In this edition:

·         Farmers See Southern Exposure

·         Can You Afford Costlier Crop Insurance?

·         CME Revises Trade Start Date – KCBOT, MGE Also Expand 22-Hour Trade Starting May 21

·         US Beef Exports Show Craving Continues Despite Mad Cow

·         Vilsack Makes the Case for Renewable Energy

·         Brazil Eyes U.S. Soybean Imports

Farmers See Southern Exposure

May 3, 2012

DTN/The Progressive Farmer

Chris Clayton

The chance of a farm bill coming out of the U.S. Senate anytime soon could hinge largely on safety net prospects for a pair of Southern crops that collectively account for about 4.5 million acres of the 320 million or so acres that will be planted this year.

With the cotton industry largely satisfied with its new insurance program, rice and peanut farmers are counting on Southern senators to make a stand for them before the Senate floor debate on the new farm bill. They also see more hope in the House, where Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., has said the Senate farm bill doesn't do enough to factor in regional and crop differences.

The Senate bill gets rid of direct payments, the counter-cyclical and ACRE programs and replaces them with the Agriculture Risk Coverage program, or ARC. That program would offer a band of protection from 11% to 21% of revenue, but it would have a $50,000 payment cap per individual. Effectively, producers would be expected to have good insurance coverage to manage the lion's share of their weather or price risk.

Randy Veach, president of the Arkansas Farm Bureau, is a cotton, rice, soybean and wheat farmer in northeast Arkansas, who said farm groups will be working to make changes to the Senate bill. If lawmakers are going to do away with direct payments, then an alternative commodity program is needed that will be better than what is in the Senate bill, Veach said.

"We feel like this bill does not provide an adequate safety net for at least some Southern commodities -- most of them actually," he said.

Veach said he would like to see a choice comparable to the one pitched by the House and Senate Agriculture Committee last fall. Farmers could pick a risk-management program for shallow losses or a counter-cyclical program with a higher target price.

Veach said groups representing Southern commodities would be fully engaged in the Senate to make changes to the bill, but he acknowledged there will be a better opportunity to push changes in the House Agriculture Committee, which has a larger cadre of members from states with major production of cotton, rice, peanut or all three commodities. Veach expects to see a very different commodity title offered by Lucas.

"We will have to see what he puts forward, but it may be what we need to start with," Veach said.

Problems with rice and peanuts stem partly from not having a good alternative to direct payments. The National Cotton Council also has raised concerns about the Senate bill, but is supportive of the legislation including the insurance program proposed by NCC, the Stacked Income Protection Program. Craig Brown, vice president of producer affairs for the cotton council, told the Agritalk radio program on Tuesday, "If the cotton provisions remain as they are, then it's a bill we can support."

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who helped craft the language on payment caps and active engagement, told reporters on Wednesday the Senate could override the objections of Southerners if the legislation has 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.

"If we can't show Reid 60 votes to move the bill along, then I think they are going to have tremendous leverage," Grassley said. "And I'm sure that's why they voted against the farm bill."

Meanwhile, farmers have to factor in the ramifications of a major shift in commodity programs and the loss of direct payments. Terry Gray, who has 1,400 acres of rice in northeast Arkansas, thinks the changes in this farm bill will be tougher on smaller or beginning farmers than established, larger operators.

"The guys who are great big and have got a lot of equity, the economies of size will probably get them through," Gray said in an interview. "But the smaller guys and the younger guys just starting out right now, it will just kill them. The banks will have to take a hard look at those guys."

Gray said he penciled out costs about $850 an acre this year to grow an acre of rice. That was before urea prices went up this winter. "It's a pretty expensive crop to grow," he said.

Scott Stiles, an economics instructor and extension agent for the University of Arkansas, said the commodity overhaul could lower land values on farms that have rice base acres, leading to lower cash rents as well. Rice base acres receive an average of $94 an acre in direct payments that are capitalized in land value and rents.

"If they (farmers) have a heavy rice base on their farms, that's the area where it is going to matter most," Stiles said.

The direct payments have also helped lenders manage their risks on these crops as well, Stiles said. "It gives the ag-lending community a certain amount of confidence they can budget those payments in."

Rice remains a much more expensive crop to produce than other crops, Stiles said. It's a two-to-one ratio comparing production costs of rice to soybeans.

While Southern farmers are upset about the Senate bill, the commodities of cotton, peanuts and rice collectively constituted just 5.8% of all commodity crop acres in 2010, but received 16.6% of all farm program payments.

In 2011, which led to a dramatic drop in cotton program payments, cotton, peanuts and rice amounted to about 4.5% of acreage, but about 8.5% of commodity payments.

Still, cotton, peanuts and rice have seen significant declines in commodity program payments since the beginning of the 2008 farm bill. Cotton payments this year are forecast at 20% of what they were in 2007. Peanut payments are 16% of 2007 figures. Rice payments are more equal and haven't seen the variability or decline of other crops.

Armond Morris, chairman of the Georgia Peanut Commission, said it's difficult to find one commodity program that would work for everyone. Morris noted he was facing high energy costs because a drought right now in Georgia demands irrigation on all of his crops. Like other Southerners, he would like to see the counter-cyclical program remain with a better target price installed.

"The bankers have got to know there is going to be enough return on that acre of peanuts to pay the bills," Morris said.

Grassley also said there would be no benefit to Southerners trying to delay the farm bill until next year because the budget score would likely be worse for commodities.

"You know the old saying 'You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.' They are going to be in worse position next year because CBO is going to have a lower baseline that we have to operate in. It would be more difficult to do as much for them as this farm bill does now."

 To view this story at its original source, follow this link:  http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&product=/ag/news/topstories&vendorReference=4cc08f7f-92c8-437d-b7b8-4bbf769e5028&paneContentId=70109&paneParentId=70043

Can You Afford Costlier Crop Insurance?

May 3, 2012

Agriculture Online

Dan Looker

In India, cows are sacred. In the Corn Belt and much of the rest of agricultural America, crop insurance seems to be revered. At least that’s the impression you’d get from attending recent farm bill hearings held by the House Agriculture Committee. Farmer after farmer testifying will put crop insurance at the top of his or her list of untouchable programs.

The chairman of the committee, Representative Frank Lucas (R-OK) recently told North American Agricultural Journalists in Washington that the crop insurance industry has already given much to reducing the federal deficit. He and the leaders of congressional ag committees from both parties have opposed a line in the Obama Administration budget for 2013 that would shave crop insurance premium subsidies for farmers by two percentage points. 

 “Don’t kill the program by taking away the incentives to participate.” Lucas told NAAJ.

The version of a 2012 farm bill passed last week by the Senate Agriculture Committee doesn’t cut crop insurance subsidies. 

In the past, you could count on the agriculture committees in both chambers of Congress to be able to convince the rest of Congress not touch a program that nearly all farmers consider a key risk management tool. 

This year looks a little different.

In April, the cost of crop insurance made it into the pages of The New York Times when a report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, on that topic became public. The study was requested by Senator Tom Coburn, a fiscal conservative Republican from Oklahoma. (Coburn, you may recall, was part of the bipartisan “Gang of Six” senators who tried to find agreement on deficit cutting last summer.)

The GAO found that if the same limit of $40,000 on direct payments were applied to federal subsidies for farmer’s crop insurance premiums, it would have saved the federal government $1 billion in 2011. Last year federal crop insurance was the most expensive program for farmers, costing the federal government nearly $9 billion. Of that amount, about $7.4 billion went to farmer premium subsidies, with the rest paid to help cover insurance company costs.

Currently, the government picks up between 38% and 80% of your crop insurance premium. The average subsidy is 62% If premium subsidies were limited to $40,000, it would have affected 3.9% of all farmers who participate in crop insurance. 

That may not sound like much. It’s about 4% of some 875,000 farmers who bought crop insurance last year. But it’s worth remembering that less than 10% of the nation’s 2.2 million farms have revenue of $250,000 or more, enough to be considered a commercial farm by USDA economists. And the GAO did say that the small percentage of farmers who would have been hit by a $40,000 premium cap last year “accounted for about one-third of all premium subsidies and were primarily associated with large farms.”

What seems like a “large farm” in Washington might surprise you, 

In a report released this week, University of Illinois agricultural economist Gary Schnitkey, one of the nation’s authorities on crop insurance, crunched the numbers on how a $40,000 cap would have worked in recent years.

The insurable value of your crop revenue goes up with high prices, and so do the premiums. That means you’ll hit the cap sooner in years like last year. By Schnitkey’s calculation, a farm in Illinois with 1,682 insured acres would have hit the limit in 2011.  In 2010 it would have taken 2,710 acres. 

Schnitkey uses Illinois Farm Business Farm Management records to adjust his calculations to reflect that a portion of a typical farm in that state is on a 50/50 share rent arrangement, where the farmer would pay half of the premium. Farms that are all owned or cash rented would be affected differently.

As Schnitkey explains at one point: “A payment limit could have differential impacts on farms. Fewer acres would be required in areas of higher risk, as premiums are higher in high risk areas. Farms with higher amounts of cash rental acres will reach the dollar limit faster than farms with share rent acres. In general, total premiums are higher for higher risk situations. Since risk subsidies are a percent of total premium, farms in riskier situation will reach limits quicker than farms in less risky situations.”

But the cutoff is just over the average size of farms enrolled in the Illinois FBFM service—1,180 acres.

If a $40,000 cutoff existed, in theory, farms would pay the full cost of premiums above that level.

Here’s one example from Schnitkey:

“To illustrate premium setting, take a 2012 Revenue Protection (RP) policy at an 80% coverage level for a 400 acre enterprise unit having an 187 Trend Adjusted Actual Production History (TA APH) yield. This product has a total premium of $33 per acre. The risk subsidy is $22.44 per acre ($33 total premium x .68 risk subsidy). The farmer-paid premium is $10.56 per acre ($33 total premium - $22.44 risk subsidy)” 

In other words, at the 80% coverage level, USDA pays 68% of the premium cost. That’s what you could potentially lose if you got more than $40,000 in premium subsidies. 

It’s important here to point out that the GAO report used a $40,000 cap as an example of one way to lower crop insurance costs. It’s not out there as an amendment or piece of proposed legislation yet.

The Environmental Working Group mentioned the GAO study recently when it came out with its own proposal to just have USDA provide everyone with 70% revenue protection and allow farmers to buy private coverage above that. 

EWG also likes the idea of putting a cap on premium subsidies, but, according to the group’s press secretary, Sara Sciammacco, “We support payment limits for premium subsidies, but we haven't proposed a specific dollar limit.”

Another approach to crop insurance limits comes from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, which represents groups that work on conservation, small farm and beginning farmer issues in Washington. 

“We have suggested the phase out begin with a 50% reduction in the subsidy percentage at $1 million in production and phase out to no subsidy at two and a half times that amount,” NSAC’s website says.  “At all levels, all farms would have access to insurance.  The only thing that would change would be the share of the premium paid by the taxpayer.”

To me, that sounds like a more sophisticate and reasonable approach to limiting crop insurance costs. But my own calculations, cruder than those of Schnitkey, also suggest it would start to affect relatively small commercial grain farms. 

If you assume the same 187-bushel trend-adjusted corn yield Schnitkey used, and the 2012 insurable value of corn at $5.68 a bushel, that $1 million in production would come from 941 acres, if a farmer owned or cash rented that land.  A complete phase-out wouldn’t be that far from the examples Schnitkey cited for a $40,000 cap.

On a recent trip to Washington, I had dinner at a fund raiser with a group of people with very different views on crop insurance. On one side of me was a young woman from a farm in northeast Nebraska who believes that her father unfairly competes with much larger operations benefiting from crop insurance subsidies. On the other side, was an attorney who works with the crop insurance industry, who sees viable insurance as an essential tool for commercial farms. 

My hunch is that the reformers who want larger farms to pay more for crop insurance won’t succeed this year, if Congress manages to pass a farm bill. 

Representative Collin Peterson, the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee reinforced that hunch last month when he spoke to members of North American Agricultural Journalists in Washington.

Peterson pointed out that a recent standard reinsurance agreement between USDA and the private insurance companies that sell crop insurance cut some $6 billion in subsidies to the industry.

“I’m told by some of the companies if we go too far here, that we could see a mass consolidation in the industry, Peterson said, “…that we could end up with two companies. If we screw this thing up that’s what will happen”

Peterson said he’s unwilling to make big changes in crop insurance until Congress can evaluate how the industry and the program is affected by rerating of crop insurance. Starting this year, corn and soybean farmers in the Midwest are seeing a slight drop in premiums due to rerating, while producers in Texas, Colorado and other higher risk areas have seen an increase.

 “We have no data on how all those changes have played out,” Peterson said.

Peterson seemed reluctant, too, to tie conservation compliance to eligibility for crop insurance, another goal of reformers who think it was a mistake to break that requirement in 1996 farm legislation.

But Peterson did hold the door open for changes to the subsidies for farmer premiums.

“I think the more salient questions about crop insurance is looking at the subsidies, are we at the right level?” he asked. 

That’s a question that number crunchers of all political stripes – from the Obama White House to Representative Paul Ryan’s House Budget Committee have been asking ¬– and answering with proposals for lower subsidies. 

If there’s a 2013 farm bill, it may not have a $40,000 cap or a $1 million revenue phase-out, but I’ll bet you’ll be paying at least a slightly larger share of premiums. 

To view this story at its original source, follow this link:  http://www.agriculture.com/news/policy/c-you-affd-costlier-crop-insurce_4-ar23958

CME Revises Trade Date Start – KCBOT, MGE Also Expand 22-Hour Trade Starting May 21

May 3, 2012

DTN/The Progressive Farmer

Chris Clayton

CME Group announced Thursday its expanded electronic trading hours of grains and oilseeds will start May 21 after the commodity exchange's regulator raised questions Wednesday over a procedural filing.

Following suit with not only CME Group, but also the Intercontinental Exchange, the Minneapolis Grain Exchange (MGEX) and Kansas City Board of Trade (KCBOT) both announced expanded trading hours as well.

The expanded trade hours subject has raised questions among grain elevators about how to manage settlement prices when the open pit trade closes while electronic trade continues. USDA also has said that expanded hours could affect the way that monthly crop reports are released.

CME Group also added expanded trading hours for its CBOT denatured fuel ethanol as well. Effective May 20 for trade starting May 21, CME will have 22-hour trading on futures and options for corn, soybeans, wheat, soybean meal and soybean oil, rough rice and ethanol, as well as "mini-sized" corn, soybeans and wheat.

While CME Group is allowed to self-certify a change in the trading hours, the exchange still must file the proper paperwork with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC requires that paperwork be submitted at least 10 business days before the actual change occurs, partly to allow people to comment. CME did not meet the timeframe to file that paperwork to begin 22-hour trading May 14, the original date the CME had pegged for its expanded grain trade.

"Once that self-certification is received, it would be posted on the commission's website," said David Gary, a CFTC spokesman told DTN Wednesday.

The CFTC is given 10 days to examine the application and determine if the commission has a problem with it.

CME Group initially announced Tuesday that it would expand electronic trading hours for CBOT grain and oilseed futures to 22 hours a day, running effectively from a 6 p.m. CDT open to 4 p.m. close Monday through Friday, and starting up trade again Sunday at 5 p.m. CDT.

Yet, the open-outcry, or trading floor, at CME Group will continue to trade those contracts from 9:30 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. CDT Monday through Friday.

The CME's move comes after ICE had announced earlier that it would offer corn and soybean contracts starting May 14 as part of an expansion into more North American agricultural markets. The ICE trading will begin at 7 p.m. CDT and close at 5 p.m. EDT.

CBOT grain markets now have electronic trading from 6 p.m. to 7:15 a.m. Electronic trading also then runs parallel to the open-outcry trade.

The Kansas City Board of Wheat announced hard red winter wheat futures and options will trade electronically from 5:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. CDT for Monday sessions, which begin Sunday evening. Trading hours for Tuesday through Friday sessions are 6:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. These also begin the previous evening.

The change goes into effect Sunday, May 20, 2012 for trade date May 21, in coordination with trading hour changes at the CME Group.

KCBOT stated daily settlements will continue to be based on the 1:15 p.m. CT close each day.

MGEX announced expanded trading hours for all futures and options contracts, including its Hard Red Spring Wheat contract, beginning Sunday, May 20, 2012 for trade date May 21, 2012. Market participants will now have the ability to manage price risk using the exchange's flagship contract for 22 hours per trading day Monday through Friday and 23 hours per trading day Sunday to Monday.

According to the CFTC, the CME Group, KCBOT and MGEX will all have to file appropriate paperwork within 10 business days before starting the expanded hours. That would give some time for market participants to comment. ICE has already filed the appropriate paperwork to begin its contracts. The filing information can be found at http://sirt.cftc.gov/…

To view this story at its original source, follow this link:  http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&product=/ag/news/topstories&vendorReference=0a68d0de-1353-41d7-a8d1-7272751ade39&paneContentId=70109&paneParentId=70043

US Beef Exports Show Craving Continues Despite Mad Cow

May 3, 2012

Reuters

Karl Plume

Major importers stepped up their purchases of U.S. beef last week despite the discovery of a case of mad cow disease in California, government data showed on Thursday.

Export sales of fresh, chilled or frozen muscle beef totaled 16,829 tonnes in the week ended April 26, up 8.8 percent from the previous week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said.

Authorities reported the fourth U.S. case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, as the disease is known, on April 24. It was the first occurrence of the brain-wasting disease in the United States in six years.

The muted trade reaction suggested importers felt comfortable with the safeguards enacted since the discovery of the first U.S. case in December 2003.

Beef exports sank 75 percent immediately after the disclosure of the first case as big customers, including top importer Japan, banned U.S. beef. The USDA reported net sales cancellations in five of the first six weeks following the news.

"This was not something out of the blue. We've had three others before and, realistically, countries that were going to react have done so before. Their officials are reasonably satisfied with the measures the U.S. takes to deal with the problem," Dan Vaught of Vaught Futures Insights said.

"The only country that said it was going to ban U.S. beef was Indonesia, but they're a very small importer," he said.

Mexico was the top customer last week, buying about 4,000 tonnes, USDA data showed. Japan bought 2,500 tonnes, Egypt 2,400 tonnes, and South Korea and Canada each bought 2,100 tonnes.

U.S. beef export sales in the year to date totaled 359,793 tonnes, up 4.5 percent from the same point in 2011, a year that saw record-large exports, according to the USDA.

 To view this story at its original source, follow this link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/03/usa-exports-beef-madcow-idUSL1E8G3ECJ20120503

Vilsack Makes the Case for Renewable Energy

May 4, 2012

FarmFutures

The push to boost the amount of ethanol blended in the fuel consumers buy goes on and this week Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack put  his office behind the effort. Vilsack called on petroleum companies to help increase the percentage of ethanol in the tank to reduce dependence on foreign oil, boost job creation and promote development of renewable energy from farm-produced feedstocks.

He notes that the Obama administration has an 'all-of-the-above' to promoting domestic energy security, and increasing the percentage of ethanol to be blended with gasoline will help boost economic growth while lessening the nation's dependence on foreign oil."

The Renewable Fuel Standard, a long-term mandate to push up the percentage of renewable fuel used would require use of 36 billion gallons of renewable transportation fuel by 2022 including biodiesel and ethanol. The mandate calls for 21 billion of that amount to be produced using low carbon, renewable fuels including cellulosic biofuel. In a press statement outlining the issue, USDA points out achieving the mandate will "help speed the transition to cleaner, more secure sources of energy in the transportation sector."

"When we get to 36 billion gallons, that's going to be mean that we will be importing fewer barrels of oil," says Vilsack. "That means that the wealth that we are currently transferring into those countries that don't necessarily agree with us and are from an unstable part of the world can be redirected into creating rural opportunities and jobs."

To enable widespread use of E15, the Obama Administration has set a goal to help fueling station owners install 10,000 blender pumps over the next 5 years. In addition, both through the Recovery Act and the 2008 Farm Bill, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Department of Agriculture have provided grants, loans and loan guarantees to spur American ingenuity on the next generation of biofuels. Before it can be sold, manufacturers must first take additional measures to help ensure retail stations and other gasoline distributors understand and implement labeling rules and other E15-related requirements.

With a focus on helping the country reach 36 billion gallons by 2022, USDA, in collaboration with DOE and EPA, developed the Growing America's Fuels strategy. This plan will help ensure that dependable supplies of feedstock are available for the production of advanced biofuels to meet legislated goals and market demand, as well to enhance rural economic sustainability. Toward that end, USDA is supporting the establishment of five Regional Biomass Research Centers and has published a Biofuels Production Roadmap addressing regional variations in feedstock availability and biorefinery locations.

 To view this story at its original source, follow this link: http://farmfutures.com/story.aspx/vilsack-makes-case-renewable-energy-17/59513

Brazil Eyes U.S. Soybean Imports

May 4, 2012

Agriculture Online

It's been over a decade since Brazil, the world's No. 2 soybean producer, has had to import the country's 'King' commodity from the United States. That streak could end as early as this year, as South America suffers from crop shortages.

Due to a drought in the first months of the year, southern farmers in Brazil rushed to sell their soybean stock to China to compensate for their losses by taking advantage of excellent international prices.

80% Sold

Nearly 80 percent of the country's soybean crop has already been exported this season, according to independent estimates. The percentage is 20 percent higher than the same month of 2011. The Brazilian government denies any type of “rationing”, but admits that in the future – perhaps next year - Brazil could import soybeans from other places like the U.S.

“Currently, we don't have scarcities of soybeans in Brazil because the last crop was very good. We have at least 1.5 million tons saved from last year. Next year, if the weather does not help much again, we would be forced to import," Leonardo Amazonas, an expert in soybeans from the National Supply Company, a division of Brazil's Ministry of Agriculture, told Agriculture.com.

The statement, however, is challenged by several private consultancies who doubt that the country has more than 10 million tons to sell until the end of the 2012. Safras e Mercado (Crops and Markets), a consultancy based in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, says that Brazil will end this harvest season with just 421,000 tons. For Aedson Pereira, an analyst from Informa Economics FNP, the issue now is who is going to sell soybeans to Brazil. “US soybean stocks are already under pressure exporting to China. Our neighbors (Argentina and Paraguay) also did not have a good crop," says Pereira to newspaper Gazeta do Povo.

Marcos Rubin, an analyst from Agroconsult, explains that the current “rationing” is very focused in Rio Grande do Sul, the state which lost approximately 43 percent (four million tons) of its crops earlier this year. With those losses, the state is not being able to supply the Brazilian crushing industry. Therefore Rio Grande do Sul, which has a large number of livestock, will have to import soybean meal to feed it. “For logistical reasons, it will be imported from Argentina. They also had a drought, but they can supply their market and export the meal,” Rubin says.

The crushing industry in the South American country has decreased its amount of production. It fell from 35.7 million tons of soybeans in 2010/11 to 28.9 million in 2011/12, according to the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil.

Historically, Brazil has been able to grow necessary soybean supplies to handle domestic and export demand. 

In times of overselling, Brazil has turned to the United States to 'backfill' orders they couldn't cover for soybean crushing purposes. That last happened in the late 1990's when the U.S. exported 607,000 metric tons to Brazil in 1997. Not since then has Brazil imported any more than 34,000 mt of U.S. soybeans in 2006, according to USDA statistics.

Moving from soybeans to corn

A study released by the Brazilian consultancy Céleres indicates that the use of biotechnology is making the crops more profitable in the country. The big surprise is the corn earnings are much higher in Brazil than with soybeans. For reach Real (US$ 0.52) spent in corn, the earnings are of R$ 2.61 (US$ 1.36), while in soybeans it is R$ 1.59 (US$ 0.83).

These profits may result in a very dramatic change in the total share of the earnings with crops. From today to the 2013 harvest, the amount of corn planted, compared to other crops in Brazil, will jump from 32 to 39 percent of the total crop production. The soybean shares will decline from 65 to 47 percent.

The study says that this is happening for a variety of reasons. The first is the technology itself: corn varieties in Brazil are bigger than soybeans, which allows more productivity and less costs. The second is that the U.S. government has encouraged the production of ethanol through corn, so there is more market for corn as food. Also, the prices are improving. “There are enough reasons to increase corn planting in Brazil," says Narcison Barison Neto, president of the Brazilian Association of Seeds and Seedling, the organization that requested the survey. 

 To view this story at its original source, follow this link: http://www.agriculture.com/news/crops/brazil-eyes-us-soybe-impts_2-ar23961