Crops Currently in Poor Condition, But We Still Have Time

Market Intel / June 6, 2017

Credit: Marck Schoenmaker CC BY 2.0 


Each week USDA’s Crop Progress report updates crop condition ratings for major field crops. These weekly indicators of crop health are closely monitored for corn, soybeans and wheat, and drive price expectations throughout the growing season. At this time of year, poor crop conditions may lead to price rallies while more favorable growing conditions may lead to lower new-crop futures prices. These weather-driven price rallies present opportunities for growers to potentially lock higher returns per acre for a portion of their expected crop. However, based on historical crop yield data, it is too early to use crop conditions alone as an indicator of crop size.

Current Crop Conditions

The June 5, 2017, Crop Progress report indicated that 6 percent of the corn crop was in poor to very poor condition – higher than prior year levels of 4 percent, but 1 percentage point lower than last week’s estimate. Condition ratings for corn also identified 68 percent of the corn crop in good-to-excellent condition--7 percentage points below the prior year but 3 percentage points above last week. The corn crop is clearly improving across parts of the U.S. following a poor start to the growing season. Early season concerns have put a large number of acres at risk, however, and many in the trade are anticipating a pullback on U.S. corn production in 2017 (reduced acreage and/or yields).

Based on March planting intentions, the percent of the corn crop in poor or very poor conditions is equivalent to 5.1 million acres. Additionally, 4.6 million acres of corn remain unplanted, which means together there are 9.7 million corn acres either unplanted or planted and in poor or very poor condition, Figure 1. 

As identified in Figure 1, the Eastern Corn Belt is experiencing the most severe effects from weather conditions so far this planting and growing season. These states had above average rainfall paired with cooler than average temperatures this planting season. Conditions like these stall planting and make it difficult for crops to grow because of possible negative effects on seed germination, soil nutrient content and root structure.

Areas with acres in poor or very poor condition possibly have been replanted or are being allocated to a different crop in the coming weeks. For example, unplanted corn acres may be planted to soybeans at this point because soybeans require a shorter growing season than corn and are typically planted later regardless of weather conditions. Final planting dates for soybeans range from early to late June depending on location.

Overall, soybean planting is on track with the previous year at 83 percent planted, and only slightly above the past five-year average of 79 percent. In the western Midwest, soybean planting has been largely unaffected by the weather, and many of these states are well ahead of average. The states surrounding the Great Lakes, however, are lagging due to recent excessive rainfall, Figure 2. The June 12, 2017, Crop Progress report will feature the first soybean condition ratings of the 2017 growing season.

Do Conditions Matter Yet?

An important question when considering these early-season crop conditions is do they even matter yet? The answer is … not really. The 2016 crop saw similar weather concerns before revealing record-high soybean and corn crops. There remains plenty of time in the growing season for the crop to improve. As evidence, the USDA’s weather-adjusted trend yield model for corn and soybeans monitors a combination of June through August precipitation and temperatures as conditioning information. For corn, mid-May planting progress is also statistically significant. What’s not statistically significant, according to USDA, are weather conditions in late-April or May.

As additional evidence, and using data from 2000 to 2016, a linear regression of early-June corn crop conditions and the yield deviation from trend shows that the percent in poor or very poor condition explains only 5 percent of the yield variability, Figure 3.  Similarly, the percent of the corn crop in good-to-excellent condition in early June explains 2 percent of the yield deviation from trend.

For soybeans, a linear regression of early-June soybean acres in poor or very poor condition explains 19 percent of the yield deviation from 2000 to 2016, Figure 4. While this is an improvement over the corn ratings, it still has low explanatory power. 

Conditions Will Matter

As mentioned earlier adverse weather can be detrimental to soil and plant health and can contribute to lower crop yields. June through August weather conditions play a significant role in explaining crop yields.

Corn and soybeans need warm growing conditions, but not too warm. Rain makes grain, but too much rain can damage crop yields, as does too little rain. Information on rainfall and temperature will become available in the coming weeks, as will updated information on crop conditions. By harvest time the crop conditions will certainly matter. A large percentage of the crop in poor or very poor condition would most likely be a result of adverse weather and would be expected to negatively impact crop yields.

As identified in Figures 2 and 3, harvest-time crop conditions have significantly more explanatory power for determining yield deviations from trend. A linear regression of harvest corn crop conditions and the yield deviation shows that the percent of acres in poor or very poor condition explains 82 percent of the yield variability--compared to 5 percent in early June. For soybeans, harvest-time crop conditions show that the percent of acres in poor or very poor condition explain 66 percent of the yield variability--compared to 2 percent in early June.

At this point in the growing season, the empirical data and USDA’s weather-adjusted trend yield model suggest it is too early to use crop conditions as a significant measure of potential yield variability. While the explanatory power is low at this point, the market may react to unanticipated declines in crop conditions or other supply and demand indicators - creating marketing opportunities at higher prices to reduce downside price risk. 

John Newton, Ph.D.
Director, Market Intelligence
(202) 406-3729
Jaime Luke
Public Policy - Economic Analysis Intern
(202) 406-3726

Share This Article

Credit: hurdiantonia0 / CC0  

When agricultural disasters occur, the federal government has traditionally responded in one of two ways: ad-hoc disaster payments or assistance in purchasing federal crop insurance. For nearly two decades the preferred delivery mechanism for a majority of agricultural products has been the federal crop insurance program. Ad-hoc payments do still occur, especially for commodities not widely covered by crop insurance. Such was the case in 2018 following devastating hurricanes, droughts, floods and wildfires across parts of the U.S. in 2017. However, as work on the 2018 farm bill ramps up, it’s appropriate to review the benefits of federal crop insurance programs compared to ad-hoc disaster payments. Today’s article compares the farm safety net protection provided by crop insurance to ad-hoc disaster payments, and reveals a negative correlation between the need for ad-hoc disaster assistance and the use of crop insurance tools.

Full Article
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 1.0 

Stop us if you’re heard this one before – a farmer, a heavy construction equipment operator and a vegetable canning company worker walk into a Senator’s office concerned about the impact potential tariffs on aluminum and steel imports would have on their business. This isn’t the setup to a bad joke; it’s what occurring today in Washington, D.C., after a March 1 announcement by the administration that tariffs of 25 percent and 10 percent may be applied to imports of steel and aluminum, respectively. The contractor is concerned because the price of steel impacts the cost of completing a construction project such as a bridge or high-rise condominium. The aluminum canning plant worker is concerned because the additional cost of aluminum could result in an increase in the cost of canned vegetables to customers. The farmer, who exports a large share of agricultural production to customers all over the world, is concerned that the foreign governments affected by the steel and aluminum tariffs will retaliate by increasing import tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods, making U.S.-sourced foods less competitive.

Full Article