U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–024 PDF 2009

HEARING TO REVIEW STRUCTURAL CHANGES 

THAT ARE TAKING PLACE IN THE 

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY AND THEIR 

IMPACTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 18, 2007

Serial No. 110–31

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

JOE BACA, California 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

JIM COSTA, California 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

TIM MAHONEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JOHN R. ‘‘RANDY’’ KUHL, JR., New York 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

ROBERT L. LAREW, Chief of Staff 

ANDREW W. BAKER, Chief Counsel 

APRIL SLAYTON, Communications Director 

WILLIAM E. O’CONNER, JR., Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4

Graves, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from Missouri, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 6

Kagen, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from Wisconsin, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 5

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2

Smith, Hon. Adrian, a Representative in Congress from Nebraska, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 6

WITNESSES

Collins, Ph.D., Keith, Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 7

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8

Gruenspecht, Ph.D., Howard, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Energy Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. ..................... 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25

Westhoff, Ph.D., Patrick, Research Associate Professor and Program Co-Director, Department of Agricultural Economics, Food and Agricultural Policy 

Research Institute, University of Missouri—Columbia, Columbia, MO .......... 28

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30

(1)

HEARING TO REVIEW STRUCTURAL CHANGES 

THAT ARE TAKING PLACE IN THE 

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY AND THEIR 

IMPACTS 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in Room 1300 

of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Collin C. Peterson 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Peterson, Holden, Etheridge, 

Boswell, Cardoza, Herseth Sandlin, Cuellar, Costa, Salazar, Boyda, 

Kagen, Pomeroy, Davis, Barrow, Goodlatte, Lucas, Moran, Graves, 

Neugebauer, Foxx, Fortenberry, Smith, and Walberg. 

Staff present: Claiborn Crain, Nona Darrell, Adam Durand, 

Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias, Craig Jagger, Scott Kuschmider, Clark 

Ogilvie, John Riley, Sharon Rusnak, Anne Simmons, Kristin 

Sosanie, Bryan Dierlam, Alise Kowalski, Josh Maxwell, Rita 

Neznek, and Jamie Weyer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. We are going 

to get going here because we are going to have a vote about 10:30 

or so. It is just one vote, so we may try to keep the Committee 

going during that process so we can get finished up. This hearing 

is to review the structural changes that are taking place in the agricultural economy and their impacts. I want to thank everyone, especially our witnesses, for being here today. 

I welcome all of you to today’s hearing on the impact and structural changes in agriculture. The witnesses, who I appreciate being 

with us, include Dr. Keith Collins, the Chief Economist at USDA. 

He has testified before this Committee numerous times and also on 

this very same topic. Dr. Gruenspecht, with the Department of Energy, who is also on the panel. We combined the two panels into 

one so we could expedite the process. The witnesses were fine with 

that arrangement. And also Dr. Pat Westhoff, the Research Associate Professor for the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute from Columbia, Missouri is our last witness. So welcome to the 

witnesses. 

The Committee has been quite busy since we last heard from you 

on this issue. We have held many hearings in advance of the farm 

2

bill, both here and across the country, trying to gain as much input 

as we possibly could. We heard from producers, processors, consumers, and researchers to write a farm bill that we felt served 

American agriculture well, now and also into the future. And it is 

that next generation of agriculture, and beyond that, we are looking at with today’s hearing. A lot of us on this Committee have 

seen with our own eyes how agriculture has changed in recent 

times and it is changing today. American farmers and ranchers are 

more productive today than ever before. They are meeting the 

needs of a growing global population with changing food preferences. They are serving newer and fast-growing markets with 

organics, local foods, value-added products, and increasingly farmers are eager to meet our nation’s growing fuel challenges. 

Taking those factors into account, we will hear today about structural changes that are taking place in the farm economy and examining what this Congress might be able to expect in the future. We 

are especially interested in the distinction between long-term 

changes that we would expect to hold in the future and short-term 

changes that are subject to variability. 

In today’s hearing, we will examine the indicators of economic 

performance for the U.S. agriculture sector; the outlook for prices 

of major crops and livestock and their products; the farm sector’s 

financial health including farm and ranch incomes, debt-to-asset 

ratios and input costs; broad macroeconomic factors influencing 

commodity markets; and the structural factors that determine 

American agriculture’s efficiency, returns, and competitiveness in 

the world market. So I appreciate each of you being with us here 

today and sharing your thoughts with the Committee on the economic factors that influence this farm policy, and I look forward to 

your testimony. 

The Chair would request that other Members submit their opening statements for the record so the witnesses can begin their testimony with one exception, and that is my good friend, the Ranking 

Member Mr. Goodlatte. We now recognize him for an opening 

statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA

Thanks to everyone for being here today. I welcome all of you to today’s hearing 

on the impact of structural changes in agriculture. I want to welcome today’s witnesses. Dr. Keith Collins, the Chief Economist at USDA, has testified before this 

Committee numerous times, and also on this very same topic, along with Dr. 

Gruenspecht with the Department of Energy, who is also on the first panel. 

This Committee has been quite busy since we last heard from you on this issue. 

We held many hearings in advance of the farm bill, both here and across the country, trying to gather as much input as we possibly could from producers, processors, 

consumers, and researchers, to write a bipartisan farm bill that would serve American agriculture well now and into the future. 

And it is that next generation of agriculture—and beyond—that we are looking 

at with today’s hearing. A lot of us on this Committee have seen with our own eyes 

how agriculture has changed in recent times and how it is changing today. American farmers and ranchers are more productive today than ever before. They are 

meeting the needs of a growing global population with changing food preferences. 

They are serving newer and fast-growing markets with organics, local foods, and 

value-added products. And increasingly, farmers are eager to meet our nation’s 

growing fuel challenges. 

3

Taking those factors into account, we will hear today about structural changes 

that are taking place in the farm economy and examining what this Congress might 

be able to expect in the future. We are especially interested in the distinction between long-term changes that we would expect to hold in the future and short-term 

changes that are subject to variability. In today’s hearing, we will examine:

• The indicators of economic performance for the U.S. agricultural sector;

• The outlook for prices of major crops and livestock and their products;

• Farm sector financial health, including farm and ranch incomes, debt-to-asset 

ratios, and input costs;

• Broad macroeconomic factors influencing commodity markets; and

• The structural factors that determine American agriculture’s efficiency, returns, 

and competitiveness in world markets.

I appreciate each you for being here today and to share your thoughts with this 

Committee on the economic factors that influence farm policy. I look forward to your 

testimony.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing to discuss changes that are taking place in the agricultural 

economy and their impact. Over the past couple of years we have 

discussed new opportunities in rural America. Much of that discussion has been about energy and the growth of renewable fuels. We 

have made significant progress in developing a robust industry 

using agricultural crops, as well as animal waste, to produce ethanol and biodiesel. In 2006 alone, the renewable fuels industry 

added more than 1.05 billion gallons of new ethanol to the marketplace. It is projected that without any new technological breakthroughs the industry already has the potential to produce more 

than 11 billion gallons within the next decade. The current tax 

credits and renewable fuel standard along with the phase out of 

MTBE, have helped fuel investment in new ethanol and biodiesel 

plants and created more markets for agriculture products. It is obvious that current policies have successfully established a thriving 

renewable fuels market, but to what extent to do we continue these 

new policies and what effect have they had on all sectors of agriculture. 

Last year, 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol 

production, and that amount is expected to rise significantly over 

the next few years. With feed stocks currently tasked, to me our 

renewable fuels initiatives, the livestock sector, which relies on 

those same feed stocks, is facing a significant increase in their 

input costs. Is there a balance between having a reliable and affordable supply of feed for our livestock industry and developing a 

reduced reliance on foreign energy sources, stabilizing energy 

prices, and creating new markets for agricultural products without 

a risk of increased input costs for livestock producers? 

Even though energy has received much attention, it should not 

be our only focus. The testimony we will hear from Dr. Keith Collins, Chief Economist at the USDA, mentions a number of factors 

that are driving some of the changes we have seen in the agriculture sector and deserve the attention of this Committee. Corn 

prices were driven high early in the year due to a strong growth 

in ethanol demand, but now prices for both corn and ethanol have 

moderated, putting pressure on ethanol production facilities. NoneVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Jun 03, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-31\50024.TXT SOLEM PsN: REBEKA
4

theless, corn prices are still relatively high by historical standards 

and continue to place pressure on livestock producers who need 

corn for their rations. Simultaneously, wheat production has fallen 

globally due to drought and production problems in Australia, Canada, Eastern Europe, and the Black Sea region. This is good news 

for U.S. producers who have experienced the highest wheat prices 

ever. The only bad news for wheat farmers is that they don’t have 

more wheat to sell. That will change as farmers respond to this demand for wheat by expanding production. Soybean producers will 

also expand production to meet this growing demand. 

In the midst of these changes in supply and demand for agricultural crops has been the activity in financial markets. The U.S. dollar has depreciated in value, which will help increase our agricultural exports, but will make imported input for farmers and ranchers—such as crude oil, fuel, and fertilizer—more expensive. That 

said, it is great news to have strong demand and high prices for 

our nation’s agricultural production, and much of this has been 

driven by strong domestic and export demand, the declining dollar, 

and production problems in some parts of the world. I have no 

doubt that farmers will respond to the price signals given by the 

market and will plan their operations accordingly. Their decisions 

will continue to influence this dynamic cycle. 

I appreciate the witnesses bringing to the attention of the Committee all of the domestic and international events that will impact 

our domestic agricultural economy. I hope you can help us understand the impact these events will have on farmers, ranchers, livestock producers, and consumers. It is critical that the Committee 

understand the big picture so that we can all put in place the policies that allow all of our constituents to compete in an ever-changing global marketplace. Your testimony today will help us in this 

regard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM VIRGINIA

I appreciate the Chairman calling this hearing to discuss changes that are taking 

place in the agricultural economy and their impact. Over the past couple of years 

when we have discussed new opportunities in rural America, much of that discussion has been about energy and the growth of renewable fuels. 

We have made significant progress in developing a robust industry using agricultural crops, as well as animal waste, to produce ethanol and biodiesel. In 2006 

alone, the renewable fuels industry added more than 1.05 billion gallons of new ethanol to the marketplace. It is projected that, without any new technological breakthroughs, the industry already has the potential to produce more than 11 billion gallons within the next decade. 

The current Tax Credits and Renewable Fuels Standard, along with the phase out 

of MTBE, have helped fuel investment in new ethanol and biodiesel plants and created more markets for agriculture products. It is obvious that current policies have 

successfully established a thriving renewable fuels market. But to what extent do 

we continue these new policies and what effect have they had on all of sectors of 

agriculture? 

Last year twenty percent of the U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol production 

and that amount is expected to rise significantly over the next few years. With feedstocks currently tasked to meet our renewable fuel initiatives, the livestock sector, 

which relies on those same feedstocks, is facing a significant increase in their input 

costs. Is there a balance between having a reliable and affordable supply of feed for 

our livestock industry and developing a reduced reliance on foreign energy sources, 

stabilizing energy prices, and creating new markets for agricultural products without a risk of increased input costs for livestock producers? 

5

Even though energy has received much attention, it should not be our only focus. 

The testimony we will hear from Dr. Keith Collins, Chief Economist at USDA, mentions a number of factors that are driving some of the changes we’ve seen in the 

agriculture sector and deserve the attention of this Committee. 

Corn prices were driven high early in the year due to strong growth in ethanol 

demand, but now prices for both corn and ethanol have moderated, putting pressure 

on ethanol production facilities. Nonetheless, corn prices are still relatively high by 

historical standards and continue to place pressure on livestock producers who need 

corn for their rations. Simultaneously, wheat production has fallen globally due to 

drought and production problems in Australia, Canada, Eastern Europe and the 

Black Sea region. 

This is good news for U.S. producers who have experienced the highest wheat 

prices ever. The only bad news for wheat farmers is that they don’t have more 

wheat to sell. That will change as farmers respond to this demand for wheat by expanding production. Soybean producers will also expand production to meet this 

growing demand. 

In the midst of these changes in supply and demand for agricultural crops has 

been the activity in financial markets. The U.S. dollar has depreciated in value 

which will help increase our agricultural exports but will make imported inputs for 

farmers and ranchers—such as crude oil, fuel and fertilizer—more expensive. 

That said, it is great news to have strong demand and high prices for our nation’s 

agricultural production and much of this has been driven by strong domestic and 

export demand, a declining dollar and production problems in some parts of the 

world. I have not doubt that farmers will respond to the price signals given by the 

market and will plan their operations accordingly. Their decisions will continue to 

influence this dynamic cycle. 

I appreciate the witnesses bringing to the attention of the Committee all of the 

domestic and international events that will impact our domestic agricultural economy. I hope you can help us understand the impact these events will have on farmers, ranchers, livestock producers and consumers. It is critical that this Committee 

understand the big picture so that we can put in place the policies that allow all 

of our constituents to compete in an ever-changing global marketplace. Your testimony today will help us in this regard.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I would request that 

Members would submit their statements for the record. 

[The prepared statements of Messers. Kagen, Graves, and Smith 

follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE KAGEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM WISCONSIN

Thank you Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for calling this 

important hearing to review the infrastructure of today’s agricultural economy. I am 

eager to hear what our witnesses have to say and welcome the opportunity to continue our dialogue. 

The House Committee on Agriculture, as well as anyone with a vested interest 

in agriculture, has been very busy this past year. With the reauthorization of the 

farm bill, or as I like to call it—the Food and Nutrition bill—the Committee, USDA, 

farmers, producers and consumers have all been actively participating in finding 

ways agriculture policy can best support a healthy economy and environment. 

This discussion has largely centered around factors that are top news items on 

the nightly news. America is excitedly trying to find an alternative to energy processing as usual, to a portfolio of renewable fuels, of alternative energy and of efficient processes of production. In very obvious ways this has a large impact on the 

economy of today’s agriculture. We cannot change the price of gasoline without expecting it to change the way farmers buy gas and diesel and fill up their tractors. 

We cannot choose one source for an alternative type of fuel and drastically increase 

the value of that crop over others and think that farmers will not choose to plant 

that ‘‘cash crop.’’ We cannot turn our heads when we make it easier to buy a cheap, 

unhealthy food over a more expensive fresh fruit or vegetable, and then wonder why 

obesity rates are soaring. It is simply cause and effect. The things we do in this 

Committee affect the food, fiber, energy, environment and economy across the nation. 

I urge you to share with us your numbers and your detailed findings so that we 

may internalize this information and use it in the best interest of northeast Wisconsin and for America. We must remember that our influence has far-reaching efVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Jun 03, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-31\50024.TXT SOLEM PsN: REBEKA
6

fects, but that we have the ability to strengthen and support our agricultural economy by assessing what has been done in the past and how that might better our 

choices for the future. 

Thank you, again, Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for holding 

today’s hearing. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SAM GRAVES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

MISSOURI

Thank you, Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for holding this 

hearing. 

And I want to recognize Dr. Pat Westhoff from the Food and Agricultural Policy 

Research Institute at the University of Missouri in Columbia. Pat will be testifying 

on the next panel. As some of you may know I am a graduate of the Agriculture 

School at Mizzou. FAPRI does a great job and has provided me and this Committee 

with a lot of important data over the years, and I think it is important that we 

make sure to support FAPRI and similar institutes so they can continue to provide 

us with this valuable information. 

I have always been an advocate for farmers having choices. Judging by the positive letters of support that the National Corn Growers Association sent to Secretary 

Chuck Conner and the leadership of this Committee, it was great news for corn 

farmers to learn that the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation recently approved the 

biotech yield endorsement pilot crop insurance product. 

As I understand it, this product is predicated on the simple notion that farmers 

using triple stack corn with traits proven effective at controlling pests and weeds 

have been objectively shown to have quantifiably less yield loss risk, and so the crop 

insurance premiums they pay can be lowered. 

This makes real sense to me and I applaud USDA’s innovative approach to encourage these kinds of best farmer practices. I would be particularly interested to 

learn from Dr. Collins a few things about this program:

• How does this approval advance the goal of increasing participation in the crop 

insurance program and improving the existing safety net for our farmers?

• Will this program be widely available both to growers in the pilot states and 

to approved insurance providers that serve these farmers?

• Is there anything about this pilot that otherwise interferes with other priorities 

of the crop insurance program?

• What distinguishes this crop insurance product from others introduced in the 

past?

Thank you again to the Chairman and Ranking Member. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ADRIAN SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM NEBRASKA

Good morning and thank you, Chairman. I am so pleased we are holding this 

hearing today. 

This hearing will give us the opportunity to explore the impacts and economics 

of recent and current structural changes in agriculture. Agriculture in the United 

States is in exciting times. We face both great challenges and great opportunities. 

My principal goals are to create policies which will strengthen American agriculture and provide long-term stability for our nation’s producers, and to promote 

economic policies which will foster sustained growth in rural communities. An important component of that policy should be to strengthen foreign demand for our 

products, by aggressively pursuing new markets and breaking down barriers to 

trade. 

And as we look to the future, we must remain mindful of the barriers to new 

farmers. I want to keep sharp and enthusiastic young people involved in agriculture 

and in Nebraska’s Third Congressional District. Beginning farmers often lack the 

access to land and financing tools to succeed. As we face an aging farming population, we must ensure young people are ready and able to prosper in our agricultural economy. 

I want to thank our witnesses for coming here today to provide testimony for the 

Committee, and I look forward to hearing from you. 

I appreciate the Committee for holding this hearing as an important step to meeting our goals. 

7

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I thank you 

for your time.

The CHAIRMAN. Again, we welcome the panel to the witness 

table. Dr. Collins, if you are ready we invite you to begin. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH COLLINS, PH.D., CHIEF ECONOMIST, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Dr. COLLINS. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Mr. 

Goodlatte, Members of the Committee, thanks for the opportunity 

to be here today to talk about recent changes in the farm economy. 

As you know, for several years the U.S. farm economy has been 

setting records for exports, for prices, for production, for total use, 

for income, and for net worth. I would like to highlight in a couple 

of minutes here a few of the developments behind these changes 

and the implications for sustaining growth. 

The global economy is an important factor sustaining the U.S. 

farm sector. For example, in developing economies, which account 

for half of our agricultural exports, real GDP is expected to rise a 

strong seven percent this year. The U.S. dollar, which has depreciated 25 percent since 2002 against major foreign currencies, has 

also helped raise U.S. exports to an all-time high. With strong demand, and constrained supplies, farm cash receipts are expected to 

be a record high this year pushing net cash farm income to the 

third record high in the past 4 years. 

Beneath these broad indicators there are new trends that are 

both consoling and, as well, disconcerting. One concern, as was just 

mentioned by Mr. Goodlatte, is the adequacy of wheat supplies to 

meet global food demand. Production problems in a number of 

countries, particularly Australia 2 years in a row, are reducing 

global wheat stocks relative to use this year to the lowest level we 

have ever recorded. But strong prices and some land coming out of 

the Conservation Reserve Program could raise U.S. wheat-planted 

area by five to seven percent in 2008. This would significantly raise 

next year’s carry-over stocks of wheat. 

It was about a year ago that corn prices began soaring, creating 

anxiety about corn shortages. But, producers shifted from soybeans 

and cotton to corn and are now harvesting a record crop which is 

expected to raise corn stocks by 50 percent this year. Wheat and 

soybean prices are now much stronger relative to corn than they 

were a year ago, and with fertilizer prices at very high levels, we 

expect many more soybean acres and fewer corn and cotton acres 

in 2008. These shifts will help replenish the tight grain supplies 

and reduce the more abundant soybean and cotton supplies. Looking ahead to next year, supply-demand balance for major crops will 

improve but it will remain tight, and farm prices will be near or 

above record levels. 

This expectation of sustained-type markets continues to hinge on 

a growing biofuel production. U.S. ethanol capacity is now estimated at 6.9 billion gallons. That is 2 billion more than a year ago, 

and it is likely to rise to over 13 billion gallons by late 2009. As 

production has grown, we have seen ethanol prices drop like a rock. 

Plant margins are now thin, but returns appear sufficient to bring 

most plants that are under construction online when completed. 

Thus, the 3.2 billion bushels of corn we expect to use for ethanol 

8

this year could rise by another billion or more for the 2008/09 year. 

And if corn acres go down, as I mentioned corn stocks would likely 

drop and corn prices rise again in 2008/09. 

Regarding livestock, U.S. production and exports are setting 

records. Pork and broiler production are on the rise despite higher 

grain prices, while flat beef supplies will help maintain livestock 

prices near this year’s strong levels. The all-milk price will be a 

record high this year reflecting strong demand, and the high-milk 

feed price ratio is expected to raise milk production in 2008, but 

prices should remain well above average. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, U.S. agriculture is in dynamic 

change driven by bright prospects for global food and fuel demand. 

Acreage changes and normal weather should improve supply-demand balance in grain markets. With biofuel demands still expected to grow, although slower in the future, a big challenge will 

be to produce on more acres, produce more per acre, protect the environment, deal with feed availability and costs, and ensure sufficient farm labor. Prospects are also highly subject to technology 

changes, such as new biotech varieties of seed and improved biofuel 

production methods, and possible key legislative changes in biofuel, 

farm, or trade policy. Fortunately, the U.S. farm economy is profitable while capitalized, skilled, and flexible—all qualities that 

should help it deal with the weather and policy disruptions in cyclical down-turns that are likely to be inevitable. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Collins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH COLLINS, PH.D., CHIEF ECONOMIST, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to discuss 

recent developments in and prospects for change in the farm economy. As we conclude 2007, the farm economy has witnessed unprecedented increases in income and 

asset values the past few years. With strong food and fuel demand, prospects overall 

look bright, but they are also generating a range of issues related to the consequences and sustainability of the forces driving the current prosperity. Several 

key factors are shaping the current situation, including global economic growth; the 

foreign exchange value of the dollar; new production and processing technologies; 

global weather patterns; rising input costs for energy, labor, and land; and new 

product markets, particularly bioenergy. I will describe these developments in output and input markets and the challenges and opportunities they present for U.S. 

agriculture. 

Macroeconomic and Trade Developments 

Global macroeconomy supporting U.S. farm markets. Strong global economic growth and population increases have helped drive higher food consumption 

over the past several years. World Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, continues to 

look strong, despite a slowing U.S. economy. Foreign economies grew by an estimated 4.1 percent in 2006, the third highest rate in the last 20 years and substantially stronger than the weak growth of less than two percent experienced earlier 

in this decade. This year, we estimate foreign economic growth to be 4.0 percent, 

with a slight decline to 3.8 percent in 2008. A little slower growth in the EU and 

developing countries is expected next year, but developing country growth is still 

likely to be a strong 6.5 to 7.0 percent, compared with 7.0 percent expected this 

year. 

The U.S. economy grew nearly 3.0 percent in 2006, but is expected to decline this 

year and remain slow through a good part of 2008. Macroeconomic forecasts are 

variable, as some forecasts call for slow growth based on continued housing market 

fallout, slower employment growth, and more modest consumer spending. Advocates 

of stronger growth cite the stimulative effects of the recent interest rate reduction 

9

of the Federal Reserve and strong export growth, as well as low rates of unemployment and inflation. 

For U.S. agriculture, despite lower domestic economic growth, strong foreign economic growth and the reduced value of the dollar are likely to support global commodity demand, keeping pressure on global supplies and prices particularly for 

meats, grains, dairy products, fruits and vegetables and processed products. 

U.S. agricultural exports setting records. With strong foreign economic 

growth particularly in developing countries, crop production shortfalls around the 

world, and sufficiently available U.S. supplies, U.S. agricultural exports are likely 

to continue to expand this year. USDA’s forecast for U.S. agricultural exports for 

FY 2008 is a record high $83.5 billion, up from $79 billion in FY 2007. Imports, too, 

continue to grow and are expected to be $75 billion this fiscal year compared with 

$70.5 billion a last year. Nearly half of imports are horticultural products and another fifth are sugar and tropical products such as cocoa, coffee and rubber. This 

year, the agricultural trade balance is forecast to be +$8.5 billion, the same as last 

year. 

Wheat exports are forecast to be up in volume and value due to less foreign competition. Corn exports are forecast up in volume and value due to a record-large corn 

crop and less competition, while higher cotton export volume and value reflects 

large, available U.S. cotton stocks and strong Chinese demand. Livestock exports 

are forecast to rise as the volume and value of beef exports increases. Horticultural 

exports are being helped by the decline in the value of the dollar. Canada and Mexico continue to be our number one and two markets, accounting for 32 percent of 

expected exports this year. Japan is number three with an expected 12 percent 

share, while for the first time, China has moved up to number four, with an expected 10 percent share, slightly above the European Union our number five export 

market. 

U.S. Dollar depreciation spurs exports and farm prices. The U.S. dollar has 

depreciated almost 25 percent on average against major foreign currencies, since 

2002. This year alone, the dollar has dropped 15 percent against the Brazilian real, 

13 percent against the Canadian loonie, seven percent against the euro, four percent 

against the Chinese yuan, and 12 percent against the Australian dollar. This depreciation has helped boost U.S. exports to an all-time high, and kept prices higher 

than they would otherwise be. 

An excellent illustration of the relationship between agricultural prices and exchange rates occurred during the week of September 17, when the Fed cut its Federal Funds rate target by 50 basis points. The result was a decline in the value of 

the dollar relative to other currencies, by about two percent on average. Very little 

other news that week directly affected agricultural commodity markets—no unexpected USDA reports, no abrupt weather changes, no policy changes, etc. Nonetheless, wheat cash prices rose by 1 percent, corn by 3.5 percent, soybeans by six percent, and cotton by 5.5 percent. 

Despite record exports, the positive impact of the dollar’s long-term depreciation 

is limited by a number of factors. Trade restrictions in many countries and imperfect market conditions in developing countries limit the ability of a dollar decline 

to translate into lower prices for U.S. agricultural products. In addition, the weak 

market infrastructure and lack of market information that often characterizes the 

broader food and fiber systems in developing and transition economies limits the 

price signals that would translate into higher demand for imported goods. 

U.S. farm income now consistently strong. Cash receipts for producers are 

forecast at a record $276 billion in 2007, up $37 billion from 2006 and $60 billion 

from 2003. Cash production expenses are forecast to be a record $222 billion in 

2007, up $17 billion from 2006 and $45 billion from 2003. With receipts rising faster 

than expenses, net cash farm income is forecast at $86 billion this year, up sharply 

from last year and 4 years ago. The three highest farm income years ever have occurred during the past 4 years. While some states on the East Coast, in the Southeast, and in the Mountain region faced drought this year, production losses were 

not enough to significantly affect national income measures. 

For most field crops, 2007 cash receipts are forecast to be a record high. For example, cash receipts for wheat, corn, soybeans, and rice are all expected to rise to 

all-time highs. In contrast, cash receipts for cotton and fruits and nuts are expected 

to decline this year due to large cotton supplies and weather problems for tree fruits 

like peaches, pears and oranges. Cash receipts from all livestock species are forecast 

to exceed $100 billion for the fifth straight year and exceed the previous record high 

set in 2005 by $14 billion. Receipts for cattle, dairy, and poultry are all expected 

to set record highs. Government payments to producers in 2007 are expected to total 

nearly $14 billion, down only $2 billion from 2006. In 2007, producers are forecast 

to receive $5.3 billion in direct payments, $3.1 billion in conservation payments, $2 

10

billion in disaster payments, and $1 billion in tobacco transition program payments. 

In addition, producers are forecast to receive $2.2 billion in counter-cyclical payments and marketing loan assistance benefits, with upland cotton accounting for 

nearly all of these payments. The $45 billion increase in cash production expenses since 2003 is mainly due to an $13 billion increase in farm origin inputs (livestock, feed), $12 billion more in 

energy-based input costs (fuel, fertilizer, electricity, and pesticides), $4 billion more 

in labor expenses, and $10 billion more in other operating expenses. 

The balance sheet of U.S. agriculture is also expected to strengthen again in 2007. 

Consistent with recent trends, increases in debt are forecast to be offset by larger 

increases in farm asset values, with farm real estate values expected to rise 14 percent in 2007. As a result, the farm sector’s debt-to-asset ratio should drop further 

to new a historic low level of 10.7 percent in 2007. Annual increases in farm equity 

continue to greatly exceed annual net cash farm income, with the increase in equity 

in 2007 expected to be $236 billion compared with $86 billion in net cash farm income. 

Developments in Farm Output Markets 

Major crops: global supplies tight. For the 2007/08 marketing year, global wheat 

demand is again forecast to exceed global production causing global wheat stocks 

as a percent of use to fall to the lowest level on record. Record world production 

of coarse grains in 2007/08 is expected to maintain global coarse grain stocks at 

near last year’s level, while declining world oilseed and cotton production and increasing demand are forecast to lead to lower global stocks of both commodities. In 

the United States, supplies of feed grains are expected to increase in 2007/08 leading to a rebound in carryover. In contrast, U.S. carryover of wheat, soybeans, rice 

and cotton could all decline in 2007/08 as total use is forecast to exceed production. 

For the United States, good grain, oilseed and cotton harvests and strong demand 

have supported above average farm income in recent years. Market fundamentals 

continue to look strong as growth in demand, particularly for producing biofuels, has 

led to much higher prices for corn. Reduced plantings of soybeans and cotton in response to strong grain prices along with increasing demand have also pushed soybean and cotton prices higher while weather problems in several foreign countries 

have caused wheat prices to surge. 

Corn supplies up in 2007/08. Producers responded to higher prices and returns 

for corn in late 2006 increasing corn planted acreage by 15.3 million acres in 2007 

to 93.6 million acres, the largest area planted to corn in over 60 years. Much of this 

increase in corn plantings came from soybeans. Area for cotton, hay, and other crops 

also declined to meet the demand for more corn production. With higher acreage 

and improved yields, corn production is forecast at a record 13.3 billion bushels in 

2007/08, 26 percent more than last year. Total corn use is forecast to reach a record 

12.6 billion bushels in 2007/08, reflecting the expanding ethanol industry, continued 

strong global demand for corn and increasing U.S. corn supplies. Despite greater 

total use, stocks of corn at the end of 2007/08 marketing year are forecast to increase by over 50 percent to 2.0 billion bushels. The farm price of corn is forecast 

to average $3.20 per bushel during 2007/08, compared with $3.04 per bushel in 

2006/07 and the record high of $3.24 in 1995/96. 

Corn acreage likely down in 2008/09. Corn planted area for 2008 is expected 

to fall as prices and returns for competing crops, such as wheat and soybeans, have 

improved relative to corn in recent months. December 2008 futures prices for corn 

are currently more than 30¢ per bushel below the peak of December 2007 futures 

last February. Current cash prices are more than $1 per bushel below their levels 

in late February. Although world demand remains strong for feed grains, record 

U.S. corn supplies are expected to put downward pressure on corn prices over the 

coming months. Given the current outlook for the 2008 crop corn and competing 

crop prices, corn planted area next spring could decline six to eight percent from 

2007 to around 87 million acres. Even with the potential for a six to eight percent 

reduction in planted area next spring, 2008 corn area would still be eight to 12 percent above the 1997/06 average. Lower production combined with continued growth 

in the corn-based ethanol industry could reduce carryover stocks adding additional 

support to prices in 2008/09. 

More ethanol growth expected, but plant margins now much thinner. U.S. 

ethanol production capacity is now estimated at 6.9 billion gallons, up 2 billion gallons from a year ago. Production capacity is expected to increase sharply over the 

coming 18–24 months, if the 76 plants currently under construction are completed. 

The new construction would add 6.7 billion gallons of additional ethanol production 

capacity, bringing total capacity to 13.6 billion gallons potentially as early as late 

2009. 

11

Ethanol prices have weakened since mid-summer as additional plants have come 

on line adding to ethanol supplies and contributing to some infrastructure bottlenecks. For example, prices at ethanol plants in Iowa and Nebraska have fallen nearly 50¢ per gallon since late July 2007. During the same period, futures prices on 

the nearby contract have lost about 40¢ per gallon. Historically, ethanol prices have 

been at a premium to gasoline. Until recently, ethanol premiums averaged 50¢ per 

gallon compared with unleaded gasoline. This situation has suddenly reversed, with 

wholesale ethanol prices in Nebraska, for example, 39¢ per gallon below the wholesale price for gasoline during September. The outlook for ethanol prices appears 

even less favorable in the futures market, with the nearby Chicago Board of Trade 

contract for ethanol trading 50¢ per gallon below the nearby New York Mercantile 

Exchange contract for reformulated gasoline blendstock. This shift in the ethanol/

gasoline price relationship has sharply reduced returns for ethanol producers. With 

current retail gasoline prices at $2.80 per gallon, wholesale prices without Federal 

and state excise taxes would be about $2.20 per gallon. Nearby futures for ethanol 

are trading at $1.57 per gallon, 71 percent of the $2.20-per-gallon estimated wholesale gasoline price and about equal to ethanol’s energy value relative to gasoline. 

The recent declines in ethanol prices have sharply reduced profitability for ethanol producers. This year’s record corn production is bringing some relief to declining ethanol producer margins. However, despite the expected record corn harvest, 

corn prices remain strong supported by strong demand, record-high wheat prices, 

and strong soybean prices. We estimate that a 40 million gallon Midwest ethanol 

plant, receiving the late September price of $1.52 per gallon for ethanol and paying 

$3.00 per bushel of corn, was earning 17¢ per gallon above variable costs of production and 3¢ below total variable plus capital costs of production. In the current price 

environment, the 51¢-per-gallon ethanol tax credit is important in sustaining ethanol demand and prices at levels that are forestalling some plant shut-downs. 

Soybean supplies down in 2007/08. High corn prices relative to soybeans 

caused soybean planted area to drop by 16 percent to 63.7 million acres this year. 

Lower planted area, combined with slightly lower yields, is forecast to lower soybean 

production to 2.6 billion bushels, down 19 percent from last year’s record production. 

Total soybean supplies in 2007/08 are projected to decline about 13 percent from last 

year record, as high carry-in stocks partially offset the decline in this year’s production. With lower exportable supplies, U.S. soybean exports are expected to drop 

about 13 percent from last year’s record 1.1 billion bushels. Despite lower total use, 

carryover levels are forecast to decline by over 60 percent. The farm price of soybeans is forecast to average a record $8.35 per bushel for the 2007/08 marketing 

year, compared with $6.43 last year and the previous record high of $7.83 in 1983/

84. 

Soybean area forecast to rebound in 2008/09. U.S. soybean planted area is 

forecast to rebound to 70 million acres in 2008, regaining more than half of the 11 

million acres lost primarily to corn in 2007. The soybean to corn price ratio, which 

declined to below 2 in the spring of 2007, strongly favored corn planting. In contrast, current March 2008 futures imply a soybean to corn price ratio of 2.7, favoring soybeans over corn. Rotation practices also favor a switch back to soybeans. 

Returns to Biodiesel shrink. U.S. biodiesel production continues to rise, setting 

new production records each month. Twenty percent of 2007/08 soybean oil production is expected to be used to produce about 580 million gallons of biodiesel. This 

compares with only eight percent of soybean oil production being used for biodiesel 

in 2005/06 when about 200 million gallons were produced. Similar to ethanol, biodiesel profit margins are eroding due to sharply rising soybean oil prices. Soybean 

oil is the feedstock for 85–90 percent of domestically produced biodiesel. The price 

of soybean oil has increased over 40 percent over the past year causing biodiesel 

returns above soybean oil costs plus other variable costs to decline from around 80¢ 

per gallon to near zero. Vegetable oil prices are expected to remain strong due to 

strong demand, particularly for biodiesel in the EU, which is likely to keep biodiesel 

production capacity low and slow expansion. 

Although EU demand for vegetable oils will continue to pressure the profitability 

of U.S. biodiesel production, the EU also presents an export opportunity. Due to the 

$1 per gallon tax credit for blending, U.S. produced biodiesel is competitive in the 

EU biodiesel market. Since March 2007, net exports of biodiesel have accounted for 

more than 25 percent of U.S. biodiesel production. As long as U.S. biodiesel remains 

competitive in world markets, U.S. production is likely to grow despite weak margins. 

Wheat prices record high in 2007/08. For 2007/08, wheat acreage, which had 

been trending downward over the past 25 years, increased by over 3 million acres 

to 60.3 million, the highest since 2003. U.S. wheat production is estimated at 2.1 

billion bushels, up from 1.8 billion bushels in 2006. Although U.S. production recovVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Jun 03, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-31\50024.TXT SOLEM PsN: REBEKA
12

ered from last year’s drought-reduced level, the 2007 crop failed to live up to early 

expectations as an early April freeze and heavy harvest time rains reduced production. Production prospects have also fallen sharply in several major wheat producing 

countries. Heavy harvest rains affected wheat production in Northern Europe and 

extreme drought and heat have reduced the 2007 wheat crops in Australia, Canada, 

Eastern Europe and parts of the Black Sea region. Higher expected exports, reflecting the lower production in competitor countries, are expected to push up U.S. 

wheat total use from 2.0 billion bushels in 2006/07 to 2.3 billion bushels in 2007/

08, causing U.S. ending stocks to decline to 307 million bushels, the lowest in nearly 

60 years. Reflecting this tight market, the average farm price of wheat is forecast 

to be a record $6.10 per bushel in 2007/08, compared with $4.26 per bushel for the 

2006/07 crop. 

Wheat area to expand in 2008/09. Producers are expected to respond to record 

high prices by increasing wheat plantings again in 2008. In addition, contracts on 

2.5 million acres enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program expire on September 

30, 2007. A large portion of these expiring CRP acres are located in wheat producing 

States. Given the current outlook for wheat prices next summer and the amount of 

expiring CRP acres, wheat area is expected to increase five to seven percent in 2008, 

to around 64 million acres. Plantings of wheat should also be up in the EU in 2008 

as producers will not be required to fallow the usual 10 percent of cropland. Many 

analysts anticipate that this will add an additional 1–2 million hectares to world 

wheat area in 2008. Prospects for sharply larger world wheat area and production 

in 2008 are already being reflected in futures prices for next summer’s crop. July 

2008 futures for winter wheat are trading at about $2 per bushel below the nearby 

contract price. 

Cotton area and production shrinks in 2007/08 in face of low relative 

prices. In 2007/08, strong grain and improved soybean prices reduced cotton plantings 29 percent to 10.85 million acres, the lowest area planted since 1989. The 

Southeast and Delta regions each cut cotton plantings by more than 30 percent and 

North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma experienced reductions of 40 percent or more. Lower acreage and production are projected to keep total cotton supplies in 2007/08 about unchanged from the previous 

year. With the prospect of stronger exports due to rising world demand, ending 

stocks are projected to decline about 1⁄3 to 6.4 million bales. 

More cotton area declines in store for 2008/09. With lower domestic production and an improved export outlook, cotton futures prices increased to a 3 year high 

this summer. At the same time, world prices have risen as world stocks are declining about nine percent, putting a floor under prices. Given prospects for continued 

improvement in prices and returns, foreign production may increase in 2008/09, especially in Brazil and India. However, rising cotton prices likely will not be sufficient to attract acreage back to cotton production in the United States, given the 

continuation of very favorable returns for soybeans and corn. Thus, cotton planted 

area in the United States could decline as much as eight percent to about 10.0 million acres in 2008. 

Rice market tightens. For 2007/08, rice planted area dropped to 2.75 million 

acres, down from 2.84 million acres the previous year and the lowest rice plantings 

since 1989. Higher net returns for competing crops—soybeans, soft red wheat and 

some corn, restrictions on the planting of long grain varieties Cheniere and 

Clearfield CL131, and low government payments contributed to the reduction in rice 

plantings. Despite the decline in rice area, total rice production is up about two percent from last year to 197 million cwt, reflecting a record yield of 7,215 pounds per 

acre. Total supplies are about unchanged from last year while total use is forecast 

to increase by six percent in 2007/08, primarily reflecting much improved export 

prospects. Strong world rice prices are expected to continue to support U.S. rice 

prices. World 2007/08 ending stocks of rice are projected at 71 million tons, down 

6.2 million tons from last year and the lowest world carryover since 1983/84. The 

farm price of rice is forecast to average $10.50 per cwt in 2007/08, up from $9.74 

per cwt in 2006/07. 

Sugar to open to Mexican market. In 2007/08, U.S. sugar production is estimated at 8.45 million short tons, nearly unchanged from last year’s crop of 8.49 million tons. Sugar ending stocks are forecast to increase about nine percent to 1.9 million tons resulting in a stock-to-use ratio of 18.2 percent, up from 16.7 percent last 

year. Import quotas for sugar have been announced at the minimums established 

under the WTO. On January 1, 2008, the tariff on Mexican exports of to the U.S. 

falls to zero, generating uncertainties in the market and affecting USDA’s ability 

to operate the sugar program at no net cost to taxpayers. The U.S. Sugar Program 

currently depends on the U.S. Government controlling domestic sales and imports 

to support prices above loan forfeiture levels. Free trade in sweeteners between the 

13

United States and Mexico will commence in January 2008, which could prevent the 

United States from imposing domestic marketing allotments, if Mexican imports 

causes total sugar imports to exceed the trigger for imposing domestic marketing 

allotments of 1.532 million tons. Over the next several years, Mexican food and beverage producers will have a strong economic incentive to use corn-based sweeteners, 

rather than more expensive sugar from domestic sugarcane. While Mexico is a large 

untapped market for U.S. corn-based sweetener manufacturers, displacement of 

Mexican sugar could pressure North American sugar market prices as the U.S. and 

Mexico adjust to free trade in sweeteners. 

Specialty crop sales stabilize. Excluding greenhouse/nursery crops and mushrooms, U.S. fruits and vegetables harvested area will total about 11 million acres 

in 2007. Vegetables, potatoes, and pulses account for about 65 percent, and the remainder is citrus and non-citrus fruits and tree nuts. In 2007, specialty crops will 

continue to provide a significant source of cash revenues for U.S. producers. Cash 

receipts for fruits, nuts, vegetables, and nursery/greenhouse products in 2007 are 

forecast at $53 billion, up $1.2 billion or two percent from 2006, while total U.S. 

agriculture will increase $37.1 billion, or 16 percent. Higher cash receipts for vegetables and greenhouse/nursery crops are more than offsetting lower values for fruits 

and tree nuts. While per capita consumption of fruits and vegetables has seen little 

or no growth for several years, limited production of these commodities has raised 

farm and retail prices. In 2007, grower prices through September are up six to 

seven percent from a year earlier and retail prices are up about four percent. 

Livestock & livestock products: U.S. production and exports setting 

records. U.S. red meat and poultry exports are expected to reach a record high in 

2008. Pork exports are forecast to lead the way, reaching record high of 3.1 billion 

pounds carcass weight, or 14 percent of production. After stalling in early 2006, 

poultry sales increased as foreign concerns about AI abated. Broiler exports are forecast to increase to 5.6 billion pounds in 2008, equally the previous record high set 

in 2001. Beef exports are expected to increase with the gradual expansion of exports 

to Japan and Korea. However, Korea’s import restrictions and Japan’s age limits on 

imported beef from the United States continue to limit growth. Although total beef 

exports are expected to increase 29 percent to 1.9 billion pounds in 2007, the level 

of exports will remain below the 2003 pre-bovine spongiform encephalopathy level 

of 2.5 billion pounds. 

Total U.S. production of meat and poultry is forecast to be record-high in calendar 

year 2008, but nearly flat growth in supplies of beef are expected to help maintain 

livestock prices near this year’s levels. For livestock and poultry producers, feed 

prices will be an important component of producer production decisions in the upcoming year. 

Cattle prices record high this year and strong again in 2008. Beef production is currently forecast to increase 0.4 percent in 2008, following a 0.7 percent decline in 2007. Steer prices are expected to average a record-high $92.11 per cwt this 

year and average $91.50 per cwt in 2008, compared with $85.41 per cwt in 2006. 

Poor forage conditions resulted in increased cow slaughter during 2006 and 2007 as 

many producers lacked sufficient forage resources to support their herds. During the 

last several months, relatively larger numbers of heavier cattle have been placed on 

feed. With improved forage supplies in the Plains this year and higher grain prices, 

cattle are remaining on pasture longer and coming into feedlots at heavier weights. 

These heavier feeder cattle will generally be fed for shorter periods, consuming less 

feed. The Cattle inventory report released on July 20, 2007, showed a total July 1, 

2007, cattle-and-calf inventory of 104.8 million head, 400,000 head below the July 

1, 2006, inventory, suggesting that cattle inventory growth has stalled. 

The 2007 U.S. cattle import forecast is 2.2 million head. Adequate precipitation 

in Mexico has allowed ranchers to keep more of their cattle on pasture and has kept 

imports of Mexican cattle below last year’s levels. Imports from Canada through 

July are above the year earlier levels due to higher feed costs in Canada and restructuring of their slaughter industry. The recently announced minimal risk rule 

expanding Canadian cattle eligible for import to the United States is expected to 

increase U.S. cattle imports late in 2007 and 2008. 

Hog slaughter reaches record high. Pork production in 2007 is estimated up 

2.9 percent, marking the 7th year of expansion. During the first week of October, 

weekly hog slaughter was estimated at a record 2.32 million head, and slaughter 

is expected to remain large into early 2008. The estimated weekly average carcass 

weight was 199 pounds, unchanged from the previous week and a year ago. The 

most recent Hogs and Pigs report released on September 28, 2007, suggests continued expansion in pork production in 2008. U.S. inventory of all hogs and pigs on 

September 1, 2007, was 64.6 million head, up three percent from September 1, 2006. 

The increase in 2008 production primarily will reflect increased slaughter as weight 

14

gains will be limited as producers respond to higher feed prices. Hog prices are expected to reflect the increased production, declining slightly from 2007’s $47.73 per 

cwt to $46 per cwt in 2008. 

Broiler production to rebound in 2008. Broiler producers have endured several periods of low returns due to relatively low broiler prices in 2005 and 2006 and 

higher feed costs. Consequently, producers reduced chicks placed and broiler production is expected to fall by 0.2 percent in 2007. With tighter broiler meat supplies, 

whole bird prices are estimated to average a record-high 76.6¢ per pound in 2007, 

up from 64.4¢ per pound in 2006. Higher broiler prices and improved returns are 

expected to lead to 2.4 percent increase in broiler production in 2008. In 2008, broilers prices are forecast to average 75¢ per pound. 

Milk prices record high. Milk production is estimated to increase by 2.0 percent 

in 2007, reflecting a modest expansion in the dairy cow herd and below average 

growth in milk production per cow. High feed costs and tight supplies of high quality forage especially during the first half of 2007 reduced the growth in milk production per cow. Demand for dairy products, both domestically and for export, has been 

very strong reflecting very limited supplies from competing exporters, especially 

Australia and the EU. Prices of cheese, butter, nonfat dry milk, and whey are all 

up sharply in 2007 boosting the all-milk price to a record $19.00 per cwt. With product prices above support, no Commodity Credit Corporation net removals of dairy 

products are forecast. 

In 2008, milk production is forecast to increase by 2.6 percent as high milk feed 

price ratios are expected to encourage producers to continue to expand production. 

Domestic and export demand are forecast to remain strong in 2008 with drought 

continuing to adversely affect milk production in Australia. For 2008, the all-milk 

price is forecast to average $18.15 per cwt, the second highest on record. 

Food prices rising. In 2007, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all food is forecast to increase 3.5 to 4.5 percent. The annul CPI for all food increased an average 

2.6 percent during the past 4 years, with a low of 2.1 percent and a high of 3.4 percent. Higher commodity and energy costs are driving the CPI increase. Future increases will depend on energy price increase and the extent to which agricultural 

market prices stabilize. 

Developments in Farm Input Markets 

Fuel prices and farm expenditures up, but effects cushioned by high farm 

output prices. As crude oil prices have increased from $19 per barrel in 1999 to 

$80 today, farmers and others have been paying increasingly higher fuel prices. The 

annual average fuel price paid by farmers during 2007 is likely to reach a new high 

for the fifth consecutive year. However, this year’s increase is more restrained, with 

the September 2007 gasoline price index up 8.2 percent from a year ago and the 

diesel price index up 6.7 percent. Total expenses for fuels were $6.8 billion in 2003, 

accounting for 3.6 percent of total cash production expenditures. In 2007, fuel expenditures are estimated at $11.6 billion, accounting for 5.6 percent of total cash 

production expenses. Of all types of fuels, expenditures on diesel fuel have increased 

the most. In the aggregate, fuel expenditures are not a major component of farm 

production expenditures, and with strong commodity market demand and prices, 

their increases have not had a significant effect on U.S. farm income. However, energy expenses vary by farm type and farm location and may be more significant in 

specific situations. 

High energy prices cause restructuring of fertilizer marketplace. In 2000/

01, the International Fertilizer Development Center reported that U.S. anhydrous 

ammonia production capacity was 16.5 million tons of nitrogen. By 2006/07, capacity 

had dropped by nearly 40 percent to 9.6 million tons. Prices of natural gas, the 

major component of nitrogen, rose more in the United States than in other key regions causing a shift in both ammonia and urea nitrogen production to overseas 

suppliers. Nitrogen imports now account for more than 50 percent of available U.S. 

supplies, compared with only 21 percent of available supplies in 1996/97. 

Nutrient demand by U.S. and foreign farmers is expected to remain strong over 

the next several years reflecting high global commodity prices and expanding crop 

production. Thus fertilizer prices, and nitrogen in particular, are expected to remain 

at or near record-high levels. The U.S. demand for fertilizer expanded during the 

most recent fertilizer year ending June 30, 2007. This year’s high corn prices and 

93 million planed corn acres led the increase in demand for all three nutrients: nitrogen use is estimated to be six to eight percent higher than the previous year; 

phosphate use, up four percent; and potash, up five percent. For the past 3 years, 

farmers have paid record prices for fertilizer materials. This past spring, during 

April 2007, farmers paid on average $523 per ton for anhydrous ammonia, up only 

15

slightly from $521 per ton in 2006, reflecting a slower rate of increases in energy 

prices. 

Fertilizer prices are likely to remain strong, supported by energy prices and global 

fertilizer demand. India and China are purchasing large volumes of nitrogenous, 

phosphatic, and potassic materials. Brazil is also a strong market for phosphates. 

Although U.S. farmers have increasingly relied on imports, and thus have to pay 

additional handling and transportation costs, supplies should be adequate. Domestic 

production of nitrogen is estimated to be up in 2007, as the fertilizer industry is 

currently realizing very strong margins. For example, it takes 33 million Btus of 

natural gas to produce a ton of ammonia, so with natural gas prices now at $6 per 

million Btus, the natural gas cost is $200 for a ton of ammonia, which is now selling 

to Midwest farmers for about $575 a ton. 

Farm labor supply remains a question for the future. Total costs for hired 

and contract farm labor are estimated at $26.3 billion in 2007, representing about 

12 percent of total farm cash expenses. In July 2007, the peak month for hired farm 

labor, there were 1.2 million hired workers on the Nation’s farms and ranches, a 

one percent increase compared with July 2006. The average wage rate paid by farm 

operators increased to $10.04 per hour, $0.32 per hour higher than July 2006. 

It is difficult to determine the extent to which labor shortages are currently affecting agricultural production. Data show that U.S. production is forecast to increase 

in 2007 for most commodities, including those sectors of the farm economy that rely 

heavily on hired farm labor, such as specialty crops. For example, fresh vegetable 

and melon production is forecast to increase by two percent in 2007, while processed 

vegetable production is forecast to increase by 10 percent over 2006 levels. The U.S. 

pear crop is expected to be four percent larger than last year’s crop and seven percent above the 2005 crop. The 2007 U.S. grape crop is forecast to be nine percent 

larger than a year ago, but 11 percent smaller than the record-large crop in 2005. 

Alternatively, the 2007 U.S. apple crop is forecasted to be seven percent smaller 

than the 2006 crop, the third smallest since the 1990s. 

Farmers are concerned about current and potential labor shortages in the future. 

Data collected through the National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS) conducted 

for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) found that in 2005/06, 53 percent of the 

hired crop labor force lacked authorization to work in the United States. Replacing 

53 percent of the hired agricultural work force with workers with proper documentation would represent a significant adjustment within certain parts of the agricultural sector. Should employment conditions tighten, the H–2A program should provide some relief. 

Under the H–2A program, agricultural employers who anticipate a shortage of domestic workers are allowed to hire nonimmigrant foreign workers to perform agricultural labor or services of a temporary or seasonal nature. Complexity, cost, and 

historical lack of enforcement against individuals without proper documentation employed in agriculture resulted in only limited use of the H–2A program. In FY 2006, 

employers requested 64,000 workers under the program and DOL certified 59,000 

workers. The 59,000 certified workers represent only five percent of the number of 

hired workers in U.S. agriculture. California, the state with the greatest demand 

for farm labor, requested only about 4,000 H–2A workers in FY 2006. For the existing H–2A program to replace the current agricultural work force without proper documentation, the number of workers certified by the program would need to increase 

by a factor of 10. Such an expansion would be a serious challenge for the current 

program. Thus, the Administration is now revising the H–2A program rules to provide farmers with an orderly and timely flow of legal workers while protecting the 

rights of both U.S. workers and foreign temporary workers. 

Farmland costs continue to soar. For 2007, USDA expects the value of farm 

real estate to increase by 14 percent from 2006, increasing to slightly over $1.9 trillion. If farm real estate values meet their forecast, they will have more than doubled 

since 2000. Farm real estate is the major asset on the farm sector balance sheet 

and is expected to account for 86 percent of total U.S. farm assets in 2007. Farm 

real estate is the principal source of collateral for farm loans and enables farm operators to finance the purchase of additional farmland and equipment or to finance 

current operating expenses. While a benefit for existing landowners, high farm real 

estate values make it difficult for individuals who may wish to enter farming and 

increases operating expenses for individuals who rent farmland. For example, the 

U.S. average cropland cash rent increased from $79.50 per acre in 2006 to $85 per 

acre in 2007. 

Conclusion 

As we conclude 2007, the U.S. farm economy is coming off unprecedented increases in income and asset values the past few years. Prospects for expanding globVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Jun 03, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-31\50024.TXT SOLEM PsN: REBEKA
16

al food and fuel demand look bright. More normal weather and farm production increases worldwide should lead to improved supply-demand balance in key markets, 

such as wheat. With biofuel demand expected to continue growing, although at a 

slower pace in the future, a big challenge will be responding to that demand by producing on more acres, producing more per acre, protecting the environment while 

expanding production, and dealing with feed availability and costs for the livestock 

sector. Market prospects are also highly subject to technology changes, such as for 

crop yields or biofuel production, and possible key legislative changes affecting 

biofuel, farm and trade policy. Fortunately, the U.S. farm economy has evolved into 

a profitable, well capitalized, skilled, and flexible sector that should be able to successfully deal with macroeconomic events, changing foreign competition, or reasonable policy changes. 

Mr. Chairman, that completes my statement.

17

Attachments 

Farm Economic Indicators 

Ag. Trade (Bil. $) FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07F FY08F 

Total exports 50.7 52.7 53.3 56.0 62.4 62.5 68.6 79.0 83.5Asia 19.7 20.1 19.4 21.6 24.3 22.5 24.9 28.7 30.6Canada 7.5 8.0 8.6 9.1 9.5 10.4 11.6 13.1 13.6Mexico 6.3 7.3 7.1 7.7 8.4 9.3 10.4 12.6 13.2Total imports 38.9 39.0 41.0 45.7 52.7 57.7 64.0 70.5 75.0

Farm Income (Bil. $) 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007F 2008F

Cash receipts 192.1 200.1 195.0 215.6 237.3 240.7 239.3 276.4 N/A Gov’t payments 23.2 22.4 12.4 16.5 13.0 24.4 15.8 13.6 N/A Gross cash income 229.0 237.4 222.3 247.8 267.4 281.3 272.5 308.0 N/A Cash expenses 171.7 175.2 170.8 177.6 185.2 195.5 204.7 222.1 N/A Net cash income 57.4 62.2 51.5 70.2 82.2 85.8 67.9 85.9 N/A

Commodity Prices 1 Unit 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08F

Wheat $/bu 2.62 2.78 3.56 3.40 3.40 3.42 4.26 5.80–6.40Corn $/bu 1.85 1.97 2.32 2.42 2.06 2.00 3.04 2.90–3.50Soybeans $/bu 4.54 4.38 5.53 7.34 5.74 5.66 6.43 7.85–8.85Rice $/cwt 5.61 4.25 4.49 8.08 7.33 7.65 9.74 10.30–10.70Cotton (Upland) ¢/lb 49.8 29.8 44.5 61.8 41.6 47.7 47.3 2 44.9

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007F 2008F

Hogs $/cwt 45.81 34.92 39.45 52.51 50.05 47.26 47.73 44–48Steers $/cwt 72.71 67.04 84.69 84.75 87.28 85.41 92.11 88–95Broilers ¢/lb 59.1 55.6 62.0 74.1 70.8 64.4 76.6 72–78Milk $/cwt 15.05 12.18 12.55 16.13 15.19 12.97 18.95–19.05 17.70–18.60Gasoline $/gallon 1.47 1.39 1.60 1.89 2.31 2.62 2.80 2.87Diesel $/gallon 1.40 1.32 1.50 1.81 2.41 2.71 2.82 2.96Natural gas (wlhd) $/K cu. ft. 4.01 2.95 4.89 5.50 7.45 6.41 6.34 6.95Electricity $/kwh 8.62 8.45 8.70 8.97 9.45 10.40 10.60 10.90

1 Agricultural commodity price forecasts are from USDA, World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report, October 2007. Energy prices are from Energy Information Administration, Short Term Energy Outlook, October 9, 2007. 2 Average price for August 2007. 

F=forecast. 

18


11031001 11031002
19


11031003 11031004
20


11031005 11031006
21


11031007 11031008
22


11031009 11031010
23

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Collins, for that testimony. Dr. 

Gruenspecht. 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD GRUENSPECHT, PH.D., DEPUTY

ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION

ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Dr. GRUENSPECHT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, Members of the 

Committee I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. 

The Energy Information Administration is the independent statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. We 

do not promote, formulate, or take positions on policy issues, and 

our views should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or the Administration. 

Agriculture is a major energy user. It also plays a very significant current role as an energy supplier, as exemplified by the rapid 

growth in the use of ethanol as an older fuel and will likely play 

an even larger future role. Starting with our outlook through the 

end of 2008, the current world oil market is characterized by rising 

consumption, moderate supply growth outside of the Organization 

of Petroleum Exporting Countries, falling inventories, and rising 

demand for OPEC oil—all of which have contributed to high oil 

prices. While EIA expects some easing in crude oil prices by winter’s end, the expectation of continued consumption growth at recent levels suggest that tight global oil market conditions will likeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Jun 03, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-31\50024.TXT SOLEM PsN: REBEKA

11031011
24

ly persist for 2008. Specifically, we expect monthly average prices 

to remain above $70 per barrel through the end of 2008. 

Turning to distillate fuels, retail diesel prices in 2008 are pro- jected to average nearly $3 per gallon, up about 20¢ from their 

2007 level. This winter, heating oil is expected to be about 40¢ per 

gallon higher than last winter. These projected increases are consistent with higher crude oil prices and projections of lower distillate fuel inventories than last year going into the heating season. 

There have also been some regional supply issues in the Upper 

Midwest. 

Turning to ethanol, EIA projects continued market growth. In 

July 2007, ethanol provided about 41⁄2 percent of 2007 average 

daily gasoline consumption volume, or about three percent of the 

energy consumed by gasoline-fueled vehicles, taking account of the 

difference in BTU per gallon between ethanol and gasoline. Ethanol plants operated at or near their designed capacity through 

mid-July. However, based upon plants currently under construction, ethanol production capacity is expected to increase substantially over the next 15 months. That increase has really already 

begun. Actual ethanol production is also expected to increase but 

at a slower rate than capacity, reaching a projected average level 

of 8.7 billion gallons per year in December 2008. As discussed in 

my written testimony, the projected slowdown in ethanol demand 

growth reflects the existence of several distinct segments in the 

fuel ethanol market, each with a different sensitivity to market 

price and infrastructure limitations. 

Before shifting to a long-term perspective, I should note that any 

projections are necessarily very uncertain since long-term energy 

supply and demand trends are affected by many factors that are 

difficult to predict, such as energy prices, economic growth, advances in technology, changes in weather patterns, and future public policy decisions. The EIA 2007 Annual Energy Outlook reference 

case released last December projects increased consumption of 

biofuels and other non-hydro renewable energy sources between 

now and 2030. The growing use of alternative fuels reflects both 

the higher prices projected for traditional fuels and the support for 

alternative fuels provided in recently enacted Federal legislation. 

Ethanol use in our reference case grows to 11.2 billion gallons in 

2012 and to 14.6 billion gallons in 2030. Domestically grown corn 

is expected to be a primary ethanol source accounting for 13.6 billion gallons of ethanol production in 2030. The reference case that 

I just discussed assumes that current laws and policies continue indefinitely. Other recent EIA analyses suggest that various policy 

proposals, including caps on greenhouse gas emissions, an increased renewable fuel standard, or a renewable portfolio standard 

for electricity sellers, could significantly increase reliance on biomass as an energy source. Agricultural products and residues, as 

well as dedicated energy crops, are key parts of the overall biomass 

supply. 

The two main concerns that appear to motivate many recent energy policy proposals are energy security, reliance on oil imports, 

and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. EIA’s recent policy 

analyses suggest there are both synergies and conflicts between 

these objectives. For example, improvements in vehicle efficiency 

25

and other end-use efficiency would tend to advance both objectives, 

while the adoption of coal-to-liquids conversion without carbon capture and sequestration would reduce our dependence on oil imports 

but would tend to increase greenhouse gas emissions. 

The situation with respect to agriculture and biomass is particularly complex. A policy focused on reducing oil imports would likely 

emphasize the use of biofuels to reduce reliance on imported petroleum. Such a policy would also serve to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. However, if greenhouse gas emissions were the primary 

policy focus biomass could alternatively be used as a substitute for 

coal-fired electricity generation to provide significantly larger emission reductions. While biomass from agriculture and other sources 

has an important role to play in either case, the way in which biomass can best be deployed will depend on how the objectives of reduced reliance on imported oil and emissions reduction are 

prioritized. This concludes my statement. Mr. Chairman, I would 

be happy to answer any questions you or the other Members might 

have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gruenspecht follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HOWARD GRUENSPECHT, PH.D., DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss developments in energy markets and their possible 

implications for agriculture. 

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is the independent statistical and 

analytical agency within the Department of Energy. We do not promote, formulate, 

or take positions on policy issues, but we do produce objective, timely, and relevant 

data, projections, and analyses that are meant to assist policymakers, help markets 

function efficiently, and inform the public. Our views are strictly those of EIA and 

should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or the 

Administration. 

Energy Use in Farming and Farming-Related Sectors 

Agriculture is a major user of energy. For 2006, EIA estimates that energy use 

on farms totaled about 910 trillion British thermal units (Btu) or almost one percent 

of total U.S. energy consumption of 99.5 quadrillion Btu. The components of farm 

energy consumption are as follows: diesel accounts for 51 percent of total use, motor 

gasoline accounts for 16 percent, natural gas accounts for nine percent, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG or propane) accounts for nine percent, electricity accounts for 13 

percent, and other fuels account for two percent. In addition to direct farm use of 

energy, agriculture is indirectly affected by energy requirements in the fertilizer industry, specifically in nitrogenous fertilizers. In 2002, the energy requirements of 

this industry, in terms of thermal content, were about 500 trillion Btu, of which 97.5 

percent (471 billion cubic feet) was natural gas and virtually all of the remainder 

(3.5 billion kilowatthours) was electricity. Domestic nitrogenous fertilizer production, however, fell by 20 percent from 2002 to 2006. Consequently, energy inputs 

are likely to have fallen a similar amount. 

Based on energy use on farms and in closely-related sectors, every dime added 

to the price of gasoline and diesel oil, sustained over a year, costs U.S. agriculture 

$400 million annually. Every dollar added to the price per thousand cubic feet of 

natural gas costs agriculture over $75 million annually in direct expense. Every 

penny increase in the price per kilowatt-hour of purchased electricity costs agriculture about $343 million annually in direct expense. The farm sector would probably also incur increased nitrogenous fertilizer costs as the higher prices incurred 

by the fertilizer industry are passed through to end-users. 

Agriculture as an Energy Supply Source 

Testimony on the interaction between energy markets and agriculture would once 

have focused exclusively on agriculture’s demand for energy. Today, however, the recent increase in the use of ethanol in motor fuels has focused attention to agriVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Jun 03, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-31\50024.TXT SOLEM PsN: REBEKA
26

culture’s current and potential role as an energy supplier. Ethanol use in motor 

fuels has grown from 1.7 billion gallons per year (bgy) in 2001 to an estimated 6.9 

bgy in 2007. This growth has had a substantial impact on corn demand, commodity 

and land prices, and planting decisions. However, notwithstanding its recent 

growth, ethanol still accounts for a relatively small share of overall fuel use by gasoline-powered vehicles, which is projected at about 140 billion gallons in 2007. 

While ethanol from grain is by far the most important current energy supply activity in agriculture, other energy supply opportunities are also receiving increasing 

attention. Production of biodiesel fuel from oilseed crops has grown substantially in 

recent years, supported by Federal incentives. Farm wastes are increasingly being 

recognized as an energy resource, and their development is being promoted by Federal incentives and renewable energy portfolio mandates in many states. Farm operators are also benefiting from the growth of wind power, which is providing extra 

income from leases and royalties to farm operators in areas with attractive wind resources. The forward-looking sections of this testimony, which follow, offer EIA’s perspective on the future for ethanol and other energy supply opportunities in agriculture. 

Short-Term Energy Outlook 

Turning first to the outlook through the end of 2008, I will be relying on EIA’s 

Short-Term Energy Outlook, which is updated each month. The October edition, 

which was released last week, also includes our annual Winter Fuels Outlook. 

Global Oil Markets. The current world oil market is characterized by rising consumption, moderate supply growth in the non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting 

Countries (OPEC), falling inventories, and rising demand for OPEC oil. However, 

the combination of OPEC’s recent announcement of increased supply and lower seasonal crude demand in the United States over the next 2 months points to crude 

oil prices easing slightly over the winter. Although some OPEC members, including 

Angola and Saudi Arabia, are expected to raise production capacity next year, spare 

capacity levels are expected to remain fairly low once demand growth is considered. 

As a result, if consumption growth continues at recent levels, as expected, tight 

global oil market conditions will likely persist through 2008. Continued low surplus 

production capacity, weak petroleum inventories, and strong demand worldwide 

have all contributed to recent high crude oil prices. 

Crude Oil Prices. While crude oil prices are projected to decline from their recent 

peak above $80 per barrel, monthly average prices are expected to remain above $70 

per barrel through the end of 2008. The main reason for the year-over-year increase 

is the tight world oil supply and demand balance. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) 

crude oil prices are projected to average over $73 per barrel in 2008, up from a projected average of under $69 per barrel in 2007. Assuming continued tight global 

supplies, slower U.S. economic growth of 1.9 percent projected for both 2007 and 

2008 (compared to 2.9 percent in 2006) may be a mitigating factor for even higher 

crude prices. 

Diesel Fuel and Heating Oil Prices. Turing to distillate fuels, retail diesel fuel 

prices in 2008 are projected to average $2.96 per gallon, up from a projected $2.82 

per gallon in 2007, while residential heating oil prices are projected to average $2.88 

per gallon during the 2007–2008 winter season compared to $2.48 per gallon last 

winter. The projected increase is consistent with higher crude oil prices and projections of lower distillate fuel inventories than last year going into the heating season. 

As of September 30, the start of the winter fuel season, distillate fuel inventories 

were an estimated 136 million barrels, down 13 million barrels from the previous 

year, but close to the average of the last 5 years. Total distillate inventories at the 

end of March 2008 are expected to be 115 million barrels, down 4.5 million barrels 

from March 2007 but still within the normal range. However, if refiners produce 

more gasoline than expected over the next few months to rebuild gasoline inventories, this could result in lower distillate supplies. 

Natural Gas Production, Inventories, and Prices. Total U.S. marketed natural gas 

production is expected to rise by 1.3 percent in 2007 and by 0.9 percent in 2008. 

Working gas inventories by the beginning of November are projected to reach 3,444 

billion cubic feet, slightly below the all-time high for natural gas storage inventories 

recorded at the end of November 1990. 

The Henry Hub spot price averaged $6.26 per thousand cubic feet (mcf) in September, which marked the fourth consecutive decline in the monthly average spot 

price since May. On an annual basis, the Henry Hub spot price is expected to average about $7.21 per mcf in 2007 and $7.86 per mcf in 2008. 

Propane. Spot propane prices are strongly influenced by both crude oil and natural gas prices. Retail propane prices are projected to average $2.13 per gallon in 

2007 and $2.20 per gallon in 2008. With current inventories well below year-ago levVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Jun 03, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-31\50024.TXT SOLEM PsN: REBEKA
27

els, however, propane markets are likely to remain relatively tight this winter, with 

the potential for additional upward pressure on residential propane prices if the 

U.S. experiences severe weather. As of September 30, U.S. inventories of propane 

were an estimated 59.3 million barrels, 7 million barrels below the average over the 

last 5 years. These inventories are expected to recover as higher prices draw in imports, ending the winter season at 27.7 million barrels—near the average over the 

last 5 years. 

Ethanol. EIA projects that the market for ethanol will continue to grow. In July 

2007, the ethanol industry produced an average of 421,000 barrels per day, providing about 4.5 percent of 2007 average daily gasoline consumption volume, or 

about three percent of the energy consumed by gasoline-fueled vehicles. Ethanol 

plants operated at or near their design capacity limit during this period. 

Based on plants currently under construction, ethanol production capacity is expected to increase substantially over the next 15 months. Actual ethanol production 

is also projected to increase, but at a slower rate than capacity, reaching a projected 

average level of 570,000 barrels per day (8.7 billion gallons per year) in December 

2008. The projected average monthly increase in ethanol production over the period 

from August 2007 through December 2008 is 8,700 barrels per day per month, compared with an average increase of 9,300 barrels per day per month over the first 

7 months of 2007. 

The projected slowdown in ethanol demand growth reflects the existence of several distinct segments in the fuel ethanol market, each with a different sensitivity 

to market price and infrastructure limitations. The reformulated gasoline market, 

which is subject to the strictest environmental limits, is the least price-sensitive 

market segment for ethanol. Demand for ethanol in this type of gasoline, where it 

is used in blends of six to 10 percent, increased significantly with the phase-out of 

methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), which was completed in 2006. Since that time, 

virtually all reformulated gasoline has been blended using ethanol. 

The next most attractive market segment for ethanol is as a volume extender for 

conventional gasoline in blends of 10 percent. Current and projected high oil prices, 

the availability of a 51¢-per-gallon blenders’ tax credit through 2010, and the ‘‘consumer illusion’’ that leads choices between gasoline blended with and without low 

percentages of ethanol to be made purely on the basis of their price per gallon without consideration of the lower miles-per-gallon using fuel incorporating ethanol, all 

support the use of ethanol as a volume extender in excess of requirements of the 

currently enacted Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). While the current level of 140 

billion gallons per year in national sales for all types of gasoline could, in theory, 

accommodate roughly 14 billion gallons of ethanol in blends of 10 percent or less, 

many regions currently lack the transportation and blending infrastructure to use 

ethanol. EIA’s projection of ethanol demand in 2008 reflects this limitation. 

The final market segment for ethanol is use in high-percentage blends such as 

E85. Currently, high-percentage blends account for well under one percent of the 

overall U.S. market for fuel ethanol. Expanded use of high-percentage blends is necessary if total ethanol use is to grow beyond the level of 12 to 15 billion gallons 

per year that would saturate the market for low-percentage blends. Based on the 

Brazilian experience, consumers would generally expect high-percentage ethanol 

blends to be price-competitive with petroleum-based alternatives on an energy-content basis. 

One implication of the slower rise in ethanol production rates relative to capacity 

is that the average capacity utilization factor for ethanol producers is likely to decline substantially in 2008. Although farmers should continue to benefit from increasing corn demand, the availability of underutilized ethanol production capacity 

will tend to put downward pressure on the margin earned by ethanol producers over 

their variable production cost. 

Energy Trends to 2030

Turning now to the longer-term outlook, I will be relying on EIA’s Annual Energy 

Outlook 2007 (AEO2007) and on several recent EIA analyses of energy and environmental policy proposals that could have a significant impact on agriculture’s role as 

an energy supply source. 

Overview. Longer-term trends in energy supply and demand are affected by many 

factors that are difficult to predict, such as energy prices, U.S. economic growth, advances in technologies, changes in weather patterns, and future public policy decisions. It is clear, however, that energy markets are changing gradually in response 

to such readily observable factors as the higher energy prices that have been experienced since 2000; the greater influence of developing countries on worldwide energy 

requirements; recently enacted legislation and regulations in the United States; and 

changing public perceptions of issues related to the use of alternative fuels, emisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Jun 03, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-31\50024.TXT SOLEM PsN: REBEKA
28

sions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, and the acceptability of various energy 

technologies. 

The AEO2007 reference case projects increased consumption of biofuels (both ethanol and biodiesel) and other non-hydroelectric renewable energy sources, some 

growth in nuclear power capacity and generation, and accelerated improvements in 

energy efficiency throughout the economy. The growth in biofuels and other non-hydroelectric renewable energy consumption roughly offsets the projected decline in 

the share of total primary energy supplied by nuclear power and hydroelectricity between 2005 and 2030. Therefore, oil, coal, and natural gas still are projected to provide roughly the same 86 percent share of the total U.S. primary energy supply in 

2030 that they did in 2005, assuming no changes in existing laws and regulations. 

Alternative Fuel Use. The use of alternative fuels, such as ethanol, biodiesel, and 

coal-to-liquids (CTL), is projected to increase substantially in the reference case as 

a result of the higher prices projected for traditional fuels and the support for alternative fuels provided in recently enacted Federal legislation. Ethanol use grows in 

the AEO2007 reference case from 4 billion gallons in 2005 to 11.2 billion gallons in 

2012—exceeding the required 7.5 billion gallons in the RFS that was enacted as 

part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct2005)—and to 14.6 billion gallons in 

2030 (about eight percent of total gasoline consumption by volume). Ethanol use for 

gasoline blending grows to 14.4 billion gallons and E85 consumption to 0.2 billion 

gallons in 2030. Domestically-grown corn is expected to be the primary ethanol 

source, accounting for 13.6 billion gallons of ethanol production in 2030. Consumption of biodiesel, also supported by tax credits in EPAct2005, reaches 0.4 billion gallons in 2030. 

Renewable Fuel Consumption and Supply. Total consumption of marketed renewable fuels in the AEO2007 reference case (including ethanol for gasoline blending, 

of which 1.2 quadrillion Btu in 2030 is included with liquid fuels consumption) is 

projected to grow from 6.2 quadrillion Btu in 2005 to 9.9 quadrillion Btu in 2030. 

The robust growth is a result of state renewable portfolio standard programs, mandates, and goals for renewable electricity generation; technological advances; high 

petroleum and natural gas prices; and Federal tax credits, including those in 

EPAct2005. 

The Potential Impact of Possible Future Policies on Energy Supply From 

Agriculture 

As previously noted, the Annual Energy Outlook reference case assumes that current laws and policies continue indefinitely. Other recent EIA analyses suggest that 

various policy proposals, including caps on greenhouse gas emissions, an increased 

renewable fuel standard, or a renewable portfolio standard for electricity sellers, 

could significantly increase reliance on biomass as an energy source. Agricultural 

products and residues, as well as dedicated energy crops, are a key part of the overall supply of biomass in some of our recent policy cases. 

The two main concerns that appear to motivate many recent policy proposals are 

energy security and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Our recent policy analyses suggest that there are both synergies and conflicts between these objectives. 

For example, improvements in vehicle efficiency would advance both objectives. In 

contrast, the adoption of coal-to-liquids conversion without carbon capture and sequestration would advance energy security while increasing emissions. 

The situation with respect to agriculture and biomass is particularly complex. A 

policy focused on energy security would likely emphasize the use of biofuels to reduce our reliance on imported petroleum. Such a policy also would serve to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. However, if greenhouse gas emissions were the primary 

policy focus, biomass could be used as a substitute for coal-fired electricity generation to provide significantly larger emissions reductions. While biomass from agriculture and other sources has an important role to play in either case, the way in 

which biomass can best be deployed will depend on how the objectives of energy security and emissions reduction are prioritized. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I will be happy to answer any 

questions you and the other Members may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Dr. Westhoff. 

29

STATEMENT OF PATRICK WESTHOFF, PH.D., RESEARCH

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND PROGRAM CO-DIRECTOR,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, FOOD AND 

AGRICULTURAL POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY 

OF MISSOURI—COLUMBIA, COLUMBIA, MO 

Dr. WESTHOFF. Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today about 

some of the major changes in the agriculture economy. My name 

is Pat Westhoff. I am a Research Associate Professor at the University of Missouri and a Program Director with the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, FAPRI. FAPRI is a joint institute 

at the University of Missouri and Iowa State University. For the 

past 20 years, we have received Federal funding to provide objective analysis of agricultural markets and policies. We have enjoyed 

the opportunity to work with you and Committee staff in looking 

at issues related to the 2007 Farm Bill debate, biofuel policies, 

international trade negotiations, and more. Each year, FAPRI prepares a 10 year baseline outlook for the agricultural economy. We 

are just starting the process for the 2008 baseline at this point. In 

2006, our outlook showed average corn prices that increased slowly 

over time, but remained below $2.50 per bushel through 2015. In 

the 2007 outlook, our average baseline corn price never dropped 

below $3.00 per bushel. 

So what is going on? Why do we keep changing our mind about 

the outlook? The obvious answer is biofuels. In 2006, we expected 

biofuel production to increase, but the actual pace of expansion has 

been much more rapid than we anticipated. Using more corn to 

produce ethanol puts upward pressure on corn prices. Higher corn 

prices encourage producers to shift the acreage away from other 

crops to satisfy the growing demand for corn. Higher U.S. prices 

also encourage crop producers in South America and elsewhere to 

expand production. Livestock producers face higher feed costs. This 

is a now familiar story. Many have said and our projections suggest 

that we are experiencing a major structural shift in the agricultural economy. We expect that average grain and oilseed prices will 

consistently be higher over the next 10 years than they were over 

the last decade. 

The basic outlines of this story remain believable. However, 

events of recent months remind us that we still have a lot to learn 

about biofuel markets and about how they interact with agricultural markets. Furthermore, we have been reminded that factors 

unrelated to biofuels continue to have major impacts on the farm 

economy. Ethanol prices that exceeded $3.00 per gallon in the summer of 2006 have now dropped well below $2.00 per gallon. These 

lower ethanol prices have squeezed ethanol plant profit margins. 

By our estimate, net returns over operating costs averaged $1.56 

per gallon for the 2005/06 corn mark in a year and 95¢ per gallon 

in 2006/07. With those kinds of returns, a plant built in 2005 could 

be fully paid for today. Current futures, in contrast, suggest a return over operating costs of just a few cents per gallon, and that 

is before considering capital costs. As a result, the future of the 

ethanol industry is now much less certain than it seemed just a 

few months ago. 

30

So what does this all mean for the agricultural sector? First, 

there has been a fundamental shift in the demand for agricultural 

products. Increased demand for corn and soybean oil translates 

into higher prices for corn, soybeans, and other farm products. Second, energy markets and agricultural markets are becoming increasingly intertwined. This does not mean that every time the 

price of petroleum changes by a dollar the price of corn will change 

proportionally on the same day. It does mean that it is unlikely 

that grain and petroleum prices will move in opposite directions for 

extended periods of time. Third, biofuel subsidies matter. The 

FAPRI outlook assumes an indefinite extension of the 51¢ per gallon tax credit, the ethanol tariff, and the tax credit for biodiesel. 

Earlier this year we estimated that letting those subsidies expire 

would reduce average corn prices by 30¢ per bushel. And, finally, 

biofuel use mandates can matter as well. Suppose there is a 

drought that severely limits corn supplies. Without a binding mandate, corn prices would rise until ethanol production becomes unprofitable. Plants would close and the reduction in corn use would 

moderate the increase in corn prices. Suppose instead that there is 

a binding mandate that requires blenders to continue to use 

biofuels regardless of the price. Ethanol production would continue 

in spite of high corn prices, forcing greater reductions in feed use, 

exports, and other uses of corn. 

Biofuels are extremely important to U.S. agriculture, but the last 

few months have demonstrated the importance of several other factors affecting agricultural markets. I would draw your attention to 

my written statement for a discussion of factors ranging from global economic growth and exchange rates to weather and policy. 

In conclusion, FAPRI’s projections suggest that average prices for 

many ag products are likely to remain above the average levels 

that have prevailed prior to 2006. It would be premature to conclude that we are in a new world and there is no chance that we 

will ever see $2.00 per bushel corn again. I remind you of the experience of the mid-1990s where we thought we were in a new plateau and things changed unexpectedly and we were back down to 

lower prices once again. One thing I have learned in 20 years of 

making agricultural market projections is that someone in this 

business either needs a lot of humility or a very short memory. We 

do not have a crystal ball, but we believe that our annual baseline 

outlook provides a reasonable and useful snapshot of the agricultural economy under a particular set of assumptions. The baseline 

outlook then serves as a point of comparison for other analyses, 

such as work we have done at the request of this Committee to examine farm bill options. Thank you again for this opportunity. I 

would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Westhoff follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK WESTHOFF, PH.D., RESEARCH ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR AND PROGRAM CO-DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL

ECONOMICS, FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY

OF MISSOURI—COLUMBIA, COLUMBIA, MO 

Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today about some of the major 

changes in the agricultural economy. 

31

My name is Patrick Westhoff. I am a Research Associate Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Missouri—Columbia and a Program Director at the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. 

FAPRI is a joint institute of the University of Missouri—Columbia and Iowa State 

University. For the past 20 years, we have received Federal funding to provide objective analysis of agricultural markets and policies. We have enjoyed the opportunity to work with you and Committee staff in looking at issues related to the 2007 

Farm Bill debate, biofuel policies, and international trade negotiations. 

Each year, FAPRI prepares a 10 year baseline outlook for the agricultural economy. The outlook we prepared for release in February 2007 looked a lot different 

than the one we issued a year earlier:

• In 2006, our outlook showed average corn prices that increased slowly over 

time, but remained below $2.50 per bushel through 2015. In the 2007 outlook, 

our average baseline corn prices never drop below $3.00 per bushel.

• Our projected prices for soybeans, wheat, and many other products also were 

much higher in the 2007 baseline than in the one prepared a year earlier.

• In the 2006 baseline, projected farm program outlays by the Commodity Credit 

Corporation exceeded $14 billion in every year through Fiscal Year 2012. In the 

2007 baseline, CCC spending is always below $12 billion per year.

We are just now beginning the process that will lead to the FAPRI 2008 baseline 

outlook for the farm economy. I suspect that baseline will also show major changes 

from the 2007 projections. 

What’s going on? Why do we keep changing our mind about the outlook? 

Biofuels and U.S. Agriculture 

The obvious answer is biofuels. In 2006, we expected biofuel production to increase, but the actual pace of expansion has been much more rapid than we anticipated. The combination of high petroleum prices and supportive policies has encouraged massive new investment in ethanol and biodiesel production capacity. 

All those new ethanol plants could use a lot of corn. The 2006 outlook called for 

almost three billion bushels of corn to be used to produce ethanol by 2015. In the 

February 2007 outlook, we said four billion bushels by 2009. 

Using more corn to produce ethanol puts upward pressure on corn prices. Higher 

corn prices encourage producers to shift acreage away from other crops to satisfy 

the growing demand for corn. The resulting reduction in supplies of soybeans, 

wheat, cotton and other crops results in higher prices for those commodities. 

Higher U.S. prices also encourage crop producers in South America and elsewhere 

to expand production. Livestock producers around the world face higher feed costs. 

These higher costs slow the rate of expansion of livestock production and eventually 

raise the price of meat and dairy products. 

This is a now-familiar story. Many have said and our projections suggest that we 

are experiencing a major structural shift in the agricultural economy. We expect 

that average grain and oilseed prices will be consistently higher over the next 10 

years than they were over the last 10 years. 

The basic outlines of this story remain believable. However, events of recent 

months remind us that we still have a lot to learn about biofuel markets and the 

impacts of biofuels on agricultural markets. Furthermore, we’ve been reminded that 

factors unrelated to biofuels continue to have major impacts on the farm economy. Ethanol prices that exceeded $3.00 per gallon in the summer of 2006 have dropped below $2.00 per gallon. On October 11, ethanol futures traded on the Chicago Board of Trade closed at or below $1.60 per gallon for all 2007 and 2008 contracts. 

This drop in ethanol prices has occurred in spite of petroleum prices around $80 per barrel this fall and NYMEX futures prices that remain above $70 per barrel as 

far as the eye can see. Earlier this year most of us would have thought that $80 

petroleum should imply ethanol prices well above $1.60 per gallon. 

These lower ethanol prices have squeezed ethanol plant profit margins. By our es- timate, net returns over operating costs averaged $1.56 per gallon in 2005/06 and 

$0.95 per gallon in 2006/07. With those kinds of returns, a plant built in 2005 could 

be fully paid for today. Current futures, in contrast, suggest a return over operating 

costs of just a few cents per gallon, and that’s before considering capital costs. 

As a result, the future of the ethanol industry is now much less certain than it 

seemed just a few months ago. We expect plants under construction to be completed. 

However, it is less certain whether they will all operate at full capacity, and the 

pace of new investment seems sure to slow dramatically. 

Similarly, profit margins to biodiesel producers have been declining sharply in recent months. In contrast to ethanol, however, the change is primarily caused by risVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Jun 03, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\110-31\50024.TXT SOLEM PsN: REBEKA
32

ing feedstock costs for vegetable oil, rather than declining prices for biodiesel. We 

currently expect vegetable oil prices to remain high by historical standards, which 

could slow or even stop expansion of the industry. 

In the long run, we expect ethanol to sell for roughly its value as a fuel. That 

would be a much lower price than ethanol sold for in 2006, but higher than it is 

trading for today. In our August 2007 baseline update, we projected a 2012 ethanol 

price (FOB Omaha) of $1.72 per gallon, compared to a petroleum price (West Texas 

Intermediate) of $69 per barrel. 

Those projections, of course, are based on a long series of assumptions, some of 

which will certainly prove to be wrong. To take the most obvious example, the price 

of petroleum could be much lower or higher than $69 per barrel. 

Analysis we conducted earlier this year showed that the ethanol industry and agricultural markets look very different at low petroleum prices than at high petroleum prices. For example, we estimated that 2015 ethanol production under current 

policies could be less than 8 billion gallons if the refiners’ acquisition price for petroleum falls to $30 per barrel or over 20 billion gallons if the oil price consistently 

exceeds $80 per barrel. 

What does all this mean for the agricultural sector?

1. First, there has been a fundamental shift in the demand for agricultural 

products. Increased demand for corn and soybean oil translates into higher 

prices for corn, soybeans, and other farm products. Most affected are commodities that are close substitutes for corn and soybeans in supply or demand; less 

affected are fruits and vegetables.

2. Second, energy markets and agricultural markets are becoming increasingly 

intertwined. This does not mean that every time the price of petroleum changes 

by a dollar the price of corn will change proportionally on the same day. It does 

mean that it is unlikely that grain and petroleum markets will move in opposite 

directions for extended periods of time. If corn prices are low, relative to petroleum prices for a long time, more ethanol plants will be built and that will drive 

up prices for corn and other crops. If corn prices are high enough relative to 

petroleum prices, ethanol production becomes unprofitable, moderating corn demand.

3. Third, biofuel subsidies matter. The FAPRI outlook assumes an indefinite extension of the $0.51 per gallon ethanol tax credit, the $0.54 per gallon ethanol 

tariff, and the $1.00 per gallon tax credit for biodiesel made from virgin vegetable oil. If those subsidies are reduced or allowed to expire, the result will be 

less biofuel production and lower prices for corn, soybean oil, and other farm 

commodities. For example, earlier this year we estimated that letting those subsidies expire would reduce average corn prices by $0.30 per bushel.

4. And, finally, biofuel use mandates can matter, too. Biofuel use in 2012 is likely to far exceed the 7.5 billion gallons mandated by the 2005 energy bill. If the 

mandate is set at a high enough level, it could be important. For example, suppose there is a drought that severely limits corn supplies. Without a binding 

mandate, corn prices would rise until ethanol production becomes unprofitable. 

Plants would close and the reduction in corn use would moderate the increase 

in corn prices. Suppose instead that there is a binding mandate that requires 

blenders to continue to use biofuels regardless of the price. Ethanol production 

would continue in spite of high corn prices, forcing greater reductions in feed 

use, exports, and other uses of corn. 

Other Factors Driving Agricultural Markets 

Biofuels are extremely important to U.S. agriculture, but the last few months 

have demonstrated the importance of several other factors affecting agricultural 

markets. 

Global Economic Growth 

Milk prices have increased dramatically in 2007. Higher feed prices caused by ethanol production and weather conditions are only a small part of the story. More important has been strong global demand for dairy products, led by consumers in Asia. 

Rising incomes have contributed to the sharp increase in demand for dairy products 

and many other commodities as well. 

Exchange Rates 

The weakness of the U.S. dollar has had mixed effects on the U.S. economy as 

a whole, but it has been beneficial for most U.S. agricultural producers. By making 

U.S. goods less expensive when prices are expressed in foreign currency, the weaker 

dollar encourages foreign consumption of U.S. products and discourages competing 

33

exporters. While prices of grains and oilseeds have increased around the world, the 

increases are much larger when measured in U.S. dollars than when measured in 

Canadian dollars or Brazilian reais. This is one of the reasons why the foreign supply response to high commodity prices has not been as great as one would normally 

expect. 

Population Growth 

The world’s population continues to grow, but at a declining rate. In general, this 

means population will decline in importance as a driver of increases in food demand. 

However, population growth rates remain high in Africa, a major export destination 

for commodities like wheat and rice. 

Technology 

When we develop the FAPRI outlook, we assume that the average rate of growth 

in crop yields and other productivity indicators will generally be in line with past 

trends. Usually that is a reasonable assumption, but not always. Current high 

prices for many commodities provide an incentive to producers to increase input 

usage and make them more willing to pay for new technologies. Growth in demand 

has made it hard for crop supplies to keep up with demand in 2007, but that may 

not always be true. If the pace of yield growth increases in the years ahead, commodity prices could fall even if demand continues to grow. 

Weather 

As important as biofuels and other developments are, the main factor driving crop 

prices in any given year is the weather. This is seen most clearly in the case of 

wheat, where poor weather has reduced 2007 yields in Europe, Australia, and North 

America. Because consumer demand for wheat is not very responsive to price 

changes and global stocks were at the lowest level in decades, reduced supplies have 

resulted in remarkably high global wheat prices. Drought in Australia has also limited the ability of that country’s producers to respond to current high dairy prices. 

Supply Response 

That producers around the world respond to changes in market conditions is hardly new. However, it is worth noting just how strong the U.S. producer response was 

in 2007 to price incentives. At planting time, corn prices were very high relative to 

prices for soybeans and other crops. U.S. producers responded by expanding corn 

area planted by 15 million acres, with most of that increase accounted for by reduced production of soybeans, cotton, rice, and other crops. At least for now, it appears that relative prices at planting time in 2008 will be very different than they 

were in 2007. The result is likely to be increased U.S. and world acreage devoted 

to wheat and soybeans, and corn acreage may actually decline. 

Policy 

Current high commodity prices make many U.S. Government programs less important to producers and to market outcomes than would have been true just a few 

years ago. The outcome of the farm bill debate, of course, could have important implications for producers, as could the outcome (if any) of the Doha Development 

Agenda negotiations. In other countries governments have adjusted policies in response to high commodity prices. For example, the European Union is suspending 

land set-aside programs and China is limiting growth in biofuel use of grain. 

Land Markets 

The value of agricultural land depends on a wide range of factors. To a large extent, recent increases in land prices and rental rates are a function of the expected 

profitability of agricultural production. In that sense, land prices and rental rates 

are a result of developments in the agricultural economy, including agricultural policies. However, it is also true that land prices are strongly affected by a wide range 

of factors largely external to the sector, ranging from interest rates to the housing 

market to tax policies. How important these various factors are in determining land 

values varies greatly across the country. 

Other Commodity-Specific Concerns 

Livestock 

Livestock, dairy, and poultry producers are paying much more for feed now than 

they were in mid 2006. For the animal agriculture sector as a whole, however, the 

increase in feed costs in 2007 relative to 2006 is much less than the increase in cash 

receipts. Prices for milk, poultry, and beef have all been substantially higher than 

generally anticipated earlier this year, largely because demand has been stronger 

than expected for many products. Part of the strength in demand can be explained 

34

by income and population growth, but some is also due to other factors. Recent declines in hog prices are a reminder that feed market changes have not eliminated 

livestock cycles. Looking forward, we expect producers to continue to respond to 

changes in returns. For example, current high milk prices are likely to cause a supply response here and around the world that will lead to lower prices. 

Cotton 

The domestic cotton milling industry has been in decline for the last 10 years and 

there are few prospects for a reversal. As a result, domestic cotton producers have 

been increasingly dependent on export markets—exports now account for about 3⁄4

of U.S. cotton use. Reduced purchases by China and other factors caused a sharp 

reduction in U.S. cotton exports in 2006/07, resulting in large carryover stocks. The 

combination of low cotton prices, high production costs, and competition from high 

corn prices resulted in a sharp reduction in 2007 cotton area and production. In the 

long run, global growth in demand for cotton will determine the size and shape of 

the U.S. cotton industry. 

Concluding Comments 

Prices for grains, oilseeds and many other agricultural products are above their 

historical average levels. Growing biofuel production is much of the reason, but the 

weather and a variety of other factors also play important roles. 

FAPRI’s projections suggest that average prices for many agricultural products 

are likely to remain above the average levels that prevailed prior to 2006. But, it 

would be premature to conclude that we are in a new world and that there is no 

chance that we will ever see $2.00 per bushel corn again. 

The last time the ‘‘conventional wisdom’’ said we were on a new higher price plateau was the mid-1990s. Demand from China and the rest of developing Asia was 

expected to cause a permanent upward shift in commodity prices. Then the Chinese 

unexpectedly reduced grain imports and a financial crisis caused a sharp reduction 

in import demand in other Asian countries. Grain and other agricultural commodity 

prices fell sharply. 

There are sound reasons to expect agricultural commodity prices to remain relatively strong over the next decade. Indeed, one can easily tell stories where 

FAPRI’s current price projections are too conservative. However, many things could 

lead to prices falling again. Petroleum prices could decline from current levels, domestic and foreign crop supplies could grow more rapidly, or a global economic slowdown could weaken demand. 

One thing I’ve learned in 20 years of making agricultural market projections is 

that someone in this business either needs a lot of humility or a very short memory. 

Things never work out exactly as our projections indicate, because it is impossible 

to anticipate everything that can and does affect agricultural markets. We do not 

have a crystal ball, but we believe that our annual baseline outlook provides a reasonable and useful snapshot of the agricultural economy under a particular set of 

assumptions. That baseline outlook then serves as a point of comparison for other 

analyses, such as work we’ve done at the request of this Committee to examine farm 

bill options. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. ETHERIDGE [presiding]. I thank the gentleman for his comments and we are going to stall for just a minute, but we aren’t 

going to recess. The Chairman should be back very shortly. Let me 

go ahead and ask a question, Dr. Collins, of you and if I walk out 

the staff will get the answer for me. How about that? We will keep 

it going, because Chairman Peterson will be back in a minute. Let 

me thank you for being here, and I have three maps here that you 

are familiar with. One that the Secretary has declared a disaster; 

one the President has had a disaster; and the combination of the 

two. My question to you is if you combine these, while some of 

these are covered by the Agriculture Disaster Assistant package 

that we enacted earlier this year, a lot of it is. So my question is, 

and we will give you several so you can answer them all at one 

time. When USDA forecasts record receipts of $276 billion for 2007, 

is that despite all the losses that are anticipated in the amount? 

Number two, do you have estimates of the agricultural losses represented in the amount, and has the Department given any 

35

thought as to the need to extend the cut-off date for the current 

disaster package to cover these that are now in there? And I know 

I am throwing a lot at you, but let me add one more piece to it because I just spoke to the Department in the last few days. Certainly in my state we are facing the worst drought in 100 years. 

We have two poultry plants that are now currently operating on a 

half-week, may shut down because it doesn’t have water in reserves to operate. And we have sent a letter to the White House 

signed with 55 Members, both Democrats and Republicans, asking 

for some drought assistance to help these farmers, so I appreciate 

you commenting on that. I am going to slip out, Mr. Chairman, and 

turn it over to you and run back and I will get your answer from 

the staff if you will just share it with all of us. 

Dr. COLLINS. All right. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge. Should I go 

ahead and respond to that, Mr. Chairman, then? I will wait until 

you get back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. That is fine. I have a few other questions, 

and we apologize. You know how this place is. You have been 

around it. 

Dr. COLLINS. I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like both Dr. Gruenspecht and Dr. Collins to expand a little bit on the uneasiness that is being written 

about the ethanol sector. You know, we have a lot of stories showing up in different papers. My sense is that we have a lot of folks 

with agendas that are ginning up some of this stuff. I have been 

getting some information from some of the folks that are in the 

business back home that tell me that it is not so much an issue 

of the over-production, it is more of an issue of getting into the system. There are problems with inadequate infrastructure for blending. I would like your perspective on what is going on here with 

ethanol right now in terms of whether you think the production 

has exceeded the demand or whether there are problems in actually getting the production into the systems, whichever of you 

would have a perspective on that. 

Dr. COLLINS. I am sure, Mr. Peterson, we both do, so I will start 

and Howard can fill in the blanks. I think that this is an issue of 

an enormous expansion in production. You know, in any commodity 

where you see the kind of increase we have seen in ethanol production, which is a 2 billion gallon increase over the past year, it is 

going to put some strains on the whole distribution system. I think 

that economists have long expected that as production of ethanol 

continues to increase, at some point the long-standing premium 

that it has enjoyed relative to gasoline, the price premium, would 

disappear. There are a lot of reasons for that: the saturation of the 

10 percent blend market, for example; movement into E85 where 

you have to price based on BTU value if consumers are really going 

to pick ethanol for their E85 vehicle. We have long expected some 

price adjustment. The shock has been that it has come so rapidly. 

We were running at quite a price premium to gasoline until the 

mid-summer and then all of a sudden we are selling it at quite a 

discount. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can I stop you right there? 

Dr. COLLINS. Yes. 

36

The CHAIRMAN. Are you talking about this price premium in relation to the spot market? 

Dr. COLLINS. Spot market, right. 

The CHAIRMAN. But very little of this ethanol is actually sold on 

the spot market, is it? 

Dr. COLLINS. I have a chart in my testimony which plots the rack 

price of ethanol versus the spot price of gasoline, and it is those two 

series that I am comparing when I talk about a premium. 

The CHAIRMAN. When you are talking about the rack price, that 

is what is actually being paid——

Dr. COLLINS. To plants. 

The CHAIRMAN.—to the plants——

Dr. COLLINS. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN.—based on these long-term contracts and so forth. 

Dr. COLLINS. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. And because a lot of what was being reported in 

the press in terms of what the price of ethanol was, none of the 

plants in my district, that I am aware of, were getting that price. 

They were all out of long-term contracts. 

Dr. COLLINS. They were getting less. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, quite a bit less, and now when they report 

the lower amount they are actually getting more. So, I mean, this 

whole argument is not—am I wrong? 

Dr. COLLINS. No. Ethanol price discovery is still early in its history. If you were to look at the published rack prices for ethanol, 

for example, just recently I saw about a 50¢ difference between the 

price in Indiana and the price in Ohio. Now, how do you explain 

a 50¢ difference in price when the transportation cost is far less 

than that from one state to the other? So I can’t tell you that I fully 

understand the relationship among all the quoted ethanol prices 

that are out there, so we tend to use an average and something 

that is typical. You know, we have seen futures prices of ethanol, 

for example, that is one market that you could look at where you 

could deliver a product. Those prices have dropped very sharply in 

Chicago. Recently, they have been running in the $1.55 range or 

something like that, so there is no question that the price complex 

has come down. But, to the extent that individual plants have longterm contracts, they may or may not be seeing that. Their adjustments may lag. So I do think that the lower prices do reflect a big 

increase in production; probably the saturation of some niche markets or specialty markets or local markets. You know, we have 

states that are already using ethanol near full capacity so the more 

you produce it has to go somewhere else if states are close to using 

it at a 10 percent level. You also, perhaps, could saturate the octane market or the RFG market or the special uses for ethanol and 

some of that may be what is going on; some of it may be the infrastructure problems that you mentioned. I think those have those 

been widely reported. They have been widely reported by blenders 

as well as ethanol plants. They are anecdotal but I tend to believe 

them. You can look at the backlog of orders for ethanol tank cars. 

The Department of Agriculture just recently published a study on 

transportation and infrastructure for ethanol. It was put out by the 

Agricultural Marketing Service, and they tracked the backlog of orders for ethanol railcars and it has gone up dramatically over the 

37

last couple of years, so there is pressure on the rail system. Sixty 

percent of all ethanol from plants is shipped by rail, and of course 

there has been a tremendous demand for railcars in the United 

States because the rail industry has not really expanded. It went 

through a couple of decades of fairly low returns and very little 

capital expenditure. It has only been the last couple of years that 

they have really started to increase, and a lot of those capital expenditures have gone to maintenance. So there is pressure on the 

distribution system, the storage system, pumps at blending facilities, and so all of those things are probably combining to cause this 

price to decline to the extent that it has. My own thought is that 

over time that we will start to see the price pick back up until we 

get closer to the 10 percent level of total gasoline consumption in 

the United States. We could move back up closer to the price of 

gasoline and even above it again at some point. After all, we still 

have a 51¢ tax credit. The 51¢ tax credit ought to enable blenders 

to bid against one another to bid up the price of ethanol. So I am 

of the mind that this very low price that we are seeing on things 

like the Chicago Board of Trade is something that is going to come 

up a little bit in the future. And it also may get help from the very 

strong crude oil prices that we have been seeing, which I guess 

would translate into higher gasoline prices into the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Gruenspecht? 

Dr. GRUENSPECHT. I think Dr. Collins could come and work at 

the Department of Energy, but I think he has it about right. Over 

the last 12 months ethanol has clearly expanded its reach into the 

domestic gasoline market. If you look at penetration at the 10 percent blend market, on a national basis the penetration has increased from 35 percent to about 47 percent of all gasoline sold. In 

early 2006, as Dr. Collins pointed out, there were very significant 

increases in the ethanol market penetration and the reformulated 

gasoline markets as MTBE was phased out. Initially, some of that 

ethanol came from pulling ethanol out of the Midwest where it was 

being used as a mix with conventional gasoline. It is really the 

Midwest that has used a lot of the ethanol and conventional gasoline and that penetration is very high, so ethanol has the entire 

RFG market. As ethanol production capacity increased most of the 

Midwest conventional market settled back at 10 percent blends. 

There is some ethanol market share growth in the Rockies, but 

the volume growth has been small because the Rockies are a pretty 

small volume market. Ethanol’s market share in other conventional 

gasoline regions—conventional gasoline outside of the Midwest and 

the Rockies is where there is the greatest potential for ethanol 

market penetration to grow. The East Coast, particularly the 

Southeast and the Gulf Coast states, are what we in the, I guess, 

in the energy business would call PADD 1C and PADD 3—the Gulf 

Coast and the South Atlantic—however, these regions also have 

the greatest barriers to market entry because of gasoline fuel quality regulations and other impediments. There are issues with meeting an evaporation standard that some of these states have. I guess 

the bright news is that there is really a tremendous incentive for 

increased penetration to occur. Between the price difference that 

you have cited, wholesale gasoline is up above $2; the spot price 

of ethanol is in the $1.50–$1.60 range. Then there is also a 51¢ 

38

blenders’ credit that is currently about a $1 per gallon difference 

between the price of ethanol after tax credit and the price of gasoline. That gives terminal operators a tremendous incentive to overcome some of their issues with infrastructure. You can pay off an 

investment in preparing a blending terminal to blend ethanol very 

quickly. The blending market might now be sort of like the ethanol 

market was when the RFG MTBE phase out occurred, where you 

could make back your capital costs of an ethanol plant very quickly. I think right now we have an ethanol-on-ethanol competition effectively. It takes about 6 to 24 months to convert facilities to handle more ethanol, and as we see that we should see greater demand 

for ethanol. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have taken away more time than I should have, 

but if the Members would indulge me. I have been asking for the 

last year or so that given the fact that there looks like there is this 

opportunity in this blending business, why don’t the people in the 

ethanol industry build blending facilities and buy the gasoline and 

sell it themselves? I mean, wouldn’t there be an opportunity to 

make money to flip this thing around instead of letting the oil companies be the ones that do this? Why wouldn’t the ethanol guys get 

into this and buy the gasoline and blend it and market it themselves? Is there some reason that is not happening or is some impediment to that happening? 

Dr. COLLINS. I don’t have a good answer to that other than that 

buying, storing, handling, distributing a gasoline-blended product 

is not the business the ethanol plants are in. They would have to 

learn a new——

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I understand they are not in it. I just 

said——

Dr. COLLINS. It is that they have these barriers to overcome. 

They have the transaction cost to learn the business, to build the 

facilities. I think right now they have—with the profits they have 

been drawing in ethanol, the investments they have had to make, 

and the education to acquire to get better at ethanol—I think you 

specialize in what you do best at this point. Maybe that is something that they would do down the road. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Etheridge 

was in the middle of asking questions when he had to leave to vote. 

I am going to get a question that he had asked on the drought. Mr. 

Etheridge, we will have them respond to your question. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Do I have to repeat that, Dr. Collins? 

Dr. COLLINS. I wrote it down, Mr. Etheridge, so if I don’t get it 

right you can remind me. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. If you could make it rain in the Southeast that 

would settle a lot of our problems, but I am not sure I am going 

to call on you to do that today. 

Dr. COLLINS. No. I actually was at a European meeting 2 weeks 

ago where there were experts on cloud seeding, and they are doing 

a lot of cloud seeding in Greece. But what they were telling me is 

that they are very successful with moving the paths of storms but 

not necessarily creating more rain, so there is a little status report 

on clouds. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Well, the problem we have is we can’t get any 

clouds. 

39

Dr. COLLINS. Right. Your first question was regarding all of the 

Presidential and Secretarial disaster declaration areas. Do we take 

into account in our farming forecasts the losses that underlie those 

disaster declarations? And the answer to that is yes, we do. It 

turns out that where most of those disaster declarations are the 

crop losses have not been that big a contribution to reducing national farm income. And also, a lot of those losses are in forage 

areas where—we don’t put forage directly into our farm income accounts. I also would mention despite the map that you held up 

which shows most of the continental United States covered by a 

disaster declaration area, we now, at this point, in the fall season 

have a pretty good estimate of what our losses look like under crop 

insurance. And as you know, 80 percent of major crops are covered 

by crop insurance, and our losses right now look like we are on 

track to have the second lowest loss ratio in history. Our current 

internal projection is about .64, with the record being about .6, 

which means that from a national perspective despite the color of 

that map the losses are not that significant—at least judged from 

the crop insurance data. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. But we haven’t paid the losses in most cases, 

have we, in the Southeast? 

Dr. COLLINS. We have not. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Production is not yet in. 

Dr. COLLINS. We are paying some of them now. The peak period 

will be in October and November, but nevertheless, we still make 

loss ratio projections based on the NASS production data reports 

and the crop condition reports. That loss ratio estimate is based on 

those inputs. Your second question was do we have specific estimates of those losses in those areas. We have what the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service would put out and so you can come 

up with losses by state. For example, most of Georgia or Alabama 

is covered, and we would have crop-by-crop estimates of those 

losses which we could develop. Your third question was have we 

considered moving the cut-off from February 28? The current disaster assistance legislation allows producers to pick 2005, 2006, or 

2007 losses. For 2007 the crop has to be planted before February 

28. The answer is no, the USDA has not considered trying to move 

that date. That date is legislatively mandated. 

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Why have they not? 

Dr. COLLINS. Well, the——

Mr. ETHERIDGE. I mean, USDA has responsibility over agriculture, and I would think they would be concerned about the 

farmers. 

Dr. COLLINS. We are concerned about farmers. We have responsibility over agriculture. My recollection of the February 28 date was 

that it was set as a necessity to limit the budget exposure of the 

disaster assistance bill. And so, relaxing that February 28 would 

add to the cost of disaster assistance. From a general perspective, 

as you well know, the Administration has usually opposed ad hoc 

disaster assistance and prefers to rely on crop insurance. In truth, 

ad hoc disaster assistance looks like it is going to be a reality and 

it is going to eventuate. The Administration has always taken the 

position that it should be offset in the budget. And so those would 

be two qualifications to try and move the February 28 forward. 

40

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Let me help you with that a little bit. I am informed that the reason for that date was the threat of a Presidential veto. Of course, we allow those now and again, but for my 

farmers in North Carolina, when the whole State of North Carolina 

has now been declared a disaster area, they are not really excited 

about that because they are not going to be able to remedy it. And 

as I said earlier some of these things are beyond your control and 

mine, when our water supply is gone and we are going to shut 

down plants, which in turn will affect the farmer in production. I 

mean, for our folks this is as serious as anything for those who had 

to cut off in February. They are not going to be eligible for any of 

these benefits for the people in the Southeast, so I look forward to 

working with you on that as we move forward because this is something that we are going to have to get engaged with the Department and with the White House to get done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your indulgence now you are back. 

The CHAIRMAN. At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to turn 

to our panel and discuss under the title of structural changes that 

have gone on, discuss the effect of the last 10, now almost 12 years 

of farm policy on rural America. Clearly in the 1930s to 1990s period we had a more supply-oriented management style of Federal 

farm bill. The flexibility that has been available to our producers 

for the last decade is the same flexibility that at one time there 

was much discussion they would not use. I guess, Dr. Collins, my 

question is this shifting from one crop to another as country ag 

economists, those farmers and ranchers respond to the price 

changes, do you see that accelerating over time? 

Dr. COLLINS. Mr. Lucas, I don’t know that I see it accelerating. 

I think the shift that we saw in 2007 was staggering. We now have 

revised our acreage estimates as of last week, and the increasing 

corn acreage now, from last year to this year, is up over 15 million 

acres, something I never thought I would see. It is hard for me to 

say that that is going to accelerate and get even bigger. But I do 

think it shows a tremendous ability to shift on the part of American producers to increase their income. I think that we are in a 

period over the next couple of years of having some oscillation as 

we move from crop to crop as things sort out. I think we are going 

to see probably less corn acreage in 2008, but I certainly don’t expect a 15 million acre decline. I think the effect will be dampened, 

so I continue to expect to see shifting back and forth by producers, 

that increases their income, and that increases their profits. That 

is a good thing for producers, and it also helps address the supplydemand imbalances. And I don’t know that I see it accelerating, 

but I see this type of a pattern continuing. 

Mr. LUCAS. So clearly those producers out there are making decisions that will reflect their best economic interest, and we have 

seen them move in that fashion very aggressively. You remember, 

10 years ago there was some debate about would the world come 

to an end when we went to this system of producers deciding how 

to use their property in the most sufficient fashion. And so far they 

appear to be trying very aggressively to maximize their return. Another question, Dr. Collins, and maybe for Dr. Westhoff also. At 

41

what price level do commodities have to stay before we see real 

changes in the size of the CRP pool out there. Is there a cost in 

taking land back into production, an opportunity cost, a structural 

cost? Producers have to believe under the contracts we have that 

expire over various periods of time that to put it back into production the rate of return will be sufficient to cover all of those costs 

before they will make the decision. How close from an economist’s 

perspective are we to that? Are we over that point? Will we see 

trends in CRP acreage change? 

Dr. COLLINS. Well, that is a complicated answer to that question. 

Mr. LUCAS. Well, you are a complicated guy. 

Dr. COLLINS. Yes, thank you. Off the top of my head on that, I 

think at the kind of wheat prices they are looking at right now, 

and understanding that most of the land in the CRP is in wheat 

country. It is in spring wheat or winter wheat country. And the 

kind of wheat prices that we are looking at right now, the CBOT 

wheat price is now $8.50 a bushel for December delivery which is 

extraordinary. I think that kind of a wheat price would encourage 

people who don’t have extraordinarily environmentally sensitive 

land to exit the CRP and go back into wheat production. Now, I 

don’t expect the wheat price to stay at $8.50, but I think in this 

$5 to $6 range, that is going to be very attractive for an awful lot 

of land that is in the CRP. Now, the impediments to exiting are 

that do people want to farm this land, or are they using this as an 

income stream as part of their portfolio. They may be retired for 

all we know. In fact there are a lot of retirees that are in the CRP, 

so there are other factors that would prevent land from coming out. 

Also there is a fair amount of land that is very highly environmentally sensitive land. The land capability classes, III, IV, V, VI, 

VII, and VIII which aren’t going to have good yields, which are 

going to have problems with a conservation plan, and are going to 

be high cost to farm, and they may remain in the CRP. I think we 

were a little surprised at the percent of producers that accepted the 

re-enrollments and extensions when we offered them last year. Particularly, not so much for the 2007 exits, but for the producers’ contracts who are going to expire in 2008, 2009, and 2010. We gave 

them until December of last year to decide whether to do that or 

not. Prices had already shot up quite a bit by then, and yet most 

of them took the re-enrollment or extension. The 2.5 million acres 

that we had come out on September 30 were those who consciously 

chose not to stay in the CRP because they wanted to presumably 

put that land back into production. If prices stay at these kind of 

levels for a sustained period of time, I think we will see more acreage come out of the CRP. Now, of course, the other side of that is 

what kind or enrollments will USDA offer and how aggressive will 

USDA be on the rental rate that it is offering producers? The higher prices go, if we offer higher rental rates we can bid that land 

into the CRP. So that is another factor that is going to determine 

what the net exits look like. 

Mr. LUCAS. And I think it is worth noting, Mr. Chairman, with 

our acreage limitations as those acres that are perhaps not so environmentally sensitive come out it creates opportunities for potentially millions of acres of greater sensitivity to come out. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

42

The CHAIRMAN. Well taken. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for missing 

some of the hearing during the break, so if these questions are redundant forgive me. I want to direct my questions to Dr. Collins, 

because back in North Dakota we are having an unbelievable year. 

The pricing for commodities, the debate ranges from well, ‘‘Is this 

the best in 10 years,’’ or, ‘‘Is it the best since Nixon sold grain to 

the Soviet Union,’’ thinking more along that line. Once in a generation maybe you see a year like this one. I would like your initial 

observations on nationally is it as good as it looks in parts of North 

Dakota this year, and what does that mean in terms of things that 

we know are going to cycle from the kind of fall that we are having. 

Dr. COLLINS. That is a very good question, Mr. Pomeroy, and it 

caused me to re-write the last line of my opening statement to caution about the coming cyclical down-turn. As easy as it is to get 

mesmerized by the fact that we have had record high net cash farm 

income in 3 of the last 4 years, the history of the agricultural economy is that it is cyclical and down-turns come, as we are seeing 

in ethanol prices right now. But I do think that this is historic in 

an unusual period of time, and the extent to which it lasts is really 

going to depend on the whole bioenergy equation. There are a lot 

of factors driving the record high prices. The global economy has 

been extraordinarily strong. Exchange rates depreciated dramatically. We have seen unprecedented growth in developing countries. 

We have seen some bad production in many countries around the 

world the last couple of years. We have been in, since 1999, a pretty historic drought in the western states of the United States, the 

third most significant in the last 100 years which has really destroyed forage and capped the expansion of the cattle sector. So 

there are a lot of factors going on that have driven these higher 

prices which can turn. But if biofuel production from row crops, 

major crops, continues to grow and continues to grow steadily, then 

I think that that is going to keep upward pressure on prices. It is 

going to continue to keep prosperity in North Dakota and in other 

states as well. That is going to be a function of what happens with 

crude oil prices over time and what kind of production response we 

get in the United States and the rest of the world. And one of the 

key factors in production response is going to be output per acre. 

We are seeing some startling things with the latest generation of 

biotech seeds, and so all of these things are going to work themselves together. The world economy could slow down, crude oil 

prices could decline, biotech seed yields could grow dramatically, 

weather in the United States could be poor, any one of those things 

could cause this to start to roll over. So it could happen. For right 

now I would say enjoy it and make sure the producers of North Dakota are adding to their savings accounts. 

Mr. POMEROY. That is it, pay down debt. I appreciate your response. It is what I think also, and when times get really good and 

begin to feel like boom times then you know look out, you have 

rough water ahead. And I am wondering about ethanol. We have 

ethanol plants under construction, increased North Dakota production ten-fold, but at the same time we have one of our older plants 

closed because profitability wasn’t there. What are we to make of 

43

ethanol futures being as low as they are; and what are we going 

to see in terms of a stabilizing or maybe even a shakeout of this 

upstart ethanol industry? 

Dr. COLLINS. Well, I think the future depends on what happens 

to crude oil prices and gasoline prices and it will very much depend 

on what happens with Federal renewable energy policy. There is 

quite a range of policy options on the table from eliminating the 

tariff on ethanol to eliminating or reducing the 51¢ tax credit for 

ethanol to mandating the use of ethanol to as much as 36 billion 

gallons by 2022, or under the President’s proposal, 35 billion gallons by 2017. These are dramatic policy changes and could all affect what happens with ethanol. Abstracting from that, ethanol is 

progressing now on the basis of the existing tax preferences and 

the price of gasoline. And we talked a little bit before you came in 

about the slump in ethanol prices right now being a result of ethanol fulfilling the demand in a lot of the mandated markets, the 

seven states that mandate minimum ethanol consumption as well 

as the reformulated gas market. And ethanol now having to push 

out into the opportunities which are the Mountain states, the 

Southeast, and so on where the infrastructure is not there to handle it. But as Dr. Gruenspecht noted the financial incentive right 

now, because ethanol prices are low, the financial incentive for 

blenders are to make that investment in those facilities and move 

that ethanol into blending. And so I think those kinds of things, 

Dr. Gruenspecht said that kind of investment could take 6 to 24 

months, as they happen should provide some strength to the ethanol price and then ethanol runs up against this so-called blend 

wall. When you start to move toward the full 10 percent of the 140 

billion gallons or so of gasoline that is consumed in the United 

States, unless the E85 market is really taking off, you have that 

constraint as well. So there is no simple answer to your question. 

It looks to us like we are going to see continued sharp growth over 

the next 12 to 18 months because of the plants that are under construction now, where permits have been pulled, concrete has been 

poured. We think that most of those will come online, but then we 

would expect some much slower growth after that based on ethanol 

prices coming down relative to gasoline, relative to their historical 

relationship, and higher corn prices reducing the margin on production. But as that continues to grow steadily, as long as that 

yield growth doesn’t outstrip that growth in corn going to ethanol 

production, it will keep prices looking fairly robust. 

Mr. POMEROY. Very interesting. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the 

full Committee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Gruenspecht, on 

the issue of cellulosic ethanol, ethanol made from cellulosic materials, what is your anticipation of how quickly that sector will develop and come online, and what effect do you think that will have 

on ethanol prices? 

Dr. GRUENSPECHT. As I described in my testimony, in our reference or baseline case we do see corn ethanol and possibly imported ethanol from sugar as being by far the dominant sources of 

ethanol. I have also noted that any kind of long-run projection is 

44

really very dependent upon these technology factors. There certainly could be a break through in technology. There can also be 

policy factors as Dr. Collins just discussed that could certainly lead 

to a larger role for cellulosic ethanol. Absent technological break 

through or absent a policy change that dramatically increases the 

amount of liquid renewable fuels that are used, the combination of 

the large amount of corn ethanol plants that are already under 

construction and what Dr. Collins described as the blend wall, if 

you add them up, they kind of take you to about the same place 

and don’t leave a lot of room for significant penetration of cellulosic 

ethanol. If you are going to get past that blend wall then you are 

looking at E85, which the Chairman noted and I think Dr. Collins 

as well, that will need to compete with gasoline on an energy-content basis, not a dollars-per-gallon basis, but a dollars-per-BTU 

basis. I guess, the $64,000 question for cellulosic ethanol is can cellulosic ethanol compete on a dollars-per-BTU basis with gasoline? 

And as Dr. Collins pointed out that is going to depend a lot on the 

crude oil price, but that is a pretty tall order, and we don’t have 

that in our reference case scenario, but we recognize there is certainly a possibility of that. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. One of the major inhibiting factors for forest 

biomass to be used as a renewable fuel are the transportation costs 

associated with hauling trees and waste from remote places to facilities that can use the material, and particularly in places like my 

district in western Virginia, this means the difference between forest biomass being used for energy or not. Do you see any changes 

in the near future that would reduce these energy costs and make 

these projects economical? 

Dr. GRUENSPECHT. I think that is really a great question. Yes, 

transportation considerations are really important for fuels with 

relatively low energy density and relatively low economic value, 

such as forest biomass. However, this is not a unique problem for 

forest biomass. If you look at fossil fuels like coal from the Powder 

River Basin, transportation cost represents 2⁄3 of the delivered cost 

of that coal to power plants in the East. Ultimately, I think it is 

the availability of what market opportunity can encourage advances in technologies to collect and move material. That is certainly what happened in the Powder River Basin, for example: 

made that coal competitive in the East. Another option is to disburse the facilities that use renewable fuel to limit the need for expensive transportation. I mean, this is one reason that corn ethanol 

refineries are sized at about 50 million gallons a year, maybe 50, 

100 million gallons a year which are sort of 1⁄60 the size of a medium-sized oil refinery. A 200,000 barrel-a-day oil refinery does 3.1 

billion gallons a year. Similarly, in power generation we would expect a new-build biomass plant to be 1⁄10 to 1⁄20 the size of a typical 

new coal-fired plant. The smaller plants could be more widely disbursed and that would reduce the average transportation cost for 

biomass fuel to fuel the plant. Of course, as in the ethanol sector 

there is a need to find, what you would call the sweet spot that 

strikes a balance between scale efficiencies and operation and the 

minimization of transport costs. But, I guess, I am maybe more optimistic about the opportunity for some combination of collection 

and transportation improvements with some dispersion of the faVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Jun 03, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-31\50024.TXT SOLEM PsN: REBEKA
45

cilities that use the fuel to help overcome the problem that your 

question identifies. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Dr. Collins, let me switch over to 

another issue and ask if you might comment on some problems we 

have with fertilizer production. I am told that the U.S. fertilizer industry in the last 7 years has permanently closed 25 nitrogen 

plants, or about 40 percent of the capacity, primarily due to high 

and volatile natural gas costs. Your testimony states that U.S. anhydrous ammonia production capacity was 16.5 million tons in 

2000. It is only 9.6 million tons today. Ten years ago U.S. farmers 

imported only 15 percent of the fertilizer they use today. More than 

50 percent of fertilizer use is imported. For some fertilizers, such 

as urea, we import more than 70 percent of what farmers use. I 

wonder if you might comment on two things. First of all, address 

the factors that are causing this decline in fertilizer production in 

the U.S. and second, with domestic fertilizer production already in 

decline does $1.25 per million BTU tax on some domestically-produced natural gas, a tax I might note has been added to several 

bills including the farm bill, would that increase or decrease our 

dependency on foreign sources of natural gas to make fertilizer for 

our farms? 

Dr. COLLINS. Mr. Goodlatte, in response to the reduction in production capacity of particularly ammonia nitrogen fertilizer in the 

United States, I would trace that to one primary factor. That really 

accelerated beginning around 2000, 2001, when natural gas prices 

prior to that were running at $2 per million BTU and in the early 

part of this decade soared to in the range of $13 per million BTU. 

Meanwhile, in many other countries around the world natural gas 

prices were $1, $1.50, $2, $3 while ours were three and four and 

five times that, so it put our domestic fertilizer, hydrogen fertilizer 

industry at a disadvantage and plants began closing. And that is 

correct since 2000, about 40 percent of the capacity has closed. The 

second part of your question is this $1.25 charge on some natural 

gas. You know, obviously if that raises the natural gas price to domestic fertilizer plants, that raises their cost of production. I think 

a ton of anhydrous ammonia has about 33 million BTUs of natural 

gas in it, so $1.25 times 33 is roughly $40 a ton increased production cost. Anhydrous ammonia right now is selling for about $550 

or so a ton in the Upper Midwest. Now, I don’t know to what extent. I haven’t studied that $1.25. I don’t know how much of the 

natural gas supply that is going to affect. The number may be a 

heck of a lot less than the $40 or so I mentioned because the $1.25 

only applies to some of our production. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 

Kansas. 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank you to 

the economists for joining us today. Let me ask first, I don’t know 

whether—the topic of this hearing is structural changes. I don’t 

know whether this qualifies as a structural change, but our inability to export beef to South Korea and Japan has been around now 

a long time. I assume that that lack of market has been built into 

the price structure for livestock. I am looking for your analysis of 

where we are in regard to the economic consequences of our failure 

46

to open that market. And perhaps, Dr. Collins, if you know anything from your relationship at USDA as to whether there is any 

light at the end of the tunnel. And then my second question is related to WTO. We have seen some evidence of a decision at WTO 

since the passage of the House farm bill related to enforcement or 

implementation of the decision related to cotton. I would be delighted to hear your thoughts as to what this latest decision in regard to WTO means for the structure in which we operate in agriculture. Also particularly what it means to us as policy makers as 

we continue to try to determine what farm policy should be. And 

finally, the International Monetary Fund has been complaining in 

a study that our increasing reliance on corn, on grain-based fuels, 

is fueling an increase in the cost of food around the world, complaining about increasing food prices in poor countries. That is an 

unusual charge by the international community of the United 

States. Usually we are increasing commodity prices as a result of 

our farm program, so I would be interested in knowing if you have 

any take on what it is we should learn from the international community’s continual complaining about prices too high, prices too 

low in our policies. 

Dr. COLLINS. Okay. Mr. Moran, those are three very different 

questions. Let me try and do those quickly. On the first question, 

yes, our cattle industry has absorbed and adjusted to the loss of export sales as a result of the closure of principally Asian markets 

due to BSE. In 2003, we exported about 21⁄2 billion pounds of beef. 

This year we expect to export about 11⁄2 billion pounds of beef, so 

in the absence of ever having found BSE, we would probably be 

well above 21⁄2 billion pounds and now we are only at 11⁄2. However, we are making some progress. Two years ago we were only 

at 700 million, so we are twice the level we were 2 years ago. And 

for 2008, our official projection is exports of 1.9 billion pounds, so 

we are making some progress. Part of that 1.9 billion pounds are 

increases to Japan, one of the key countries that we have not been 

exporting to. So we have increased our sales to Japan. It is at a 

slow rate, but our beef has been going there. Now, with respect to 

Korea, I am afraid I don’t have anything very positive to report on 

that. We have some sales to Korea. So far this year, I think, in the 

neighborhood of $75 million—very tiny. And then, of course, most 

recently there was another discovery in a box of beef of a vertebral 

column and they shut off all of our trade, all the trade with us. 

And so we are now back in negotiating with Korea again to try to 

establish a protocol to resume trade. 

Mr. MORAN. Dr. Collins, on the point of South Korea or even 

Japan, in the absence of U.S. beef exports to those two countries 

are there other countries that are filling that gap or is there less 

beef consumed in those countries? 

Dr. COLLINS. There are other countries that are filling that gap 

and there are other species that are filling that gap. We are setting 

record levels for pork exports, which are going to those markets as 

well, for example. And we have also been able to offset some of 

these losses by exporting much more to other countries around the 

world, such as Mexico and even Canada has been taking a lot of 

our beef. The second question you asked about was the findings of 

the compliance panel in the WTO with respect to the ongoing cotVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:15 Jun 03, 2009 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\110-31\50024.TXT SOLEM PsN: REBEKA
47

ton case. I really can’t say anything about the specifics of that finding. At this point the finding has been provided to us by the WTO. 

It is confidential until they make it public. I know that there have 

been public comments made by the other side, and there have been 

some general comments made in response to that. I would only go 

back to the original finding which had concluded that we were not 

in compliance, that we had not adjusted our domestic programs 

and our GSM program to ameliorate the serious prejudiced charge 

that we were found to have violated, the price depression charge 

along with respect to our domestic programs causing lower cotton 

prices in the world. We will just have to wait and see what comes 

out when the final report is issued, which is probably still several 

weeks away. I can only tell you the process then. A decision will 

have to be made as to whether to appeal that report. If it is appealed and the final report that would come after that and be 

adopted by the WTO would be the end of the compliance process. 

Then at that point presumably if we were to lose this case, then 

the Brazilian Government would seek to establish damages and retaliate, seek to establish damages and achieve compensation from 

us. Short of receiving compensation they could then retaliate. So 

there is still a lot yet to unfold on this and no matter how it works 

out I am sure we will have implications for our domestic farm policy. The third question you raised was about an IMF comment that 

food prices are rising because of policies and events here in the 

United States. Food prices are rising for people around the world 

and isn’t this kind of an in contradistinction to the general claim 

that our farm policies depress world prices which is the basis for 

the cotton case against us. I guess, my only observation about that 

is that whenever prices go to extremes people come out of the 

woodwork to complain about it, whether it is very low prices like 

cotton reaching 29¢ in 1999 and 2000 which precipitated the Brazilian challenge against our program or with wheat prices reaching 

$6 or $7 which presumably precipitated IMF’s comments. There is 

a wide range for markets to work and for prices to vary and resources to adjust efficiently. And when prices start to move toward 

those bounds then people start to get concerned. I guess, I would 

say let this thing play out. We were early. American producers, and 

not just American but global producers, are adjusting to this. We 

were just talking about fertilizer. One of the things that has struck 

me about fertilizer is the incredible global demand for fertilizer 

over the last couple of years. It is soaring, and that is because 

countries all over the world are trying to increase their yields. 

Their yields are much lower than ours in general. And you can look 

at places like China or India or Brazil or Argentina and demand 

for fertilizer is soaring there, and that is another factor behind the 

high price of fertilizer. So we are going to see a production response 

around the world to these prices. And the other thing I would say 

to the IMF is a lot of these developing countries are agriculturallyoriented countries. They have large agricultural sectors that are 

poor and higher prices are going to help their agricultural sectors, 

and oh by the way, renewable energy might give their farmers a 

new opportunity to produce as well. So I think there are a lot of 

factors to take into account here. Whenever prices go to the extremes they are certainly worth monitoring and being sure that 

48

Federal policy is not intervening in some adverse way and it is 

time to think about that. But on the whole, I think that this can 

represent an opportunity for the economies of developing countries. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Dr. Collins. I always appreciate when 

you are a witness. It makes my mediocre questions even seem intellectual based upon your answers, so I am grateful for that. 

Thank you. 

Dr. COLLINS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska, I wanted to follow up on this and then I will go to you if that is okay. You know, 

Dr. Westhoff and Dr. Collins, following up on this discussion, clearly the United States ag policy is not the reason we have high wheat 

prices. 

Dr. COLLINS. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Canada is complaining about corn subsidies 

when it was not the U.S. subsidy system that has caused the corn 

prices to go up. How did we get into a situation where we have allowed ourselves to become involved in a WTO process that uses 

outdated data, and actually allows them to cherry-pick years. So 

they can go after us for people’s agendas whether it be the poor African countries that claim that it is us that causes them all the 

trouble when it is actually the French Government and those people that run that system. Am I out of line here when I say we have 

a WTO system that is dysfunctional? It is based on data that has 

no reality to what is going on, and so here we are fighting cases 

using timeframes that are completely irrelevant to what is going on 

today and we are into this system. I mean, I don’t see how this 

serves us as a country to be in this kind of system, so if you would 

comment on this. 

Dr. COLLINS. I would like to comment. I am sure Dr. Westhoff 

will have something to say. But I think stepping back and looking 

at our involvement in the WTO is really an indispensable affiliation for our country. It is through the WTO that trade liberalization, not just in agriculture but in everything, has been achieved, 

and if you look at the growth of the global economy since the GATT 

was first founded in 1947 it has been phenomenal. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not arguing about that. 

Dr. COLLINS. Okay. You are talking about—oh, wait. Let me go 

to the specific——

The CHAIRMAN. How did we agree to this process where you can 

use——

Dr. COLLINS. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN.—timeframes to challenge things that are completely irrelevant to what is going on? 

Dr. COLLINS. Well, going back to the Uruguay Round Agreement 

which we adopted in 1994 and it had a life through 2000, and it 

was some hope that we would negotiate a successor agreement. 

Well, we haven’t and in the interim the peace clause expired. The 

peace clause protected our farm programs against challenges. Now, 

that allowed Brazil to come in and file a complaint under the subsidies code. 

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that, but why are we using whatever it is 2000, 1999? 

Dr. COLLINS. 1999/2000. 

49

The CHAIRMAN. Well, yeah. I mean, that has no relevance to 

what is going on today. 

Dr. COLLINS. It doesn’t have any relevance to what is going on 

today. I can’t remember when this case was first filed but it was 

some time ago and it was closer to that period when it was first 

filed. The WTO is not prescriptive. It doesn’t anticipate what might 

happen in the future and cause people to file complaints based on 

that. People file complaints based on actual historical data. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does the WTO court, or whatever it is, take into 

account what the current situation is when they are using outdated——

Dr. COLLINS. They do not. They cannot. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Westhoff, what do you think about all this? 

Dr. WESTHOFF. Well, I think you are raising an important point. 

I don’t disagree with anything that Dr. Collins said, but I agree 

with you that it does seem a bit odd to be looking backwards when 

policies then may perhaps have very different effects than they 

have today. And, again, where we are at with markets today we 

don’t expect, the USDA does not expect that we will have much in 

the way of marketing—cyclical payments over the next 10 years. 

And if that is the case and those are the points where we seem to 

be hung up on, it does raise some questions about the process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Well, thank you. And that was part of what 

spurred this, is that you are saying, Dr. Collins, ‘‘It looks like if the 

biofuel things keep going that these prices are going to be better.’’ 

We are here fighting these rear-guard actions against some of these 

folks who, in my opinion, are probably doing things as bad as we 

are and we seem to kind of turn our eye to that. It just mystifies 

me how we got into this whole deal. The gentleman from Nebraska. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For Dr. Collins, I hear 

from constituents repeatedly on the high cost of initial operating 

capital for farmers and ranchers, primarily the cost of land and 

they see Section 1031 like-kind exchanges as a mechanism that 

perhaps is creating a false market—that there are folks rushing to 

make a deal, paying more than they would maybe have to if we extended the timeframe for a 1031 exchange. Do you see increase in 

values? I know this wouldn’t be the solution to that, and, again, 

strong property values can be a good thing, but not if it is a false 

market and especially in an area with high property tax. 

Dr. COLLINS. The Section 1031 like-kind exchanges have really 

exploded over the last couple of years as farmland values have 

been going up in double-digit rates. I have done a little bit of 

searching of the literature to find a good analysis of what Section 

1031 of the IRS Code has meant for farmland values. Quite frankly 

I haven’t found much. I do know that it, for example, economists 

in Illinois have frequently cited it as a cause for higher farmland 

values in the State of Illinois where a very high percentage of 

farmland purchases have involved like-kind Section 1031 exchange. 

Based on that in the belief that you just expressed, as you probably 

know, USDA and the Administration in their 2007 Farm Bill proposal had a proposal on Section 1031 like-kind exchanges and that 

was that if someone were to buy farmland and to defer the capital 

gains from the sale of other land to buy the farmland, they couldn’t 

get farm program payments on that farmland if they were going to 

50

get a 1031 deferral of capital gains tax treatment. So that in and 

of itself tells you that the Administration and USDA believe that 

there is some merit to the argument that like-kind exchanges have 

increased farmland values, and so the Administration wanted to do 

something about it. You may know that 2 weeks ago the Senate Finance Committee reported out a bill that would deny the deferred 

tax treatment on a like-kind exchange if developed property was 

sold and farmland was bought and there was a stream of farm program payments or CCC loans on that land. So there are several 

groups then who support the thinking that you just mentioned. 

Mr. SMITH. So you are saying that perhaps, and they are wishing 

to narrow or, I guess, tighten up the like-kind definition, land-forland. 

Dr. COLLINS. Yes, I think the general thinking is people don’t 

care if people engage in a like-kind exchange and sell developed 

real property for undeveloped farmland. But they just don’t want 

to facilitate that with farm program payments, because that just 

gives the buyer of the farmland extra income to bid up the price 

of that farmland. It is fine if it takes place without farm program 

payments helping in the transaction. I think that is the logic of 

what the Administration proposed and what the Senate Finance 

Committee action was 2 weeks ago. 

Mr. SMITH. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, gentlemen. Any other Members seek to 

be recognized? Hearing none, gentlemen, we appreciate your involvement, being here today, and taking the time out of your schedules, and with that the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ