crops remain mired in margin compression; livestock continues to outperform but remains sensitive to policy decisions. Government aid is buying time but not addressing structural challenges, but it’s policy outcomes, especially around biofuels, trade and E15, that could be decisive in shaping 2026 outcomes.

For now, the farm economy has found a floor. The tougher question, economists say, is whether policy can help lift it, or if it will continue to grind forward without a genuine rebound.

Related News: As Screwworm Inches Closer, When Could the U.S. Reopen the Southern Border to Cattle Imports?

Breaking Down the Biggest Differences in the Big Beautiful Bill Proposals and Potential Impact on Agriculture

Fri, 20 Jun 2025 14:14:35 GMT

Senate republicans are racing against the clock to finish their version of President Donald Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. As the Senate continues to roll out its versions of the reconciliation bill, there are some differences between the House and Senate proposals when it come to agriculture.

The main variations come down to changes in the tax provisions, but it’s key to note proposed changes to the farm safety net are similar in both the House and the Senate.

What’s Next?
The House and Senate will now need to work out their differences in the two versions of the Big Beautiful Bill. President Trump said he wants to sign the legislation on July 4, but many reports cast doubt Congress can meet that approaching deadline. Politico even reported this week the Senate GOP’s version of the bill is “facing major headwinds in the House.”

Read More: Big, Beautiful Bill: What’s in it for Agriculture?

Farm CPA Paul Neiffer believes the July 4 deadline isn’t likely as the debate heats up, but he still remains optimistic the bill is close to the finish line.

“I think July is the date, but not July 4,” Neiffer says. “They’ll get it done before the August recess. I think they’re actually pretty close. The media out there talks about how they’re really far apart on Medicaid and state and local taxes. But I think when push comes to shove, the president has a lot of clout, and they’ll come up a compromise. So, I’m pretty optimistic they’ll get it done.”

Weighing the Differences Between the Senate and the House
Neiffer says he would grade the Senate’s overall budget reconciliation proposal as a “B” for ag, which is slightly below how he rated the House’s proposal. One reason is what the Senate is proposing for Section 199A:

The Senate has a Section 199A deduction of 20%, while the House’s version is 23%.
Both the House and Senate are calling for 100% bonus depreciation, but the Senate’s would be permanent. The House’s version would expire at the end of 2029.

“With the Senate making that permanent, that’s a really good deal for ag,” Neiffer says. “They would now have some certainty all of the assets that a farmer purchases — combines, tractors, buildings and everything but land — they can deduct 100%.”

Neiffer says another difference is on state and local tax deductions.

The Senate is keeping the current $10,000 deduction and reducing the benefit of the pass-through entity tax deduction.
The deduction is at the $40,000 level in the House and retains the pass-through entity deduction in full for farmers.

Beefed Up Farm Safety Net
Under the Senate’s version, Neiffer says farmers would be paid the higher calculated payment rate under Price Loss Coverage (PLC) or Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) during the 2025 crop year.

The Senate Ag Committee’s proposal also increases the reference price formula, and instead of having a floor based on 85% of the Olympic moving average marketing year price, the Senate is proposing an increase up to 88%.

“That actually results in a boost on the corn PLC price by about $0.15. And I think on soybeans, it’s about $0.35,” Neiffer says. “So, that’s very beneficial. Now, I was hoping they were going to boost the ceiling. Right now, the ceiling is 115% of the EFR. And they had talked last year about boosting it up to 120%. I think that was too much for the budget, so they kept it at 115%.”

The Differences on 45Z
When it comes to the 45Z Clean Fuels Production Tax Credit, there’s one major difference. The Senate allows foreign feedstocks to be eligible for the credit, just with a 20% “haircut.”

In the House’s version, only feedstocks produced or grown in the United States or Canada qualify for the tax credit. That change would help detour some of the used cooking oil imports from China.

“To me, a 20% haircut means there’s got to be some senators out there maybe pandering to somebody that I don’t know about. Because really, they should eliminate the whole foreign feedstock and just give you a credit based on domestic production,” Neiffer says.

The Bigger Issue with 45Z
Peter Meyer of Muddy Boots Ag says no matter what version of the 45Z tax credit makes the final cut, there’s a bigger issue at hand. The Trump administration needs to provide guidance and rules around 45Z — something the Biden administration failed to do during its time in office.

“We’re just clamoring for clarification, right? All I want is clarification. They can say all they want about extending this to 2030. That’s great. That’s a positive. But tell me what the rules are. We still don’t know the rules,” Meyer says.

Meyer knows there’s been so much talk about 45Z and sustainable aviation fuel, but little action in terms of demand. Meyer says the lack of action in terms of demand is largely because there’s no clarity around the tax credit.

“We need more demand for the ethanol they’re producing,” Meyer says. “Soybean oil can be converted to sustainable aviation fuel. But you just cannot produce sustainable aviation fuel without a credit. You can’t.”

When Pigs Fly (Sort of): Turning Manure into Jet Fuel Ingredients

Wed, 18 Jun 2025 19:21:15 GMT

Pigs may not be able to fly, but could they produce jet fuel? A Kansas State University engineer thinks so.

Prathap Parameswaran, associate professor of civil engineering in K-State’s Carl R. Ice College of Engineering, will collaborate on a new project led by Iowa State University and in collaboration with Quasar Energy Group, to see if hog manure can produce aviation fuel precursors.

The project will study anaerobic membrane reactors, or AnMBRs, as a way to recover and valorize swine waste streams through co-fermentation into short- and medium-chain organic acids that can be transformed into synthetic aviation fuel.

The research is being funded by a $600,000-plus grant from BioMADE, a Manufacturing Innovation Institute sponsored by the Department of Defense.

Prathap Parameswaran, associate professor of civil engineering, uses anaerobic membrane bioreactor, or AnMBR, technology to explore how to recover resources from swine wastewater.

(Kansas State University)

“Our role in this project is to validate the use of anaerobic membrane reactors as a platform for transforming these waste products, including fats, oils and greases, into biomanufactured aviation fuel precursors,” Parameswaran says in a release . “We are essentially running pilot-scale production of this novel technology, while conducting the vital research and development to validate its versatility and scalability.”

The fuel precursors will be separated and purified before being transformed into synthetic aviation fuel by ketonization and hydrodeoxygenation processes.

“Synthetic aviation fuels are a strategic resource for the U.S. Department of Defense,” Parameswaran says. “While there are other ways to turn waste into fuel, many rely on federal incentives or are inefficient. Use of anaerobic membrane reactors shows real potential as a promising platform, it just needs to be piloted effectively.”

The conversion process will be subjected to detailed life cycle and techno-economic assessment to prioritize pathways to scalability, the release says.

Your Next Read: Beyond Bloodlines: How One Farmer Earned His Legacy

USDA's Interim Rule for Climate-Smart Crops Used As Biofuel Feedstocks Viewed Favorable for Farmers

Wed, 15 Jan 2025 18:24:24 GMT

Today, USDA announced the publication of an interim rule on Technical Guidelines for Climate-Smart Agriculture Crops Used as Biofuel Feedstocks. The interim rule establishes guidelines for quantifying, reporting, and verifying the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the production of biofuel feedstock commodity crops grown in the United States.

USDA says these guidelines “will facilitate the recognition of climate-smart agriculture within clean transportation fuel programs, creating new market opportunities for biofuel feedstock producers while enhancing climate benefits.”

Highlights:

Farmers can choose one or more of the CSA actions — no-till or reduced-till, cover crops, and nutrient management.
Unlike prior rules, farmers no longer have to use all three on the same field at the same time.
Corn, soybeans, and sorghum are the crops specified as was noted in 45Z guidance.
USDA will release a beta version of what is called the USDA Feedstock Carbon Intensity Calculator (USDA FD-CIC) to facilitate the farm-level, crop-specific reductions.
There will be a final version established and results via the beta version should be viewed as preliminary.
60-day comment period on the interim final rule.
Key will be the chain of custody and traceability and recordkeeping requirements.

“The new guidelines are a win for farmers, biofuel producers, the public, and the environment. The action today marks an important milestone in the development of market-based conservation opportunities for agriculture,” said USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.

He added that today’s action builds on the prior work to create greater opportunity for homegrown, renewable biofuels. From making E15 more widely available at gas station pumps and approving record biofuel levels, to investing in infrastructure to help communities invest in biofuels, to accelerating a future for Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF).

“America’s farmers play a critical role in building the clean energy economy,” said White House Senior Advisor for International Climate Policy John Podesta. “Today’s announcement from USDA reinforces the important role climate-smart agriculture plays in our rural economy, including in fueling clean transportation solutions, as well as the importance of providing pathways for unbundled, science-based accounting of the carbon benefits of climate-smart practices that help farmers earn more for what they grow.”

The rule establishes a framework to connect climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices applied in the production of feedstock crops with reductions in the carbon footprint of biofuels.

The rule includes three feedstock crops: corn, soy, and sorghum. It also covers CSA practices that could reduce GHG emissions or sequester carbon, including reduced till and no-till; cover cropping; and nutrient management practices, such as the use of nitrification inhibitors.

Importantly, the interim rule allows for adoption of CSA practices both individually or in combination. This means that participating farmers would have the flexibility to adopt the CSA practices that make sense for their operation, while still being able to produce feedstocks with reduced carbon intensities under the rule.

Through this interim rule, USDA is establishing standards that can be used to quantify, track, and report the impacts of these practices. The interim rule establishes voluntary guidelines that may inform the development of requirements for other programs which incentivize low-carbon biofuels.

USDA says establishing quantification and verification standards for climate-smart practices helps to ensure that the net GHG emissions reductions from these practices are real, thereby improving credibility and confidence, which could facilitate market opportunities for U.S. farmers growing biofuel feedstocks. Besides reducing GHG emissions and increasing carbon sequestration, CSA practices can also generate additional environmental benefits, including improved water quality and soil health.

The interim rule includes guidelines on the following:

Biofuel feedstock crops and entities in the biofuel supply chain;
Quantification of farm-level crop-specific carbon intensity;
Chain of custody standards for entities in the biofuel supply chain, including traceability and recordkeeping standards;Auditing and verification requirements; and
Climate-smart agriculture practice standards for the biofuel feedstock crops included under the rule.

USDA is also publishing a beta version of the USDA Feedstock Carbon Intensity Calculator (USDA FD-CIC) to facilitate the quantification of farm-level crop-specific carbon intensity. USDA FD-CIC allows for the calculation of a farm-scale carbon intensity in line with the standards in the interim rule. USDA will complete a peer-review process to finalize the methodology and resulting carbon intensities included in USDA FD-CIC.

USDA will evaluate and respond to the public feedback and peer-review provided on USDA FD-CIC, after which USDA will establish a final version. Until that time, USDA says users should consider values from USDA FD-CIC as preliminary. As part of this process of testing and feedback prior to finalization, the public will have the opportunity to examine and download USDA FD-CIC to experience how it would operate.

Next Steps

USDA is requesting public comment on the interim rule to help inform future revisions or additions to the final rule. Interested parties are welcome to submit comments on any aspect of the rule. Interested parties may submit comments during the 60-day public comment period at regulations.gov.

Trump Taps Lee Zeldin to Lead EPA; What Does It Signal for Agriculture?

Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:36:34 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump has selected former New York congressman Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in his upcoming administration. This appointment signals a potential shift in environmental policy and regulatory approach. Here are the key points about this nomination:

• Zeldin is a former Republican congressman who represented New York’s 1st congressional district from 2015 to 2023.
• He lacks extensive experience in environmental policy, having not served on committees with direct oversight of environmental issues during his time in Congress.
• Zeldin has a lifetime score of only 14% from the League of Conservation Voters, indicating a record of frequently voting against environmental legislation.

Trump stated that Zeldin would “ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions” to “unleash the power of American businesses.” The administration aims to maintain “the highest environmental standards, including the cleanest air and water on the planet” while pursuing deregulation.

Zeldin is expected to focus on restoring “U.S. energy dominance” and revitalizing the auto industry.

He may be tasked with rolling back several Biden administration environmental regulations, particularly those targeting power plant pollution and vehicle emissions. There are plans to end the pause on constructing new natural gas export terminals and potentially withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

Zeldin joined Trump and Sen.-elect Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania for a roundtable on agriculture during Trump’s campaign in September. Zeldin praised Trump for addressing the “threat” of foreign entities buying U.S. agricultural land and highlighted Trump’s trade policies, including the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which prioritized American farmers and strengthened supply chain resiliency.

Of note to the biofuels sector, In November 2015, Zeldin and several other members of Congress sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy expressing concerns about the proposed 2016 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The lawmakers worried that the proposed 2016 RVOs would require blending more ethanol than could be absorbed by the E10 gasoline market, effectively “breaking through” the blend wall. There were concerns that exceeding the blend wall could drive up the price of E10 gasoline for consumers. Ultimately, the EPA did finalize 2016 RVOs that were lower than originally proposed in the RFS statute, but still represented an increase over previous years. The agency attempted to balance the competing interests and technical constraints in the fuel market.

Meanwhile, discussions are underway about possibly relocating the EPA headquarters outside of Washington, D.C.

Environmental advocates criticized the nomination, viewing it as a potential regression in environmental policy. Zeldin’s record includes opposition to several climate-related bills and support for increased fossil fuel production.

Zeldin’s appointment as EPA Administrator will require Senate confirmation.

Which Presidential Candidate Would Have the Biggest Impact on Ag?

Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:02:37 GMT

With early voting well underway in the presidential election, agriculture producers must decide which candidate will better serve their needs and what they want the next president to do. On the latest episode of Farm Journal’s Unscripted podcast , long-time Washington insider Jim Wiesemeyer shares what he’s hearing about who that next president could be. He tells hosts Tyne Morgan and Clinton Griffiths that early voting among Republicans could make a big impact.

With polls showing razor-thin margins between the candidates, it’s still too close to call, particularly in the swing states, Wiesemeyer says. At a recent event in Colorado Springs, CO, he heard David Wasserman from the Cook Political Report give Donald Trump a 60 percent chance of winning. “Republicans historically vote far more than Democrats on election day,” he says. “This year, more Republicans have voted early. They could gain some key votes in key states simply by voting earlier.”

On the podcast, Clinton offers, “It feels like there’s so much pressure at the polls to get it right. Everybody’s kind of on edge, which I’m okay with. I want it to be right.” When the counting is done, however, which candidate will be better for agriculture? Tyne reveals that surveys in this month’s Ag Economist’s Monthly Monitor and a Farm Journal survey of more than 4,000 ag producers tell different stories.

Key issues for the industry include the 45Z program for biofuels, farm policy, tariffs, crop insurance and inflation. Jim says, “When I talk to top producers, one thing is clear on differentiating the candidates — tax policy. Farmers like that 20 percent pass-through. They like less estate taxes, less capital gains taxes. When you talk to farm country, production agriculture, those are the things I’m told.”

They agree that the delay in clarification on the 45Z biofuels tax credit is, as Tyne says, “a complete disaster.” Is it going to happen next year? Soybean processing plants are slowing purchases because they’re not sure about receiving the credit. “As for why it’s taking so long, it’s up to the treasury department and the IRS, because it’s tax incentives,” Jim explains. “They just don’t know agriculture. Companies are starting to pull back their investment plans because they don’t know the rules. We have to know if corn-based ethanol is going to comply.”

It’s a spirited, illuminating discussion on a range of issues that farmers, ranchers and other ag professionals need to consider seriously as they cast their votes.

Watch the full episode of Unscripted.

Your Next Read:

A Possible Recession Still Hangs Over the Ag Economy, But Positive Shifts Are Starting to Surface
As the Wizard of Yield, Ken Ferrie Reveals His Secrets on Unscripted

Presidential Poll Results: How Farmers and Economists View Candidates' Impact on Agriculture

Thu, 10 Oct 2024 21:42:27 GMT

Nov. 5 — election day — is fast approaching. A few weeks ago, we asked which candidate do you believe will have a more positive impact on farming policy programs, trade, biofuels policies and inflation.

Based on 4,776 respondents, here are the results:

We also asked about the candidate’s impact on agriculture overall. Here’s that breakdown by state. Make note of the seven swing states, Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, outlined in black.

Farmer Rationale On Harris Vs. Trump

While various polls suggest Trump has a clear edge among rural voters and there’s significant support for Trump among farmers, Jim Wiesemeyer, Farm Journal Washington correspondent, is quick to remind the community is not uniform in its voting intentions, with policy preferences and personal values driving individual decisions.

In general terms, Wiesemeyer says farmers support Trump because they:

Believe Trump better understands rural America and agricultural issues
Are concerned about his trade policies and confrontation with China
Have concerns about border security and illegal immigration under the current Biden/Harris administration
Are of the opinion Trump will lower costs for farmers, especially related to energy
Oppose what they view as socialist or anti-American policies from Democrats

Farmers support Harris because they:

Back environmental policies and renewable energy
Approve of the Biden/Harris administration’s efforts to strengthen farm workers’ rights
Believe in Harris’ food and nutrition policies
Support Harris’ economic policies aimed at working-class Americans

Economists’ Views On Harris Vs. Trump

The September Ag Economists Monthly Monitor, a Farm Journal survey of nearly 70 ag economists, revealed a more mixed view of the presidential candidates’ impact on trade.

When asked if a Harris or Trump administration would help or hurt trade, the survey found the following:

“Farmers are definitely concerned about trade,” says Michael Langemeir, an agricultural economist from Purdue University who helps author the Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer and is one of the economists surveyed by Farm Journal each month. “We don’t ask specific questions related to tariffs in the Ag Economy Barometer, but one question we do ask is if they expect exports to increase, decrease or stay the same? Really, this is the most pessimistic they’ve been for about five years with regard to trade.”

Tariffs are a tool both the former Trump administration and the current Biden/Harris administration have used.

During the first presidential debate, Trump didn’t waver from his staunch stance on tariffs and trade, reiterating his plan to use tariffs to protect U.S. industries and increase revenues. Trump reinforced his plan to impose a 10% tariff on all imported goods and a 60% tariff on goods from China.

During the debate, Harris stated tariffs are essentially a “sales tax” on American households. The Biden/Harris administration recently extended the Trump-era tariffs, while also imposing its own set of tariffs in May. Biden directed the U.S. Trade Representative to “increase tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on $18 billion of imports from China to protect American workers and businesses.”

“That’s why I get really worried when both candidates start talking about tariffs. It’s really uncharted waters, if you will. There’s already the perception we’re struggling a little bit with trade. As we enter these uncertain waters, we’re going to struggle more,” Langemeier explains.

Do Tariffs Work?

The controversy over tariffs and if they’re a good trade policy tool is long standing. The September Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor asked economists: “Do tariffs work in trade policy?” Economists views were mixed:

“Tariffs can work in trade policy — that’s why nations continue to use them. The complex part that extends beyond the tariff action is potential long-term repercussions that can result from trade flow changes.”
“In limited cases, typically only if they result in a policy response in the targeted country. Much of the time, tariffs are like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.”
“Tariffs provide short-term gains but have always failed relative to free trade in the long term.”
“Absolutely, when properly applied.”
“Not over the long term. They tend to affect who gets to supply different markets around the world.”

The September Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor also asked: “When tariffs are used as a ‘tool’ in trade, who pays the tariff?” Not all economists were aligned on that answer either, saying sometimes it’s farmers and consumers, but it can also be the exporting countries.

“When the U.S. imposes tariffs on imports, importers in the U.S. pay taxes to the U.S. government on their purchases from abroad. When another nation imposes tariffs, importers in that nation pay import taxes to their government on their purchases from abroad. Often when a tariff is implemented, another nation retaliates, and you end up with importers in both nations paying the price on whatever products the tariffs apply toward.”
“If an importing country places a tariff on the exporting country, producers in the exporting country and consumers in the importing country both lose (i.e., receive lower and higher prices, respectively). Conversely, producers in the importing country and consumers in the exporting country win (i.e., receive higher and lower prices, respectively).”
“In the short run, consumers who purchase goods with a tariff might see higher prices if the tariff is not absorbed elsewhere. In the long run, the tariff might result in changes to the supply chain that result in higher prices but also create other economic opportunities in America (e.g. reshoring of domestic manufacturing).”
“The correct economist answer is ‘it depends.’ Tariffs drive a wedge between prices in the exporting country and in the importing country. It depends on the circumstances of particular markets and how much is reflected in higher prices in the importing country and reduced prices in the exporting country.”
“Both the exporting nation and the importing consumer pay some portion of the tariff depending on who has more flexibility to adjust to trade barrier. If exporting countries can easily switch to supplying other markets, they won’t have to ‘pay.’ If consumers can easily find cheap substitute goods, they won’t have to pay.

Trump Threatens Tariffs on Deere

During a policy roundtable in Smithton, Penn., organized by the Protecting America Initiative last month, Trump made significant statements regarding John Deere and its plans to move some production to Mexico. Trump threatened to impose a 200% tariff on John Deere products if the company proceeds with its plan to relocate some of its manufacturing operations to Mexico.

Farm Journal asked economists the likely outcome if Trump did follow through with tariffs. Here’s what they said:

Your Next Read: U.S. Agriculture Faces Growing Trade Deficit, USDA Projects a Record Ag Trade Deficit in 2024

Take Our Poll: 5 Questions Ahead of the Presidential Election

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 20:14:22 GMT

⁦Election day — Nov. 5 — is fewer than 60 days out.

Based on the presidential candidate’s responses to the American Farm Bureau Federation questionnaire , Jim Wiesemeyer, Farm Journal Washington correspondent, says Republican Donald Trump supports increasing commodity price supports, improving crop insurance and focusing on innovation to stay ahead of China. Trump also pledges to lower energy bills and end Biden’s net-zero emissions policies.

Democrat Kamala Harris highlights the Biden administration’s initiatives to protect small farmers from unfair competition, citing Trump’s previous proposals for deep cuts to critical farming programs.

We’d like to know which candidate you believe will have a more positive impact on the following:

farm policy programs
trade
biofuels policies
inflation
agriculture overall

If you have a moment, would you answer five quick questions? You can take the poll here.

There’s a lot of chatter about the presidential election. Let’s see what farm country has to say.

Your Next Read: Where Do Harris And Trump Stand On Ag Policy Issues?

More Than 50% of Ag Economists Now Think the U.S. Ag Economy is Already In a Recession

Tue, 27 Aug 2024 16:17:23 GMT

U.S. corn prices hit a four-year low as the prospect for record corn and soybean crops takes shape in the field. The eroding outlook also appeared in the August Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor as more economists are concerned U.S. agriculture is either already in a recession or on the brink of one, but economists point out if it weren’t for strong cattle prices, the ag economic picture would look even worse.

“When you look at, what we said for both, relative to last month or last year, some of the most pessimistic readings we’ve had, since we’ve been surveying here on 2024,” said Scott Brown, interim director, Rural and Farm Finance Policy Analysis Center (RaFF), University of Missouri who also helps author the Monthly Monitor each month.

August Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound)

The latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor tried to get a better gauge of the risk of financial stress in agriculture, and asked the more than 70 economists surveyed if agriculture is on the brink of a recession. Nearly 60% said “yes.”

“Maybe what was even more surprising to me is the responses to the question, ‘Are we already in a recession?’ More than 50% said ‘yes, we’re already in a recession.’ That’s a big change from where we were just 16 to 24 months ago, and it shows a lot of folks are worried about where we sit today.”

The Monthly Monitor also asked economists to provide more explanation of why they think the U.S. ag economy is already in a recession. Economists said:

“At least for most crop producers, the sharp drop in prices and cash receipts has resulted in lower net income and financial pressure on leveraged producers. The picture is generally less dire on the animal agriculture side of the ledger, as prices are up (cattle, milk) for some commodities and feed costs are declining.”
“I do think the U.S. ag economy is in a recession. The projection for 2023 and 2024 farm incomes in real dollars are the two largest declines in history. Costs exceed prices for most commodities. And the outlook doesn’t provide indication of improvement soon.”
“Farm incomes are down. Ag manufacturers are laying people off. Suppliers for those manufacturers are laying people off. What are the bright spots? Cattle, depending on the segment? Trade with Mexico? After that, the list gets pretty thin.”
“We aren’t in one yet, but we are on the brink of one.”
I think we’ll enter into a recession after the election.”

Cattle Are Helping the Overall Ag Economic Picture
As the concerns about the ag economy pour in, Brown points out the net farm income situation would look even worse if it weren’t for more positive prices in livestock.

“Cattle prices, I think, have been helpful in pulling it up. At the same time, we see corn and soybean prices continue to move lower,” Brown says. “We know crop receipts are going to be lower than what they would have said back at the start of the year, cattle probably higher, hogs probably higher and dairy probably higher. But economists also expect production expenses to not go up from where they were originally during the first part of the year.”

Net Farm Income Could Fall Further
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) gave its first glimpse at 2024 Net Farm Income in February with the Farm Sector Income & Finances: Farm Sector Income Forecast. At that time, USDA ERS’ forecast showed net farm income to fall after reaching record highs in 2022.

USDA ERS’ forecasts showed:

· Net farm income, which is a broad measure of profits, reached $185.5 billion in calendar year 2022 in nominal dollars.
· After decreasing by $29.7 billion (16.0%) from 2022 to a forecast $155.9 billion in 2023, net farm income in 2024 is forecast to decrease further from the 2023 level by $39.8 billion (25.5%) to $116.1 billion .
· Net cash farm income reached $202.3 billion in 2022. After decreasing by $41.8 billion (20.7%) from 2022 to a forecast $160.4 billion in 2023, net cash farm income is forecast to decrease by $38.7 billion (24.1%) to $121.7 billion in 2024.

USDA is set to revise its 2024 Net Farm Income forecast in September.

(Lindsey Pound)

ERS will provide an updated 2024 forecast in September. Even with improvements in livestock margins, the August Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor showed the majority of ag economists expect the further deterioration in crop prices to weigh on the overall net farm income picture and force the agency to revise their forecast lower.

· Nearly 57% expect USDA to revise its forecast
· 36% think the revision will be 5% to 10% lower
· 7% think USDA will leave its forecast unchanged from February.

What Will Impact Crop Prices Over Next 6 Months
The August Monthly Monitor also asked economists to outline what will impact crop prices over the next six months. Economists said:

Growing crop size and limited exports
Bioenergy and feed demand
South America’s weather and crop size, specifically the second crop final production numbers and plantings for the first crop
Potential for new tariffs and relations with China
Fertilizer prices and the impact on 2025 acreage.

What Will Impact Cattle Prices Over Next 6 Months
With a more bullish outlook for cattle, the August survey asked economists what will impact cattle prices over the next six months.

Weaker demand
Lower corn prices
Possibility of tighter cattle numbers

“I think the supply fundamentals are essentially unchanged since this spring. The big question is demand. If we have an economy-wide recession, what happens to beef demand,” responded one economist in the anonymous monthly survey.

What to Watch
From geopolitics to the evolving situation in supply and demand across all commodities, the Monthly Monitor asked economists to outline the factors not being covered enough in the media.

“Deterioration in liquidity.”
“Growing gap between the situation for crop and livestock producers.”
“Impact of a Trump vs. Harris win and misconceptions around who is better for the farm economy.”
“Continued high cost for many ag inputs.”
“I’m frustrated by the continued pressure on U.S. farmers to be more sustainable which often results in higher farm costs and could lead to more regulation or hoops to jump through or reduced production. At the same time, South American producers continue to rapidly expand production in a less sustainable way. I’m also concerned that this will lead to vertical integration in crop farming.”
“The cataclysmic risk of rising tariffs.”
“Will congress set in to support farm incomes at these levels? ARC/PLC are ineffective at this point. Ad hoc spending has been rampant.”
“Inflation.”
“Possible government farm program payments this fall (last year’s crop year).”
“Fund manager use of Algo computers.”

Your Next Read: The Ugly Truth: 2023 and 2024 Will Go Down As the Two Largest Declines in Net Farm Income Ever

Unscripted: Will New Policies Reshape the Ag Industry’s Future?

As new presidential and congressional administrations prepare to grab the governmental reins, ag professionals wonder what the new leadership will mean for the industry. Will we finally get a new farm bill? Who will be the next secretary of agriculture? Will we get clarification on nagging questions about biofuels? Will producers continue to face rising input costs and low commodity prices?

Washington D.C. ag economist John Newton sees opportunities for improving the industry’s financial outlook with new leadership in place. On the latest episode of the Unscripted podcast , Newton asks, “What needs to happen to turn this around?” and answers his question with “it all starts with demand.” Noting that corn exports have been strong, he says, “All eyes are going to be on this next administration for how we proceed with agricultural exports to our top markets.”

Increasing exports can give the ag economy a much-needed boost, and he’s optimistic about that possibility. “I’m focused heavily on the opportunities we have ahead of us in U.S. agriculture,” he says. “We’re the best in the world at what we do, we have the highest quality products, we just need an opportunity to deliver those products to the global market.”

He also has a positive outlook on the long-awaited farm bill, which currently remains in the hands of the lame-duck Senate ag committee.

“I’m optimistic we can get it done, but the clock is ticking,” he says. “There’s an opportunity to do something bipartisan for ag, for rural America.” From updated crop insurance to risk management tools to funding for rural childcare and health care to ag trade promotion programs, the bill could address many persistent issues that producers face. “The list,” says Newton, “is long.”

While he recognizes the major obstacles preventing a turnaround for the ag economy, he’s also optimistic about the candidates for the next secretary of agriculture. “There are a number of highly qualified people on the list,” he says. “It’s important to have somebody in that seat who works well with agriculture and is a good ambassador for us in the Oval Office.”

Watch the full episode of Unscripted.