Focus. Panhandle Model Farms - Case Studies of Texas High Plain Agriculture. Diana Jones Dustin Gaskins Jay Yates

Similar documents
Focus. Panhandle Model Farms Case Studies of Texas High. Plains Agriculture

Focus. Panhandle Model Farms 2012 Case Studies of Texas. High Plains Agriculture

Focus. Panhandle Model Farms 2016 Case Studies of Texas. High Plains Agriculture. DeDe Jones Steven Klose

Focus. Panhandle Model Farms 2018 Case Studies of Texas. High Plains Agriculture

Focus. Analyzing the Impact of Drought Conditions on Texas High Plains Agriculture

Economic Analysis of Water Conservation Policies in the Texas Panhandle

Appendix I Whole Farm Analysis Procedures and Measures

An Analysis of the EQIP Program for Lesser Prairie Chickens in the Northern Texas Panhandle. Authors

Economics 330 Fall 2005 Exam 1. Strategic Planning and Budgeting

2011 STATE FFA FARM BUSINESS MANAGEMENT TEST PART 2. Financial Statements (FINPACK Balance Sheets found in the resource information)

Agricultural Land Valuation

The Impact of Rising Energy Prices on Income for Representative Farms in the Western United States

2006 Iowa Farm Costs. and Returns File C1-10. Ag Decision Maker. Definition of Terms Used

2012 STATE FFA FARM BUSINESS MANAGEMENT TEST PART 2. Financial Statements (FINPACK Balance Sheets found in the resource information)

The sales price for Pasture equivalents is zero. Check the feed prices on the last section of the Budgets.

Cost Analysis and Water Conservation Potential of Irrigation Technologies in the Texas Panhandle Water Planning Area

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOLLOWING A CLOSURE OF BLM RANGELAND DUE TO SAGE GROUSE POPULATION IN ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA

Ohio Farm Financial Conditions and Outlook: Farm Income and Assets, Land Values and Rent, and Farm Financial Stress

IJF(Jv POLICY WORKING PAPER. EFFECTS OF DEBT AND FREEZING TARGET PRICES AFfER 1990 ON ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF REPRESENTATIVE CROP FARMS IN TEXAS

Analyzing the Impact of Changing Farm Policy on Texas High Plains Agriculture

2014 Michigan Dairy Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper December, 2015

FAPRI Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Project

Long Term Financial Impacts of Drought Management Strategies

Economic Optimization of Groundwater Resources in the Texas Panhandle

Jason Henderson Vice President and Branch Executive Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Omaha Branch April 25, 2012

Cow-Calf Enterprise Standardized Performance Analysis

AFPC. Representative Farms Economic Outlook for the December 2014 FAPRI/AFPC Baseline. Working Paper 14-2 December 2014

North Dakota Agricultural Land Valuation Model

2015 Michigan Dairy Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper November, 2016

Kansas Farm Economy Update Land and Leasing

CALCULATED LAND USE VALUES

2009 Michigan Dairy Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper December, 2010

Current Report. Oklahoma Cropland Rental Rates: CR

Measuring Farm Financial Performance

Representative Farms Economic Outlook for the December 2005 FAPRI/AFPC Baseline

AFPC. Climate Change Project Texas Representative Feedgrain Farms. Research Report 14-1 February Agricultural and Food Policy Center

TOTAL $ PURCHASED INPUTS PRICE SEED $ LBS $45.00 $45.00 MANURE $ TON $21.60 $21.60 LIVESTOCK FAC & EQUIP $5.00 $5.

Focus. Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

Focus. Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

Highlights from the 2007 North Dakota Region 4 Averages

Martin and Peg Smith Case

Representative Farms Economic Outlook for the January 2006 FAPRI/AFPC Baseline

FAPRI-UMC Report December 8, 2005

2007 Michigan Dairy Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper December, 2008

GUIDE TO ASSEMBLING DATA FOR COW-CALF

Full Season Soybeans Enterprise 1998 Costs and Returns

2007 Michigan Dairy Grazing Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper December, 2008

2008 Michigan Cash Grain Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Stephen Harsh. Staff Paper November, 2009

Grain versus Grazing: The Decision Process. Stan Bevers Professor & Extension Economist Vernon, Texas

2007 Michigan Cash Grain Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Stephen Harsh. Staff Paper December, 2008

Current Report. Oklahoma Cropland Rental Rates: CR

Agricultural. Credit Conditions. Drought-Reduced Incomes Boost Farm Lending. SURVEY of TENTH DISTRICT

2004 Michigan Dairy Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper September 2005

2006 Michigan Dairy Grazing Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper November, 2007

Outlook for the 2014 U.S. Farm Economy. Kevin Patrick Farm Economy Branch Resource and Rural Economics Division

2015 Michigan Cash Grain Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher A. Wolf. Staff Paper November, 2016

Howard County Ag. Day: Beef Cow Economics

Agriculture & Business Management Notes...

Chapter 7. Dairy -- Farm Management Wayne A. Knoblauch, Professor George J. Conneman, Professor Emeritus Cathryn Dymond, Extension Support Specialist

2011 Michigan Cash Grain Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher A. Wolf. Staff Paper October, 2012

~_~~. oradillla) ~SdeIaee.. New York sw..coiejeefapicuiture aad ljfesdeaees.. :A$tatlitoryColiepof the State Uaivenity CoraeD Ullivenity, Ithaca, New

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE August 1972 FCR-83 cooperating with New Mexico State University COSTS NOV

2017 Tennessee Agricultural Outlook. Aaron Smith Crop Economist University of Tennessee Extension

Report on Minnesota Farm Finances. April, 2010

2017 Agricultural Land Valuation Study

A. Circle the best answer. Put a square around your second choice, if you want. If your second choice is correct you get half credit.

Managing For Today s Cattle Market And Beyond: A Comparative Analysis Of ND - Demo Cow Herd To North Dakota Database

An Economic Comparison of Organic and Conventional Dairy Production, and Estimations on the Cost of Transitioning to Organic Production

2014 Michigan Cash Grain Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher A. Wolf. Staff Paper December, 2015

Key Factors Contributing to Cow-Calf Costs, Profits, and Production

Determining Cropland Share Rental Arrangements

Ranch Calculator (RanchCalc)

1998 Double Crop Soybean Costs and Returns

Oklahoma Cropland Rental Rates: Roger Sahs Associate Extension Specialist

Characteristics and Production Costs of U.S. Cow-Calf Operations

ABSTRACT FARM COSTS AND RETURNS STUDIES

Annual Summary Data Kentucky Beef Farms

October 20, 1998 Ames, Iowa Econ. Info U.S., WORLD CROP ESTIMATES TIGHTEN SOYBEAN SUPPLY- DEMAND:

Report on Minnesota Farm Finances. August, 2009

Grass-fed and Organic Beef: Production Costs and Breakeven Market Prices, 2008 and 2009

Henry County Comprehensive Plan. Master Settlement Agreement Phase I Proposals

THE BENEFITS OF FINANCIAL BENCHMARKING TO FARMERS IN THE UNITED STATES

MEASURING SCOPE EFFICIENCY FOR CROP AND BEEF FARMS. M. R. Langemeier 1 and R. D. Jones 1

Managing For Today s Cattle Market And Beyond A Comparative Analysis Of Demo Herd 1997 Herd To McKenzie County Database

Natural Gas Price Impact on Irrigated Agricultural Water Demands in the Texas Panhandle Region

Agricultural. Credit Conditions. Farmland Values Rise with Crop Prices. SURVEY of TENTH DISTRICT

Baseline Update for U.S. Farm Income and Government Outlays

Revenue Components. Yield Government Programs Crop Insurance

User Manual - Custom Finish Cattle Profit Projection

~il~~:~~ii~!. ~...~: {(.~i. !!.~I~ji!': i~i( l:;i;!i:i;i;i:::-: :: C: ..::::)~::m~:l::::t:m:;::;;%::;:!;:;:;:j;.:;:;::::;::j::j:j\:;..

Agricultural. Credit Conditions. Drought Wilts Farm Income. SURVEY of TENTH DISTRICT

Annual Summary Data Kentucky Beef Farms 2013

Agricultural. Credit Conditions. Cropland values reach record highs. SURVEY of TENTH DISTRICT

Seasonal Moth Trapping for Detection of Adult Flights for Southwestern Corn Borer, Western Bean Cutworm, and Fall Armyworm in the Texas High Plains

Extending Economic Life of Ogallala Aquifer with Water Conservation Policy Alternatives in the Texas Panhandle

2017 FINBIN Report on Minnesota Farm Finances

Virginia Farms with Sales Over $10,000: Selected Characteristics by Extension District

BUSINESS SUMMARY DAIRY FARM NEW YORK SMALL HERD FARMS, 140 COWS OR FEWER, 2013 JULY 2014 E.B

Contribution of Federal Lands to Wyoming Range Livestock Production, 1992

The Distribution of Farm Program Payments in the U.S.

Transcription:

Focus Panhandle Model Farms - Case Studies of Texas High Plain Agriculture Diana Jones Dustin Gaskins Jay Yates Farm Focus 2005-3 August 2005 Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas Cooperative Extension Texas A&M University System

Financial and Risk Management (FARM) is a highly concentrated extension effort initiated by the Texas Legislature to assist agricultural producers with strategic planning and risk management. Texas Agricultural producers frequently need realistic examples of crop and livestock operations. Case studies are often the best way to explain industry concerns to local and state officials as well as commodity associations. To encourage communication between different interest groups, Texas Cooperative Extension risk management specialists and county agricultural agents developed region specific model farms through the FARM program. Financial and Risk Management (FARM) is a highly concentrated extension effort initiated by the Texas Legislature to assist agricultural producers with strategic planning and risk management. The program utilizes a decision support simulation model that projects a farm s or ranch s financial performance over ten years, incorporating production and market risk. Specific strategic analyses are provided to Texas producers that assist them with long-range planning and decisionmaking. The model farm process is an attempt to illustrate production agriculture in five distinct regions of the Northern Texas Panhandle. Twentytwo counties make up Texas Cooperative Extension, District 1. These counties are grouped into five clusters, representing similar cropping and livestock production systems (Figure 1.. Risk management specialists conducted eight focus group discussions with fifty- five participants, consisting of county agents, area producers, and agribusiness representatives. In these discussions, participants were asked to develop the structure and characteristics that would describe a viable operation in their respective areas. Final results are presented here to provide a general financial outlook for producers in each county cluster. Results are illustrated in terms of the long-term (10 years) financial outlook for each model farm. A poor financial outlook does not necessarily indicate an operation s demise, but rather identifies problem areas. Changes to farm practices and overall strategies can then be implemented. Model Farm Overview: Model farms consist of both crop and livestock operations. Characteristics vary greatly by county group, reflecting the diversity of Northern Panhandle agriculture. Five different crops are analyzed, with both dry and irrigated production practices. Many operations also incorporate leased stockers, owned stockers, and/or cow calf herds. All analyses Dallam Sherman Hansford Ochiltree Lipscomb Cluster 1 Hartley Moore Hutchinson Roberts Hemphill Oldham Potter Carson Gray Wheeler Cluster 3 include a specific equipment replacement strategy during the ten-year projection period. The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri provides market price forecasts. Additionally, 2002 Farm Bill provisions are assumed to continue beyond Figure 1. Texas Extension District 1 - Panhandle Deaf Smith Randall Armstrong Donley Collingsworth Briscoe Cluster 2 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Hall 2007. These model farms are based on the input of focus group participants. While they appear to be good indicators of regional production, they do not, and are not intended to portray all producers within each region. 1

Panhandle Model Farms - Case Studies of Texas High Plain Agriculutre The model farm process is an attempt to illustrate production agriculture in five distinct regions of the Northern Texas Panhandle. Cluster 1. The Northwest Texas Panhandle model operation consists of a 2,500 acre crop farm that is 60% share leased, 40% owned. The share lease agreement is 1/3 on grain and 1/4 on cotton, with the landlord paying a percentage of fertilizer, chemicals, and irrigation. The initial analysis shows an emphasis on corn acreage (1,000 acres) over cotton (500 acres). However, by 2008 the operation s cropping mix shifts to an equal number of corn and cotton acres (750 acres for both crops). The cotton is custom harvested, and all crops are custom sprayed. Table 1. Characterisitics of Cluster 1 Model Farm Crops Acres Yield Price Stockers Irrg Corn 1,000 220 bu $2.50/bu # Head 500 Irrg Cotton 500 1,000 lbs $ 0.40/lb Lease Rate $0.35 Irrg Wheat 500 60 bu $3.25/bu In Weight 450 lbs Dry Wheat 500 15 bu $3.25/bu Out Weight 650 lbs Total Acres 2,500 ADG 1.75 lbs Cluster 2. The Northeast Texas Panhandle model operation consists of a 3,000 acre crop farm that is 60% cash leased, 40% owned. The cash lease agreement is $33/acre on 1,800 acres. While corn and wheat acres remain constant, a sorghum fallow cropping rotation is incorporated from 2005-2014. All crops are operator sprayed and harvested. Table 2. Characteristics of Cluster 2 Model Farm Crops Acres Yield Price Stockers Irrg Corn 500 200 bu $2.60/bu # Head 750 Irrg Wheat 500 65 bu $3.25/bu Lease Rate $0.35 Dry Wheat 1,400 24 bu $3.25/bu In Weight 450 lbs Dry Sorghum 300 43.75 bu $2.18/bu Out Weight 650 lbs Fallow 300 ADG 1.50 lbs Total Acres 3,000 Cluster 3. The Western Texas Panhandle model operation consists of a 2,800 acre crop and cattle enterprise that is 50% share leased, 50% owned. The share lease agreement is 1/3 on wheat and sorghum, with the landlord paying a percentage of fertilizer, herbicide, and harvest. All crops are custom sprayed and harvested. Table 3. Characteristics of Cluster 3 Model Farm Crops Acres Yield Price Stockers Cows Irrg Sorghum 280 90 bu $2.24/bu # Head 250 # Head 50 Irrg Wheat 280 45 bu $3.40/bu Lease Rate $0.35 Culling Rate 6% Dry Wheat 430 20 bu $3.40/bu In Weight 450 lbs Calving Rate 92% Dry Sorghum 430 27 bu $2.24/bu Out Weight 660 lbs Weaned lbs 575 lbs Fallow 380 ADG 1.75 lbs Weaned $ $1.23/lb Native Pasture 1,000 Total Acres 2,800 2

Cluster 4. The Eastern Texas Panhandle model operation consists of a 2,700 acre crop farm that is 60% share leased, 40% owned. The share lease agreement is 1/3 on grain and 1/4 on cotton, with the landlord paying a percentage of fertilizer, chemicals, and irrigation. The cotton is custom harvested, with some custom spraying budgeted. Table 4. Characteristics of Cluster 4 Model Farm Crops Acres Yield Price Stockers Irrg Corn 500 180 bu $2.40/bu # Head 250 Irrg Cotton 500 750 lbs $ 0.40/lb Purchase lbs 450 lbs Irrg Wheat 250 50 bu $3.00/bu Purchase $ $1.27/lb Irrg Sorghum 250 90 bu $2.10/bu Sale lbs 700 lbs Dry Cotton 200 350 lbs $ 0.40/lb Sale $ $1.00/lb Dry Wheat 400 50 bu $3.00/bu ADG 1.80 lbs Dry Sorghum 200 35.71 bu $2.10/bu Fallow 400 Total Acres 2,700 Cluster 5. The Southeast Texas Panhandle model operation consists of a 3,000 acre crop and cattle operation that is 75% share leased, 25% owned. The share lease agreement is 1/3 on irrigated cotton and irrigated peanuts and 1/4 on irrigated wheat and dry cotton, with the landlord paying a percentage of fertilizer, insecticides, and irrigation. All crops are operator harvested, with some custom spraying budgeted. Table 5. Characteristics of Cluster 5 Model Farm Crops Acres Yield Price Cows Irrg Cotton 250 1,000 lbs $ 0.40/lb # Head 50 Irrg Peanuts 250 1.75 tons $375/ton Culling Rate 10% Dry Cotton 1,500 350 lbs $ 0.40/lb Calving Rate 86% Native Pasture 1,000 Weaned lbs 450 lbs Total Acres 3,000 Weaned $ $1.15/lb Table 6. Average Financial Performance Indicators for Cluster Farms Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Net Cash Farm Income $136,200.00 $187,330.00 -$73,490.00 $147,820.00 $86,180.00 Real Net Worth $1,309,110.00 $1,037,460.00 $554,970.00 $1,146,800.00 $784,060.00 Government Payments $140,150.00 $68,980.00 $24,560.00 $128,990.00 $112,730.00 Working Capital -$30,990.00 $173,090.00 -$591,780.00 $211,680.00 -$172,620.00 Debt to Assets 27.32% 19.95% 56.85% 21.04% 36.54% Return to Assets 7.61% 10.76% -4.02% 9.40% 5.10% Operating Expense to Receipts 82.00% 70.00% 110.00% 78.00% 83.00% Net Farm Income to Receipts 10.00% 23.00% -43.00% 17.00% 6.00% 3

Panhandle Model Farms - Case Studies of Texas High Plain Agriculutre Cluster 2 has some liquidity risk early in the analysis, with a 60% chance of a negative working capital in 2005 (Table 2). This probability falls over the analysis period as cash levels rise and debt levels fall. Results Table 6 provides a projected 10- year average financial performance for each of the Northern Panhandle model farms. Results vary widely by county group. Cluster 1 shows desirable profitability and solvency, and marginal liquidity. Cluster 2 is profitable in both the short and long term, and has strong liquidity levels. Cluster 3 exhibits unacceptable financial measures, with low profitability, large amounts of debt, and negative working capital. Cluster 4 indicates acceptable profitability, solvency, and liquidity measures. Cluster 5 appears to be profitable in the short term. However, due to negative working capital, its longterm viability remains questionable. Several calculations are used to determine model farm financial position. Net cash farm income (NCFI) measures profitability. It represents the amount of money available for debt repayment, federal tax payments, capital equipment replacement, investment or withdrawal by the owner. Net worth measures equity and represents the dollar amount left over after all assets are sold, and all debts are paid. Net liquidity is measured by working capital. Working capital is calculated by subtracting current assets by current liabilities. It evaluates the ability of a farm to meet its short-term financial obligations. Figure 2 shows the probability of a negative working capital, which represents the operations overall liquidity risk. The debt to asset ratio, return to asset ratio, operating expenses to receipts ratio, and net farm income to receipts ratio are also used to determine overall performance. Cluster 1 projects a relatively stable financial position. Net cash farm income averages $136,200 from 2005-2014. The operation also exhibits a desirable equity level of $1.309 million. Profitability seems to be heavily dependent on $140,150 in average annual program payments. The operation could experience an income reduction if payments fall below projected levels. Cluster 1 s ten-year average working capital of -$30,990 suggests significant liquidity risk. Figure 2 shows the significant high probability of a negative working capital throughout the analysis period. Solvency measures show an acceptable debt to assets ratio of 27.32%, meaning there is $0.27 in debt for every $1.00 in assets. Cluster 1 also has a desirable return to assets of 7.61%, and an acceptable profit margin of 10.00%. Cluster 2 is profitable in both the short and long term. Net cash farm income averages $187,330, and real net worth averages $1.0377 million from 2005-2014. Unlike Cluster 1, Cluster 2 s profitability is less dependent on program payments. The operation exhibits acceptable liquidity through a ten-year average working capital of $173,090. Cluster 2 has some liquidity risk early in the analysis, with a 60% chance of a negative working capital in 2005 (Table 2). This probability falls over the analysis period as cash levels rise and debt levels fall. A debt to assets ratio of 19.95% suggests a strong solvency position. Cluster 2 s operating expense to receipts ratio indicates 70% of revenues are used on operating expenses. Cluster 3 projects the least desirable financial position of all five clusters. The wheat cattle farming operation cannot support the large amount of budgeted equipment replacement. An operating expense to receipts ratio of 110.00% also suggests that expenses consistently exceed revenues. Cluster 3 s average net cash farm income of -$73,490 shows low profitability levels. An average working capital of -$591,780 leads to a 99% probability of refinancing from 2005-2014. Cluster 3 s debt to assets ratio of 56.85% exceeds acceptable industry ranges. A net farm income to receipts ratio of 43.00% and a return to assets ratio of 4.02% suggests the operation is highly inefficient. Cluster 4 exhibits desirable financial measures throughout the ten-year analysis period. Net cash farm income is projected to be $147,820. The operation also has a strong average equity of $1.146 million. Like Cluster 1, Cluster 4 is heavily dependent on $128,990 in average annual program payments. A ten-year average working capital of $211,680 is the greatest among all five clusters. High levels of liquidity suggest virtually no chance of experiencing a negative working capital (Figure 2). Cluster 4 has a low debt to assets 4

Based on focus group model farm characteristics and FARM assistance analyses, the Northeast and Eastern Texas Panhandle (Clusters 2 & 4) have the strongest financial performance. ratio of 21.04%. A net farm income to receipts ratio of 17% suggests that the operation has a $0.17 profit for every revenue dollar. The operation also shows acceptable financial efficiency with a 9.40% return to assets ratio. Cluster 5 appears to be profitable in the short term. A negative working capital balance from 2005-2014 suggests it may experience difficulties with long-term viability. The operation s principal payments and family living withdrawals exceed projected revenues. Cluster 5 has an acceptable average net cash farm income of $86,180, and average equity of $784,060. Table 6 suggests significant liquidity risk. Cluster 5 s ten-year average working capital of -$172,620 leads to a high probability of experiencing a negative working capital (Figure 2). Cluster 5 has a marginal debt to assets ratio of 36.54% and return to assets ratio of 5.10%. An operating expense to receipts ratio of 83% suggests the operation may be spending too much on expenses. High costs leads to a low net farm income to receipts ratio of 6%. This profit margin falls below the acceptable industry standard of > 10%. Summary Case studies for twenty-two Northern Texas Panhandle counties are developed in an effort to facilitate communication between agricultural producers and their local officials. Based on focus group model farm characteristics and FARM assistance analyses, the Northeast and Eastern Texas Panhandle (Clusters 2 & 4) have the strongest financial performance. These clusters project high profitability, equity, and financial efficiency, accompanied with low debt levels. The Northwest and Southeast Texas Panhandle (Clusters 1 & 5) indicate moderate financial performance, with acceptable profitability and solvency, but higher levels of liquidity risk. The Western Texas Panhandle (Cluster 3) is the only county group to project an unacceptable position across all financial measures. Figure 2. Probability of a Negative Working Capital from 2005-2014 Percentage 90% 75% 60% 45% 30% 15% 0% Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Year Produced by FARM, Texas Cooperative Extension, The Texas A&M University System Visit Texas Cooperative Extension at: http://texasextension.tamu.edu Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, Acts of Congress of May 8, 1914, as amended, and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. Edward G. Smith, Director, Texas Cooperative Extension, The Texas A&M University System. 5