![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.5in" height="0.9791666666666666in"}

**marketing Assistance loans &**

**Loan Deficiency Payments**

***Background***

Marketing assistance loans are made by the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC), and provide interim financing to facilitate the orderly
distribution of commodities throughout the year. Instead of selling
immediately at harvest, a nonrecourse loan allows a producer who grows
an eligible crop to store the production and pledge the crop itself as
collateral. The loan proceeds help the producer pay bills when they come
due without having to sell the harvested crop at the time of year when
prices tend to be lowest. Later, when market conditions may be more
favorable, a producer can sell the crop and repay the loan. Loan
proceeds are based on loan rates set by statute and the quantity of
eligible commodity pledged.

Marketing assistance loans for each eligible commodity (wheat, corn,
grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, extra long staple cotton,
rice soybeans, other oilseeds, dry peas, lentils, small chickpeas,
honey, wool, mohair) are nonrecourse in nature. That is, a producer has
the option of delivering to the CCC the quantity of a commodity pledged
as collateral for a loan as full payment for that loan at loan maturity.
In order to discourage forfeiture to the CCC, market loan repayment
provisions specify that, under certain circumstances, a producer may
repay less than the original loan principal and accrued interest and
other charges, thus receiving a "marketing gain" equivalent to the
waived portion of the debt. Alternatively, loan deficiency payment (LDP)
provisions specify that, in lieu of securing a loan from CCC, a producer
is eligible for an LDP that equals the marketing gain, if any.

Marketing loan and LDP provisions make forfeiture of loan collateral to
CCC less appealing. Furthermore, CCC-owned surpluses may impose a
significant taxpayer burden in the form of storage costs.

The 2002 farm bill provides that marketing assistance loans may be
repaid at the lesser of the loan rate plus interest, or at a lesser rate
as provided for in the 2002 farm bill. Generally, these lower rates: (1)
minimize potential loan forfeitures and Government accumulation of
stocks and storage costs; and (2) allow the commodity produced in the
United States to be marketed freely and competitively, both domestically
and internationally.

To receive LDPs, the producer must retain beneficial interest in the
commodity from the time of harvest through the date the LDP is
requested. For marketing assistance loans, the producer must retain
beneficial interest in the commodity from the time of harvest through
the date the loan is redeemed or CCC takes title to the commodity.

The chart below shows the quantity of corn, soybeans, wheat, and barley
forfeited to CCC since crop year 2000 under several major commodity
programs:

**Crop Loan Forfeitures 2000---2004**

  --------------- -------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
  **Commodity**   **Crop   **Estimated      **Quantity       **Percent of
                  Year**   Production       Forfeited to     Production
                           (NASS)**         CCC**            Forfeited**

  **Corn (bu.)**                                             

                  2000     9,915,051,000    26,596,167       0.2682%

                  2001     9,502,580,000    17,027           0.0002%

                  2002     8,966,787,000    1,892,953        0.0211%

                  2003     10,089,222,000   1,037,721        0.0103%

                  2004     11,807,217,000   16,741,632       0.1418%

  **Soybeans                                                 
  (bu.)**                                                    

                  2000     2,757,810,000    5,704,769        0.2069%

                  2001     2,890,682,000    54,506           0.0019%

                  2002     2,756,147,000    205,169          0.0074%

                  2003     2,453,665,000    122,168          0.0050%

                  2004     3,123,686,000    413,485          0.0132%

  **Wheat (bu.)**                                            

                  2000     2,228,160,000    12,749,123       0.5722%

                  2001     1,947,453,000    442,849          0.0227%

                  2002     1,605,878,000    1,507,263        0.0939%

                  2003     2,344,760,000    2,480,904        0.1058%

                  2004     2,158,245,000    7,007,622        0.3247%

  **Barley                                                   
  (bu.)**                                                    

                  2000     317,804,000      670,937          0.2111%

                  2001     248,329,000      0                0.0000%

                  2002     226,906,000      0                0.0000%

                  2003     278,283,000      239,748          0.0862%

                  2004     279,743,000      198,713          0.0710%
  --------------- -------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

***General Opinions Expressed***

-   USDA was encouraged to continue the commodity certificate redemption
    program and provide a guaranteed market for farm products. Many felt
    that the marketing loan program is an important farm policy tool.

-   Others thought USDA should figure LDPs on the basis of an average
    yield over several years, and factor in inflation of production and
    living costs when LDPs are calculated. Some said that LDPs are not
    localized enough.

-   Many requested that the commodity loan rates be increased. Some
    stated that insufficient loan rates have caused producers to
    consider planting alternative crops rather than canola.

-   A majority said posted county prices should be tied to only one
    market; farmers need higher prices and a fair price for their
    products. It was also suggested that USDA officials should "stand
    up" for present price supports.

-   Some said FSA should retroactively increase the loan rate for white
    wheat and that the loan rates serve as an important safety net for
    minor-oilseed producers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some felt that LDP benefits seem to help the producers who raise big
    crops; others said that LDPs should be tied to a limited amount of
    production, and others indicated that LDPs have an unintended
    consequence of providing payments to some producers who should not
    be eligible to receive them.

-   It was recommended that USDA implement another Ewe/Lamb Retention
    program.

-   A few commented that farm subsidies are not needed and that LDPs
    depress commodity prices and should be eliminated.

-   Participants generally pointed out that when harvest begins in the
    South, LDPs are high, but as harvest moves north, the LDPs fall.
    LDPs are volatile due to futures markets and transportation.

-   Some stated that the sheep industry needs help and that the wool LDP
    program should be continued.

-   A few felt that a producer's LDP payments should not be larger than
    a full-time NRCS employee's compensation.

-   Participants said that subsidy payments need to be reviewed and
    changed so taxpayers are not footing the bill for unintended costs.
    They indicated that USDA should consider lowering price supports,
    which artificially raise prices of commodities. Others indicated
    farming would be economically viable if prices were at least 50
    percent to 60 percent of parity.

-   Some producers said that the only profit from their corn crop is a
    LDP. They indicated it means a lot to them.

-   It was widely suggested that farm legislation should move away from
    the traditionally supported crops, and toward more environmentally
    friendly commodities.

-   Some producers objected to the current Direct and Counter-Cyclical
    Program (DCP) but wanted to continue with a crop loan structure with
    LDP on a limited-bushels-per-operator basis.

-   It was recommended that livestock should be included in farm subsidy
    programs.

-   Several commented that present commodity programs such as direct
    payments cause elevated farm land costs and rental rates.

-   Many producers wanted equitable support for farm commodities across
    the Nation, with more emphasis on minimum supports for all
    producers.

    ***Detailed Suggestions Expressed***

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reauthorize a limited Farmer Owned Reserve program.

-   Lengthen time that commodities can be under loan.

-   Include special farm programs for Guam because it has different
    crops and higher production costs.

-   Farm legislation should expand the price support program to crops
    covered by the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP).

-   USDA should give consideration to wheat counter-cyclical payments
    based on class.

-   Include grass hay as an eligible commodity under the LDP program.

-   Set the loan rates at or above the cost of production.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   When a farmer repays a commodity loan, the funds currently go back
    to a general fund. Instead, the funds used to repay a loan should go
    back into funding for Federal agriculture programs.

-   Producers should be able to select a day when the LDP price is
    established, even if the crop was not harvested.

-   USDA should include farm subsidies for nutritionally oriented crops.

-   Farm legislation must switch to income support instead of commodity
    price supports.

-   Farm legislation should give more emphasis on supports for grass-fed
    and grass-finished animal production systems.

-   LDP rates should be less volatile during the year, so producers in
    the Northern part of the country can receive LDP rates similar to
    producers in the South.

-   Expand agricultural legislation to include aquaculture support
    programs.

-   The present wool and lamb program should be reauthorized with the
    wool base loan rate of \$1.20 per pound.

-   Strengthen wool producers' income by rewarding quality wool in the
    price support program.

-   Develop a program to expand sheep numbers and reward producers for
    holding back ewe lambs.

-   Expand the funding in support of the wool producer by continuing to
    provide funding for the sheep and wool industry through grants.

-   Expand legislation to support a larger ethanol program to help cut
    the cost of the LDP program.

-   Create legislation to tie LDP payments to yield history to enhance
    farm income and compensate for crop loss over extended years.

-   Change the farm program to phase out current commodity loans and
    safety net programs, and replace them with more comprehensive crop
    insurance.

-   Create a farm support program for pork producers to give more
    equitable support for all agricultural commodities and products.

-   Authorize alfalfa as part of the farm LDP and loan programs.

-   Authorize income supports for organic production that stabilizes
    soil and enhances the environment.

-   The Government should repeal farm subsidies, especially corn, sugar,
    and rice.

-   Farm legislation should take the cost of production into
    consideration by establishing farm supports with emphasis on
    providing a liveable return for effort.

-   Fix farm price supports to the rate of inflation.

-   A commenter expressed frustration in the Government setting of
    commodity differentials across State lines. These differentials
    should be limited to less than \$.05 cents per bushel.

-   Establish the corn loan rate at \$2.60 per bushel and soybeans loan
    rate at \$7.00 per bushel.

-   Establish farm loan rates using a simple 5-year-average support
    price for corn and soybeans instead of the present use of an Olympic
    average (average production after omitting the high year and the low
    year).

-   Lower the farm loan rates as an effort to cut Government cost.

-   Create LDPs at a sufficient level so that the futures exchange has
    no effect.

-   Authorize farm legislation to put more money into the pockets of all
    farmers.

-   Return to the old parity support programs under permanent
    legislation.

-   Change farm legislation to give higher supports to farmers through
    setting higher LDP and loan rates.