Posts Tagged ‘government’

Ethanol Still in the Crosshairs?

Monday, October 17th, 2011

It seems like only yesterday that ethanol was the darling of many in the energy, environmental, and agricultural sectors of the U.S., not to mention the U.S. government itself. Having a home-grown alternative to oil (and more importantly – to the whims of OPEC) was a very attractive idea, even if it did require subsidies and mandates to get the industry off the ground. Corn-based ethanol plants were being built all across the Midwest and the future of the business looked extremely bright.

As with any new business, there were many unforeseen consequences and the ethanol industry was no different.  The first came in the fall of 2006 when the demand for corn to supply the ethanol plants forced prices sharply higher.  This was a boon to the grain farmers… not so much for livestock farmers who saw a substantial rise in their feed costs.  A couple of years later, with the demand for corn growing even stronger, the first “food-vs-fuel” debate surfaced as many believed that ethanol production was driving food prices higher.  More issues surfaced – the water and energy required to produce ethanol was higher than expected; and the amount of money the government was spending to subsidize and protect the industry was excessive, especially in times of huge budget deficits.  Slowly but surely, the attractiveness of this wonder fuel was beginning to fade.

Earlier this year, Congress voted to end the direct subsidies to ethanol producers as they deemed them too expensive.  Just recently, the livestock and food stuff industries took their swing at the piñata.  As reported in the Des Moines Register (Lawmakers Seek to Cut Ethanol Mandates), a bill has been proposed in Washington that would lower the mandated amount of ethanol to be used in gasoline during periods of high corn prices.

Theoretically, this sounds like a good idea – put a mechanism in place that will protect the livestock and food producers during short crop years.  But I’m skeptical -  corn production is almost totally dependent on the weather and I can’t see the “trigger” working fast enough, or accurately enough, to truly smooth out prices.  The result… corn prices will become even more volatile to benefit of no one.  While I personally believe that ethanol has a place at the energy table in the U.S., I don’t think that it will be of the size and scope that the enthusiasts hoped for just 5 years ago.

Tightening of Subsidies

Thursday, June 2nd, 2011

The recent strong commodities prices have generated a lot of press for the ag industry, which can be a double-edged sword.  With Congress looking to trim the fat from the federal budget wherever it can, some are putting farm subsidies in their sights.  The House Appropriations committee recently approved amendments to the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill.  The biggest change to farmers will be in the maximum amount of allowable subsidies to individuals or entities.  The previous threshold of $750,000 has been shrunk to $250,000.  According to the author of the DTN Progressive Farmer article (Farm Payments Face Cuts), the Representative who proposed this cut had been voted down on similar attempts in the past.  After looking at current prices for commodities, and speculating on what farmers will earn from selling their crops at high prices, many Representatives changed their position and supported cutting the subsidies.

While it is true that many farmers are riding high right now with grain prices looking to stay strong through 2011, most don’t believe that this wave the ag sector is riding is going to last forever.  It will be interesting to see how changes made today, based on a possible short-term market surge, will affect farmers down the road.

The Impact of Higher Farmland Values on Real Estate Taxes

Friday, May 13th, 2011

Amongst all the euphoria surrounding the recent jump in farmland prices, there’s one issue that is just starting to be debated… if and how corresponding real estate taxes should be increased to recognize the higher values.  You may think that this isn’t even an issue in your state – there’s already a formula that addresses how much assessed values can change from year to year.  But let’s take a quick look at the big picture across most of the Midwest.  First, the majority of school, local, and county municipalities (the final destination for real estate taxes) are having trouble balancing their budgets.  Second, true valuations for residential, commercial, and industrial properties have fallen the past few years and in some cases the decrease has been dramatic (and I don’t think it would be financially or politically expedient to raise taxes on home owners who are struggling to make their mortgage payments).   And finally, farmland valuations have increased dramatically (primarily as a result of record profitability).  Hmmm, call me a cynic but it wouldn’t surprise me if some politicians begin calling for farmland owners to start shouldering more of the tax burden.

Iowa is beginning to address this very issue and a recent article in the Des Moines Register (Property Tax Bill’s Later Impact Fuels Debate) provides an overview.  This is one fight that will not be pleasant as government officials know that have to generate more revenue (O.K., they could also cut spending but that’s a different discussion).  And as we’ve seen across all levels of government, there is no law/rule/formula that can’t be revised, especially if they can frame the argument as being “in the best interest” of the public.  Regardless, I think farmland owners should start preparing themselves for what’s to come.

Agriculture Not Immune To Budget Cuts

Wednesday, April 6th, 2011

As our leaders in Washington work through ways to reduce our budget, agriculture and the upcoming Farm Bill are being looked at as possible places to trim expenses.  A recent blog post on DTN/Progressive Farmer (Ag Cuts Would Wait on Farm Bill) takes a look at some of the recent discussions currently taking place regarding agriculture.  The main focus of Congress appears to be on the direct payments to producers.  When congressmen look at the direct payment system, and then look at headlines talking about near-record profit predictions for farmers, their initial reaction is, “Why are we supporting an industry that is flourishing and appears to be able to support itself?”  It’s true, 2011 is shaping up to be very profitable for the ag industry.  To think that there is nowhere to go but up is foolhardy, however.  We saw a similar run-up in the commodities markets in 2007, followed by corn and beans futures being sliced in half not long after.  The price supports were put in place for a reason – to ensure that America produces the highest quality and most abundant grain in the world.  It would be dangerous to assume that the income stream that farmers should see in 2011 will be there every year.  Past history has shown us it won’t be.

Nationalistic Concerns and the Importance of Food

Thursday, March 17th, 2011

The world’s population is expected to reach 9 billion people by 2050.  That’s a lot of people to feed and some countries, possibly fearing future unrest, are beginning to take a strong look at who they want (or don’t want) to own their most precious resource.  A recent article by Shanghai Barbie Farewell (Brazil Sets Up New Roadblocks for Agricultural Investments – Especially From China) that was posted on the Knowledge @ Wharton Today web site discusses the steps that Brazil is taking to ensure control of their land in the future.

Restricting the ownership of agricultural property is not a new concept.  Some countries outright ban it; some place restrictions on the number of acres that can be owned; and others simply require registering and reporting foreign ownership on an annual basis.  That said, for years many countries encouraged outside investment capital and know how in order to develop their farming industry.  They realized that owning millions of acres did not necessarily mean a vibrant agricultural economy… infrastructure needed to be built; modern seed, fertilizer, chemicals, and irrigation that could adapted to local growing conditions were necessary; and the most important requirement – the knowledge/education to make the entire system work.

Nationalistic politics (“we don’t want others owning our sacred ground”) and ensuring future food supplies (“we don’t want others producing food on our land and shipping it elsewhere”) are probably two of the biggest drivers in this trend. Plus, there’s a fairness issue.  Many countries still need capital and expertise to continue their agricultural growth but they want to structure their arrangement as a partnership and not give up total control (similar to what the oil industry is now utilizing).

I personally believe this trend in outside ownership restrictions will continue to expand. Some distinctions will likely be made between the investments made by foreign citizens and those made by foreign governments.  Regardless, politicians know that they can’t let their citizens go hungry for fear of de-stabilization.   And that’s one thing they want to avoid at all costs.