While soil temperatures were warmer than normal last winter, the dry soil conditions have resulted in very little nitrogen loss this spring.

According to assistant professor of crop sciences Fabián Fernández, soils in the state were dry at the beginning of autumn 2011, with above-average precipitation levels only during November and December.

"In March, I predicted that the risk of nitrogen loss would increase only if the spring became too wet," said Fernández. Precipitation thus far this year is, overall, below average in the state.. Thus, so far, the likelihood of nitrogen loss this year is very low.

Taking a look at soil nitrogen also provides evidence that applied nitrogen remains in the soil.

"Nitrification has proceeded quickly this spring," Fernández said. In central Illinois, a field with anhydrous ammonia plus NServe applied in November 2011 contained 80 ppm ammonium in the top 12 inches of soil at the end of February. Now, in mid-May, the concentration is 27 ppm. During the same time interval, nitrate concentrations have increased from 10 to 31 ppm. Although ammonium has transformed to nitrate, there is still a considerable amount of ammonium in the soil, probably because not all of it has been nitrified and also because organic nitrogen in the soil is being mineralized to ammonium.

Last week, samples were also collected for the 12- to 24-inch depth. As expected, there has not been sufficient water to move nitrate down the profile and nitrogen concentrations were low: soil nitrate was only 9 ppm and soil ammonium was 3 ppm.

At this time, most corn is growing rapidly and starting to take up nitrogen. "If all the nitrogen has already been applied, I do not anticipate a need to apply additional nitrogen for this crop," Fernández said. "If no nitrogen or only a portion of the nitrogen was applied, now is the time to start applying the balance of the application."

The nitrogen needs of the corn plant are low from the early vegetative development stages until about V5 (fifth-leaf stage). Most nitrogen is taken up during the V8 to VT (tassel) stages. Soon after pollination, nitrogen uptake is essentially completed.

Because the potential for nitrogen loss by leaching or denitrification at this time of the growing season is very low and corn plants will soon enter a rapid nitrogen uptake phase, Fernández recommends not delaying the application. However, if farmers are not quite ready, research has shown that the chance for yield loss due to nitrogen stress is very low, even when applications are done as late as the V6 development stage, because in most soils in Illinois, mineralization of soil organic nitrogen provides ample nitrogen for early crop demands. Moreover, if part of the total nitrogen was already applied, a delay in applying the remaining nitrogen is not likely to cause plant nitrogen stress.

In fields with low nitrogen-supplying power (soils with low organic matter) or where no nitrogen has been applied, early application (before the V6 development stage) is recommended to avoid loss of yield potential. Another reason not to delay application, especially because of the dry conditions this year, is that the sooner nitrogen is applied, the greater chance it will have to be moved into the root zone by rain.

"In my opinion, the best options to sidedress nitrogen are to inject it into the soil or dribble it between rows," Fernández said. If anhydrous ammonia is used, make sure the knife track gets properly sealed to avoid crop injury from free ammonia escaping to the atmosphere.

While most fields look very dry on the surface, adequate moisture is still present below the surface to retain the ammonia. According to Fernández, "If the application is done at least 6 inches below the surface in fine-textured soils or at least 8 inches below the surface in coarse-textured soils, there should not be problems with ammonia volatilization." The advantage of dribbling nitrogen between crop rows over broadcast applications is that dribbling reduces the potential for volatilization of urea-containing fertilizers (urea and UAN) and reduces fertilizer contact with the foliage, thus reducing foliar damage.

If injection or dribbling options are not available, Fernández recommends broadcast urea. This product has the least impact on leaf burn when compared to UAN, ammonium nitrate, or ammonium sulfate. If the canopy is wet, it is best to wait until it dries to minimize dry fertilizer adhesion to the leaves.

If there is not a high likelihood of rain, Fernández suggests applying urea with a urease inhibitor (such as Agrotain) to minimize nitrogen volatilization. When urea is broadcast on the soil surface without a urease inhibitor, nitrogen losses start to increase 3 to 4 days after the application if there is no rain to incorporate it. After 10 days without rain, as much as 30 percent of the application can be lost. By contrast, ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate are not subject to volatilization losses if left on the soil surface.

The least desirable option is to broadcast a UAN solution because this application is most likely to injure the crop. If no other options are available, the application should be done as soon as possible because the smaller the plant, the less chance for fertilizer to make contact with it.

Some studies have shown that there is little damage if a UAN solution is broadcast when plants are about 6 inches tall. Similarly, for bigger plants (V4 stage), an application of up to 100 pounds of nitrogen per acre is unlikely to cause substantially reduced yield. This kind of application is best done a few hours before rain so the fertilizer can be washed off the leaves, although this is not advisable if a herbicide is combined with the UAN application (read the label to ensure this is allowable). Also, be aware that including a herbicide with UAN can intensify leaf burn damage.

Reminder:

The first scouting workshop will be Wednesday, May 16, 9-11 am at Blair Hoerbert's, 2506 100^th Ave. San Jose.

Matt Montgomery will be with us. CCA credits are applied for.

Future sessions are 5/30 at AgLand FS New Holland and 6/13 at Richard Martin's.

Because of the unusually warm winter, may people who applied anhydrous ammonia last fall are concerned that they might have lost some of their nitrogen, according to University of Illinois assistant professor of crop sciences Fabián Fernández.

"Nitrogen transformations and losses depend on many variables and complex interactions," said Fernández, "including soil temperature, time of fall-nitrogen application, use of a nitrification inhibitor, rate of biological activity, drainage, amount and frequency of rain, and soil type."

Fernández says that it is first necessary to estimate how much of the applied nitrogen has been transformed to nitrate. "When anhydrous ammonia is applied, it reacts with soil water to convert to ammonium," he explained. "In this form, nitrogen is held by the soil and cannot be leached out of the root zone or denitrified. However, once ammonium transforms to nitrate, it can be leached out with rainwater moving through the soil profile or denitrified when soils are warm and saturated with water."

The bacteria that mediate nitrification are most active at warm temperatures (above 50 degrees F) when the soil is not saturated with water. When the soil temperature is below 32 degrees, nitrification does not occur.

Daily minimum soil temperatures at four inches below the soil surface ranged from 35.7 to 45 degrees F in Champaign during January and February. "The fact that temperatures never reached 32 degrees suggests that nitrifying bacteria have remained active most of the fall and winter," said Fernández.

Champaign soil temperatures were also relatively constant last winter, with average daily fluctuations of 2.2 degrees F when minimum soil temperatures in the field were below 39 degrees. These conditions would not produce a substantial lag in bacterial activity from day to day. Fernández said that similar conditions existed in other parts of Illinois.

A study in Illinois on the effects of N-Serve, a nitrification inhibitor, showed that 90 percent of the ammonium in Drummer soil (high organic matter content) and 85 percent in Cisne soil (low organic matter content) was not transformed to nitrate after 90 days at an incubation temperature of 39 degrees. When N-Serve was not used, the numbers were 60 percent and 25 percent after 90 days for Drummer soil and Cisne soil, respectively. The study also showed that N-Serve degradation increased as temperatures rose, which could increase nitrification.

In addition to nitrification, possible nitrogen loss must be considered. Nitrogen is not lost when ammonium is transformed to nitrate, but the potential for loss is greater.

"While it is possible that some of the nitrogen that transformed to nitrate over the winter was lost, I suspect that this is not a large amount," said Fernández. "First, if the fall application was done carefully, a small amount of the total nitrogen, 10 to 20 percent, is likely to be in the nitrate form. Second, there has not been a lot of water in the soil to move nitrate down the soil profile or to create saturated conditions for denitrification."

At the start of last fall, soils were very dry and needed to be replenished before water could move down the soil profile. Moreover, while most soil surfaces were not frozen and water was able to enter the soil, rainfall since last fall has been moderate.

Warm temperatures have also created some water evaporation in the soil surface. This evaporation creates an upward suction force that moves water and nitrate surface of the soil.

"While I am not too concerned about nitrogen loss at present, I am concerned about the potential for loss later in the spring," Fernández said. "Nitrogen losses usually occur in the spring when there is too much water, too little evapotranspiration, low nitrogen uptake by the crop, and nitrogen is present in nitrate form."

If the spring is wet, Fernández said, there might be substantial loss from nitrogen applied in the fall. However, he advises against applying any additional nitrogen "until we have a better idea on how the crop is growing."

Current soil conditions in many fields are fit for applying anhydrous ammonia. Nitrogen applied now would be considered an early-N application, and the potential for wet conditions and chance for high N-loss is still ahead of us if the spring is wet.

Fernández suggests using the N-rate calculator at http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/soilfertility/nrate.aspx to determine the total amount of nitrogen in the field.

"Then I would apply only a portion of the total nitrogen, reserving the remainder for an application closer to planting or during sidedress," he explained. "At this time, I would consider using only anhydrous ammonia or a slow-release nitrogen source."

His final recommendation is to consider using N-Serve for anhydrous ammonia applications done this early in the spring, even though N-Serve for pre-plant applications is not usually applied close to normal planting time.

University of Illinois crop sciences professor Emerson Nafziger is pleased to announce that, thanks to a recent agreement among the parties involved, the Illinois Agronomy Handbook is available online at http://extension.cropsci.illinois.edu/handbook

According to Nafziger, "For decades, the Illinois Agronomy Handbook has been a major source of agronomic information in Illinois and throughout the Corn Belt." Since it was first produced in the 1970s, it was updated 22 times until the 2001-2002 edition. The subsequent edition, named the 23rd, was current until 2009, during which time an online version that included some calculators was developed.

"A few years ago, we decided to do another, more thorough, revision," said Nafziger. The result was the 24th edition, published in mid-2009, which completely revised some sections. After its publication, the web-based 23rd edition was taken down.

Nafziger says that the 24th edition has enjoyed good sales and is in wide use. But without special funding and with the need to sell paper copies to recoup the investment in the Handbook, it is has not been possible to put up a web-based version until now. "We hope to get some of the calculators revamped and running in the near future," he said.

Chapters can be viewed and downloaded from the website. "While we expect that this may be the last time the handbook is published as a book on paper, we think that individual authors will now be able to revise chapters as needed," Nafziger said. "We also anticipate that the chapters may form the framework on which we can add other information and links as they are developed."

On February 23rd, the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) released county corn and soybean yields for 2011 (see here). From these yields, 2011 Group Risk Income Plan (GRIP) payments can be estimated. For corn, GRIP with the harvest revenue option (GRIP-HR) at the 90% coverage level will make payments in 43% of Illinois counties while GRIP without the harvest price option (GRIP-NoHR) will pay in 20% percent of Illinois counties. For soybeans at the 90% coverage level, both GRIP-HR and GRIP-NoHR will pay in 49% of Illinois counties.

Corn Payments

Figure 1 shows estimated 2011 corn payments for corn at a 90% coverage level and a 100% protection level. In 2011, 96% of acres insured using GRIP-HR policies use the 90% coverage level. The 100% protection is the maximum protection level. Lower protection levels result in lower payments. Multiplying the protection level by the maximum payments in Figure 1 will yield an estimate of the GRIP-HR payment. For example, Macon County has a $161 payment at at 100% protection level. If an individual purchased at a 60% coverage level – the lowest possible protection level – the payment is $97 per acre ($161 x .60).

Counties receiving payments tend to be in central Illinois and southwest Illinois, with notable exceptions in southeast Illinois. Counties in northern Illinois did not receive payments (see Figure 1). Three counties have payments above $200 per acre: Union ($271 per acre), Hancock ($241), and Ford Counties ($219). Five counties had payments above $150 per acre but below $200 per acre: Macoupin (174 per acre), Madison (165), Brown (162), Macon ($161), and Jackson Counties (151).

In 2011, the harvest price for corn of $6.32 was above the $6.01 projected price, causing GRIP-HR's guarantees to be based on the $6.32 harvest price. As a result, GRIP-HR will make higher payments than GRIP-NoHR. GRIP-NoHR's guarantee is based on the lower $6.01 projected price.

Figure 2 shows GRIP-NoHR payments for corn. As can be seen in Figure 2, considerably fewer counties receive payments. In those counties that receive payments, GRIP-HoHR payments are less. In Hancock County, for example, GRIP-NoHR has a $164 per acre. The $164 payment is 68% of the $241 per acre payment for GRIP-HR.

Soybean Payments

Figure 3 shows GRIP payments for soybeans at a 90% coverage level and 100% protection level. The soybean harvest price of $12.14 per bushel is below the projected price of $13.49 per bushel. Because harvest price is below projected price, GRIP-NoHR and GRIP-HR have the same payments for the same coverage and protection levels.

As can be seen in Figure 3, many central and southern Illinois counties receive GRIP payments for soybeans. Nine counties have payments above $150 per acre: Hamilton ($198 per acre), Jefferson ($190), Washington ($172), Madison ($164), XClay ($160), Williamson ($156), Macon ($156), Franklin ($156), and Vermilion ($150).

Summary

GRIP will make sizable payments in some counties. For corn, payments are primarily a result of yield losses. Soybean losses are a combination of lower prices and lower yields.

The Crop Reporting Service of the USDA just released 2011 yields by county on February 23. The state average yield was 157 bushels per acre. Logan County averaged 173.4, Sangamon 165.7, DeWitt 177.6, Macon 153.2, Mason 142.7, Tazewell 172.7, and McLean 159.6.

The top counties in the state were Woodford at 186.5, DeKalb at 183.8, Carroll at 183.3, Stephenson at 181.6, and Stark at 181.2. The top producing county for total production was LaSalle County with 60,116,000 bushels of corn produced.

The Logan County yield increased significantly from the 2010 yield of 155.7. The record yield for Logan County is 197 bushel per acre yield achieved in 2007. This makes the 10 year corn average 174.71 bushels per acre. 10 year averages for Sangamon and Menard Counties were 177.32 and 173.90 respectively. Information on all counties is available from the source files at the National Ag Statistics Service at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Illinois/Publications/County_Estimates/2011main.htm

For soybeans, the state average yield was 47.0 bushels per acre. Logan County averaged 54.6, Sangamon 55.5, DeWitt 55.4, Macon 46.2, Mason 43.8, Tazewell 56.7, and McLean 55.4.

The top counties in the state were Carroll County with 63.1, Knox with 61.2, Jo Daviess at 60.3, Henry with 60.0, and Woodford at 59.9.

The top producing county for total production remained McLean County with 14,374,000 bushels of production.

The Logan County yield of 55.5 was off the record of 57.6 established in 2010. Ten year averages were Logan with 51.72, Sangamon at 53.69, and Menard with 48.79.

FAST Training 2012: Farm Analysis Solution Tools

Dates and Locations

February 10 - Carroll-Lee-Whiteside Extension, Dixon, IL
February 14 - Jefferson Co. Extension, Mt. Vernon, IL
February 22 - Macon Co. Extension, Decatur, IL
February 23 - Champaign Co. Extension, Champaign, IL

Agenda

Topics Include: Crop Budgeting, Breakeven, Rent Decisions, Risk Management Strategies and Crop Insurance.

This is one-day hands-on workshop that will further participants' understandings of Microsoft Excel applications and introduce FAST spreadsheets developed by agricultural economists at the University of Illinois.

Registration

Download registration and additional information here: PDF

Questions? Contact:
Ryan Batts
Ph. 217-333-1817

Ratings changes made by the Risk Management Agency (RMA) will cause premiums for Group Risk Income Plan with the Harvest Price option (GRIP-HR) to be higher in 2012 as compared to 2011. For 90% coverage level policies, 2012 premiums will average 10% higher than 2011 premium for corn across Illinois and 11% higher for soybeans. Higher GRIP-HR premiums, along with lower COMBO product premiums (see here), suggests that farmers who have purchased GRIP in the past may wish to evaluate crop insurance decisions, as relative costs of the products have changed. The remainder of this article first describes GRIP use, and then details changes to expected yield and premium occurring to GRIP in 2012.

GRIP Use in Illinois

In 2011, 1.3 million acres of corn were insured using GRIP, representing 13% of all corn acres insured. Use of GRIP in corn in 2011 is 60% lower than in 2006, when 3.2 million acres were insured using GRIP. In 2011, 717 million acres of soybeans were insured using GRIP, representing 10% of all soybean acres insured. Soybean use in 2011 is 55% lower than in 2006 when 1.6 million acres were insured using GRIP.

Several reasons have been given for the reduction in use of GRIP including: 1) higher projected prices in recent years lead farmers desiring to protect their own farms, 2) higher volatilities in recent years increased GRIP premiums at 90% coverage levels more than farm-level products, 3) GRIP premiums have increasing increased due to changes in ratings, and 4) introduction of enterprise unit subsidies have lowered the costs of farm-level products. Decreasing use of GRIP may continue due to 2011 premium cost increases.

Expected Yields for Corn

Figure 1 shows each expected yields for corn in Illinois. These expected yields are set by RMA to reflect the most likely yield in a county. Expected yields are used to set GRIP guarantees. Higher expected yields result in higher guarantees and vice versa.

Expected yields for corn follow expected yield patterns in Illinois. Higher yields occur in central and northern Illinois. The five highest expected yields occur in central Illinois counties: Warren (189.0 bushels), Macon (187.2), McDonough (186.8), Woodford (186.1) and Tazewell (186.1) Counties. Lower yields occur in southern Illinois. The five lowest expected yields occur in Perry (110.9), Franklin (121.3), Williamson (121.5), and Jefferson (122.6) Counties.

RMA changed 2012 expected yields from 2011 levels. Overall, expected yields have increased an average of .9 bushels in 2012. Not all counties have increases. Across all Illinois counties, 38 have increases in expected yields in 2012, 36 have the same yield in 2011 and 2012, and 21 have decreases in yields in 2012.

GRIP-HR Premiums for Corn

Figure 2 shows GRIP-HR corn premiums by county. Premiums are for a 90% coverage level at a 100% protection level, choices resulting in the highest GRIP-HR premiums. At a 90% coverage level, GRIP-HR premiums can be reduced by lowering the protection level. The lowest protection level is 60%, which results in premiums that are 60% of those shown in Figure 1. A 60% protection level choice also reduces payments to 60% of the 100% protection level.

Premiums in Figure 1 are shown for a $6.01 projected price and a .29 volatility, values at 2011 levels. Computing 2012 premiums using 2011 projected price and volatilities allows comparison of premium changes from 2011 to 2012 that are caused by adjustments to rates. Changes reflect an assessment of the risks, with premium increases indicating an assessment that risks are higher. Actual 2012 premiums will vary from those shown in Figure 1 because the projected price and volatility will vary from those used in generating premiums in Figure 1.

GRIP-HR premiums range considerably over Illinois. Two counties have premiums over $120 per acre: Wayne ($127) and Hamilton ($121). Five counties have premiums at $110 and $120 per acre: Clay ($112), Franklin ($110), McLean ($110), Washington ($110), and White ($112). At the low end, eight counties had premiums below $70 per acre: Adams ($66), Brown ($69), Clinton ($65), Crawford ($67), Jersey ($69), Lawrence ($66), Macoupin ($69), and Madison ($66) Counties.

On average, GRIP-HR premiums at the 90% coverage level in 2012 are 10% higher than 2011 premiums. Only two counties have premium reductions from 2011 levels: Green (-3%) and Grundy (-1%). The largest increases occurred in Madison (16%) and Richland (15%) counties.

Some of the premium increases are due to higher expected yields. However, even counties with the same or lower expected yields have higher premium. For example, the 36 counties that have the same in expected yields in 2011 and 2012 have an average increase in premiums of 9%. The 21 counties with lower expected yields have a 7% premium increase.

Expected Yields for Soybeans

Figure 3 shows expected yields for soybean. Similar to corn, the highest expected yields are in northern and central Illinois. The five highest expected yields occur in Carroll (56.8 bushels), Piatt (55.8), Champaign (54.8), Douglas (54.9), and Moultrie (54.8) Counties. The lowest yields occur in southern Illinois. The five lowest yields occur in Randolph (36.1 bushels), Perry (36.6), Massac (37.5), and Jefferson (38.9) Counties.

The 2012 expected soybean yields average .9 bushels higher than 2011 expected yields across all Illinois counties. Three counties have expected yield decreases: Grundy (-1.3 bushels), Massac (-.60 bushels), and Union (-.10 bushels). Thirteen counties have no change in expected yields while 81 have expected yield increases.

GRIP-HR Premiums for Soybeans

Figure 4 shows GRIP-HR premiums at a 90% coverage level and 100% protection level. Premiums range across counties. Five counties have premiums $80 per acre of over: Piatt ($83 per acre), Jo Daviess ($83), Carroll ($83), Champaign ($80), and Stephenson ($80). The six counties with the lowest premiums are Randolph ($48 per acre), Bond ($51), Johnson ($54), Washington ($54), Williamson ($54), and Monroe ($54) Counties.

At 2011 projected price and volatility levels, 2012 premiums for GRIP-HR 90% coverage levels polices average 11% higher than 2011 premiums. The highest increase of 14% occurs in ten counties: Jefferson, Winnebago, Perry, Wayne, Stephenson, Peoria, Monroe, Lee, Whiteside, and Marion Counties. The six counties with the lowest increases are Saline (3%), Henderson (4%), Edwards (5%), Fayette (5%), McDonough (5%), and Warren (5%) Counties.

Summary

Even given these premium increases, payments received from corn GRIP products averaged over time likely will exceed premiums that are paid by famers. This is possible because of risk subsidies associated with these multi-peril crop insurance products. Compassions of historical yields suggest that average payments will not exceed premiums for soybean products.
While expected payments exceed premium for corn, recent premium increases make GRIP relatively less attractive compared to the farm-level COMBO products. Moreover, COMBO product premiums have decreased, further providing an incentive to switch to COMBO products. Farmers who have purchased GRIP should evaluate whether the returns, costs, and risk reductions still favor GRIP.

The corn market was surprised by the USDA's final 2011 corn production estimate and the estimate of December 1, 2011 corn stocks. The March 2012 futures price declined by $0.52 per bushel in the two sessions following the release of the reports.

At 9.642 billion bushels, December 1 corn stocks were 425 million bushels smaller than those of a year ago and the smallest in 5 years, but were about 240 million bushels larger than the average of the reported trade guesses. Those guesses were in an extremely wide range of 500 million bushels. Three of the 15 analyst guesses reported by Dow Jones were 9.55 billion bushels or larger, so not everyone was surprised by the USDA estimate.

Part of the surprise in the magnitude of December 1 stocks came as a result of the average expectation of a smaller 2011 crop estimate. With the absence of any supporting evidence, it is not clear why, on average, analysts expected a 30 million bushel reduction in the estimated size of the crop. The USDA estimate was a very modest 48 million bushels (0.4 percent) larger than the November 2011 forecast. The 78 million bushel difference between expected and actual production accounts for about one third of the surprise in the stocks estimate. The remainder of the surprise is the result of incorrect expectations about the level of feed and residual use of corn during the first quarter of the 2011-12 marketing year.

The market anticipated a high level of use to be revealed, perhaps partly to correct what was perceived as an under-estimate of feed and residual use in the previous quarter. The surprisingly large estimate of September 1, 2011 stocks implied a very low level of feed and residual use during the final quarter of the 2010-11 marketing year and for the entire marketing year. Some believed that the low (and incorrect) estimate of feed and residual use last year had resulted in an unrealistically low forecast of use for the current year. It was thought that the December 1 stocks estimate would "correct" the past errors and show a high level of use during the September-December quarter, resulting in a larger projection of use for the year. That did not happen. Instead, implied use during the quarter was consistent with the USDA forecast of 4.6 billion bushels so the forecast was not changed. Calculated feed and residual use of 1.838 billion bushels during the quarter represents 40 percent of the projected total for the year. The percentage of total use during the first quarter last year was an unusually large 43.2 percent. In the previous 4 years, use during the first quarter averaged 39.3 percent of the marketing year total, in a range of 38.2 to 40.7 percent.

The seasonal pattern and the total implied feed and residual use of corn during the 2010-11 marketing year is still troublesome. Explanations for the low level of use center on the potential for over-estimating the amount of corn used to produce ethanol, increased feeding of distiller's grains, and/or an underestimate of the size of the 2010 crop. None of those explanations, however, addresses the inconsistent seasonal pattern of implied use. In addition, the implied sharp decline in feed and residual use of corn, all grains, and all feeds (including an estimate of distillers grain) per animal unit during the last half of the marketing year is without explanation.

With year-ending stocks of U.S. corn still expected to be a relatively low 6.7 percent of projected use, a lot of price uncertainty remains. The immediate focus may be on the size of the South American corn crop and the implications for U.S. corn exports. The USDA lowered the projected size of the Argentine crop from 1.14 to 1.02 billion bushels in last week's report. Recent and upcoming precipitation will help stabilize that crop, but the extent of damage may exceed that reflected in the current forecast. The forecast of the Brazilian crop was unchanged at 2.4 billion bushels. The USDA now expects U.S. corn exports to reach 1.65 billion bushels during the current marketing year. Nineteen weeks into the year, export inspections have averaged 32.7 million bushels per week (adjusted for Census export estimates through November). Inspections need to average 30.9 million per week from now through August in order for the total to reach the projection. A further reduction in the size of the South American crop, as occurred in the drought of 2008-09, could boost U.S. exports above the current projection, particularly if China continues the current pattern of small weekly purchases.

Beyond the South American crop, corn prices will be influenced by 2012 U.S production prospects. In general, analysts are anticipating more acres, higher yields, and a much larger crop than in 2011. Such a large crop has not yet been priced into the market. Potential crop size will be gradually reflected from spring through harvest, beginning with the USDA's February baseline projections and including the March 30 Prospective Plantings report. Oh, and don't forget the March Grain Stocks report to be released on the same day.

This fall, the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division proposed new regulations for children working agricultural jobs. The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) worked with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to craft the first proposed updates to agricultural child labor regulations in over forty years. The purpose of the proposed regulations is to increase the safety of children who work in agriculture align the rules with those of other high-risk occupations, such as manufacturing.

Current federal, agricultural child labor standards primarily concern the age at which children become eligible to perform various activities on the farm. Generally, a child must be 16 or older to work on a farm during school hours and 14 years old to perform farm work when school is not in session. 29 C.F.R. § 570.2. 12 and 13 year olds may work on a farm either with their parents or with parental consent. Children younger than 12 may only work on their parents' farms or on small farms exempted from the federal statute. Children ages 10 to 12 can work on farms not owned by their families only in rare circumstances, and the employer must show that the business would be severely disrupted without the child labor. 29 C.F.R. §§ 575.1-575.9

Federal law also prohibits children under 16 from performing hazardous activities unless they are employed by their parents or working on their parents' farm. Hazardous activities include, but are not limited to, operating large farm machinery, working in enclosed spaces with dangerous animals (studs and new mothers), working on a ladder or scaffold more than 20 feet high, working inside certain spaces such as manure pits, and handling hazardous farm chemicals. 29 C.F.R. § 570.71 contains the full list of activities considered hazardous.

Although the proposed rule changes cover a wide range of safety concerns–it is important to note that none of the WHD's proposed regulations would apply to a child working on a farm owned in whole or in part by his or her parents. Additionally, the new rule would not affect a child's participation in 4-H and FFA. The WHD has specifically stated that under the new rules a child will be able to raise his or her 4-H or FFA animal, even if the animal is being raised on a working farm. The child participating in these activities would not be an employee, and thus the new regulations would not apply. The WHD's entire proposal and links to more in-depth analysis can be found on the WHD's website.

One proposed change would prevent children from working with animals in timber operations, manure pits, storage bins, and pesticide handling. Other elements of the proposal would prohibit children under 16 from operating nearly all power driven vehicles (a similar rule has been in effect for non-agricultural labor for over 50 years). Perhaps the least controversial proposal would prohibit children from using electronic communication devices while operating power driven vehicles, a prohibition that several states already enacted. The proposal with perhaps the widest impact on commercial agriculture would prohibit children under 18 from working in "country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions." A side-by-side fact sheet of the current and proposed rules is available here.

The WHD believes that these new regulations will increase the safety of children employed in agricultural jobs. However, children, as well as adults, who live and work in rural communities may find them life changing, and not in a positive way. In some farming communities, the prohibited places of employment are the largest employers, and a minor who wants to work in agriculture when he or she is an adult, would obviously benefit from having work experience in those places. On the other hand, the Department of Labor proposed these rules because the "fatality rate for young agricultural workers is four times greater than that of their peers employed in nonagricultural work places" and "injuries suffered by young farm workers tend to be more severe than those suffered by nonagricultural workers." Moreover, current agricultural child labor rules are more than forty years old and have never been updated. For an interesting thirty minute audio podcast discussing the impacts of the proposed rule, see here.