Measuring Equity in Farm Support Levels

Measuring Equity in Farm Support Levels
June 22, 2007
Randy Schnepf
Specialists in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Measuring Equity in Farm Support Levels
Summary
Federal farm law mandates support for, among others, 18 “covered
commodities.” Support for these agricultural commodities, as specified in the 2002
farm bill (P.L. 107-171) includes direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, and
marketing loans. Large disparities in the relative levels of benefit among these
commodities have led to questions of equity.
This report compares support rates per unit, total payments, payments per
harvested acre, payments as a share of the value of production, and payments as a
share of the total cost of production. In addition, price and income support levels are
compared to market prices. By all of these measures there has been little equity
across commodities. However, farmers often have argued for equity based on cost
of production. Economists, on the other hand, would use trend market prices as the
basis for setting support prices in order to avoid market distortions and resource
misallocations.
There is little or no practical or theoretical justification for equalizing support
rates, total payments, or payments per harvested acre. In fact, some critics say the
subsidies themselves are not justified. However, to the extent that farm support is
a political reality, equity is a consideration. There are times when market prices drop
substantially, but temporarily, below trend levels. At these times support may be
justified to prevent unnecessary and undesirable resource adjustments. This builds
on the concept of a market-based “safety net” that uses market price trends as the key
factor in setting support levels.
During the past ten years (1997-2006), monthly average market prices for the
major “covered commodities” have been below loan rates 36% of the time, and
below effective target prices 59% of the time. However, this frequency has varied
substantially across crops. This report calculates adjustments to policy parameters
that would put each of the commodities “in the money” an arbitrary 30% of the time
with regard to marketing loans and an arbitrary 50% of the time with regard to
adjusted target prices.
Compared to market price trends from 1997 through 2006, upland cotton, rice,
and sorghum have disproportionately high effective target prices and marketing loan
rates relative to the other major covered commodities. Barley, oats, and peanuts have
disproportionately lower adjusted target prices and marketing loan rates. The
situation is mixed for corn and wheat. Soybean target prices and loan rates are
closest to neutral according to the thresholds used in this comparison.

Contents
Support Prices................................................1
Program Payments By Commodity................................3
Program Payments Per Acre.....................................4
Program Payments as a Share of Crop Market Values.................5
Program Expenditures Compared to Cost of Production................6
Support Levels Compared to Market Prices.........................7
Comparison of Loan Rates...................................8
Comparison of CCP Support.................................9
Appendix: Data Tables........................................13
List of Figures
Figure 1. Commodity Payment Shares, Yearly Average FY2003-FY2006.....3
Figure 2. Commodity Payments Per Harvested Acre, Yearly Average
FY2003-FY2006 ..............................................4
Figure 3. Commodity Payments as Share of Crop Market Values,
FY2003-FY2006 ..............................................5
Figure 4. Effective Target Price as Share of 2002-2005 Average Total Cost
of Production.................................................7
Figure 5. Frequency Selected Covered Commodities Are “In the Money”
Due to Low Market Prices (MP), 1997-2006.......................10
Figure 6. Adjustments Needed to Equalize Loan Rates for
Selected Covered Commodities Based on Market Prices, 1997-2006.....11
Figure 7. Adjustments Needed to Equalize Effective Target Prices for
Selected Covered Commodities Based on Market Prices, 1997-2006.....12
List of Tables
Table 1. Covered Commodity Support Levels in the 2002 Farm Bill.........2
Table 2. “Covered Commodity” Payments, Harvested Acres, and Crop Values.13
Table 3. Effective Target Prices Compared to Total Cost of Production for
Selected “Covered Commodities”................................13
Table 4. Policy Comparison Based on Monthly Market Price Data..........14
Table 5. Loan Rate Adjustments Needed to Equalize Policy Outcomes
Across Commodities..........................................14
Table 6. Target Price Adjustments Needed to Equalize Policy Outcomes
Across Commodities ..........................................15

Measuring Equity in Farm Support Levels
Farm commodity and income support is mandated for 18 so-called “covered
commodities” through direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, and marketing¹
loans. The levels of support under each support system are specified in the law.
Questions have been raised as to whether these commodities have been treated
equitably. With the benefit of hindsight it is possible to compare support prices and
actual payments against several standards to address questions of equity. Across
these commodities, this report compares (1) support levels in the law, (2) yearly
average program payments, (3) program payments per acre, (4) payments as a share
of crop market values, (5) payments as a share of production costs, and (6) support
levels with market price trends.
Support Prices
The prescribed levels of commodity support in current law are shown in Table
1. They are not equal either as specified in the law (on a volume basis for some and
weight basis for others) or when converted to a common one-hundred pound
standard. However, equality in absolute price would not be a reasonable standard for
equity because the commodities have widely different end uses and market values.
For example, there is little reason to expect wheat used to make bread to be supported
at the same price as cotton for fabric.

¹ Sec. 1001(4) of P.L. 107-171 (the 2002 farm bill) defines covered commodities to include
wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, rice, soybeans, and other oilseeds.”
Other oilseeds include sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed,
crambe, and sesame seed. Peanuts are not designated as a covered commodity, but are
treated like a covered commodity in terms of the support framework and are included in this
analysis as a covered commodity. In addition to the 18 “covered commodities,” different
support systems are mandated for an additional 8 commodities (sugar, milk, dry peas, lentils,
chickpeas, wool, mohair, and honey). These commodities are not included in this analysis.
The authors recognize also that vegetables, fruits, nuts, and ornamental plants (roughly 50%
of the value of U.S. crop production) do not receive direct subsidies. Whether the lack of
support for 50% of crop production is equitable is beyond the scope of this analysis. A
complete explantation of support program operations is available in CRS Report RL33271,
Farm Commodity Programs: Direct Payments, Counter-Cyclical Payments, and Marketing
Loans.

Table 1. Covered Commodity Support Levels
in the 2002 Farm Bill
Commodity &Direct Counter-cyclicalMarketing Loan
Unit of SupportPayment RateTarget PricePrice
$/unit $/cwt $/unit $ /cwt $/unit $/cwt
Wheat, bu0.520.873.926.532.754.58
Corn, bu0.280.502.634.701.953.48
Sorghum, bu0.350.632.574.591.953.48
Barley, bu0.240.502.244.671.853.85
Oats, bu0.0240.081.444.501.334.16
Cotton, lb0.06676.670.72472.400.5252.00
Rice, cwt2.352.3510.5010.506.506.50
Soybeans, bu0.440.735.809.675.008.33
Other Oilseeds, lb0.0080.800.10110.100.0939.30
Peanuts, ton36.001.80495.0024.75355.0017.75
^No^te:^Co^ttoⁿⁱⁿ^clu^d^{es o}ⁿ^ly^u^p^lan^d^co^ttoⁿ^.^Min^o^r^oils^eedsⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e s}^uⁿ^f^low^e^{r s}^{eed, rapes}^{eed, can}^ola,
^s^a^f^f^l^ow^{er, f}^l^ax^s^{eed, m}^u^s^t^{ard s}^{eed, cram}^{be, an}^{d s}^e^s^a^m^e^s^{eed. P}^ean^u^t^s^{are n}^o^{t des}ⁱ^gⁿ^a^{ted a cov}^e^red
^com^m^odi^t^y^{, bu}^t^{are t}^r^eat^{ed l}ⁱ^k^{e a cov}^e^{red com}^m^odi^t^yⁱⁿ^t^e^rm^s^of^t^h^{e s}^u^pport^f^r^a^m^e^w^o^r^k.^S^u^pport
^lev^e^{ls ar}^{e sp}^ecifⁱ^edⁱⁿ^th^{e law}^b^y^dⁱ^f^f^e^rⁱⁿ^g^uⁿ^it^m^eas^u^r^es^th^{at h}^a^v^e^been^con^v^e^{rted to a u}ⁿⁱ^f^o^rm
^hund^r^e^d^w^eⁱ^{ght (}^c^w^t⁾^to^fa^c^ilita^te^c^o^m^p^a^r^isoⁿ^.
^Source:^C^R^S^{, com}^pⁱ^l^e^{d f}^r^om^t^h^{e F}^a^rm^S^ecu^ri^t^y^an^{d R}^u^ral^In^v^e^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^A^c^t^of^{2002 (P.L}^{. 107-1}^71),
^T^{itle I, Section}^s^{1103, 1104, 1202, 1303, 1304, 1307.}

Program Payments By Commodity
For the FY2003-FY2006 time period, yearly program support payments to
farmers averaged $10.874 billion. The largest share went to corn (43.7%), while the
category other oilseeds received 0.2% of the total (Figure 1). Again, few would
argue that equity would be achieved by dividing the total payments equally among
commodities. The allocation of payments among commodities largely is based on
historical or current output, which means harvested acreage is a major factor. In
2002 through 2005, farmers annually harvested about 4.3 million acres of other
oilseeds, while the corn harvest averaged 72.2 million acres.
Figure 1. Commodity Payment Shares,
Yearly Average FY2003-FY2006

43.7%Corn
24.6%Cotton
9.9%Wheat
8%Rice
6.9%Soybeans
4.3% Other Feedgrains
2.5%Peanuts
0.2%Other Oilseeds

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Source: Primary data are from USDA, FSA .

Program Payments Per Acre
With land being a common base for crop production, one might ask how support
payments compare on a per acre basis. Figure 2 shows actual yearly average
commodity support spending for the FY2003-FY2006 time frame per harvested acre.
Yearly support spending averaged $10.874 billion. If this had been distributed
equally over all acreage, the payments would have been about $48 per acre.
Payments actually ranged from a high of about $270 per acre for rice to a low of
about $4 per acre for the other oilseeds. Overlooked by this comparison is the fact
that an acre of rice had a market value of about $463 compared to corn at $318 or
wheat at $142. Therefore, few farmers, economists, or policy makers contend that
equal payments per acre would be an equitable distribution of support benefits.
Figure 2. Commodity Payments Per Harvested Acre,
Yearly Average FY2003-FY2006

270Rice
213Cotton
192Peanuts
66Corn
48Average
36Other Feedgrains
22Wheat
10Soybeans
4Other Oilseeds
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Source: Primary data are from USDA, FSA and NASS. Harvest period is crop
years 2002-05.

Program Payments as a Share of Crop Market Values
Some might expect that support payments for each crop measured as a share of
each crop’s market value would be similar over time if the support rates were set
equitably. This outcome would be expected if the forces that cause variation in
market prices equally impact all of the commodities. Examination of Figure 3 shows
that at one extreme support payments for rice amounted to 58% of the value of
production for the FY2003-FY2006 period. In contrast, payments for other oilseeds
amounted to 3% of the crop value.
Figure 3. Commodity Payments as Share of Crop Market Values,
FY2003-FY2006

58%Rice
57%Cotton
35%Peanuts
27% Other Feedgrains
21%Corn
15%Wheat
4%Soybeans
3%Other Oilseeds

0 9% 19% 28% 37% 46% 56% 65%

Source: Primary data are from USDA, FSA .

Program Expenditures Compared to Cost of Production
Farmers have long endorsed the concept of basing support on the cost of
production because costs have to be covered to stay in business. In fact, the
permanent legislative authority for commodity support programs, the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938 (P.L. 75-430), used prices paid for production inputs as a
key determinant of support prices. As recently as the 1977 farm bill, costs of
production were built into the formula for annually adjusting target prices. No longer
is cost of production explicitly included as a determinant of support. Economists
argue against basing support on production costs, first because they contend it is
economically indefensible and second because there is no single cost of production
(production costs are different for every farmer). The indefensibility argument arises
because the specialized nature of some farm inputs (particularly land, buildings,
machinery) makes their cost dependent on the value of the farm output. This means
that when earnings are above market levels because of a subsidy, the gains will be
capitalized into the prices of the specialized inputs, thereby raising the subsequent
cost of production and leading to calls for additional subsidies.² Then there is the
problem of choosing which cost categories and levels should be covered — only
variable costs and only at a level of the low cost highly efficient farmers, national
average variable costs, or total costs for all farmers.
In spite of the theoretical opposition of economists, farmers make a politically
appealing argument to policy makers when they plead for support to cover their costs
of production. How do current levels of support compare to production costs across
commodities. Figure 4 shows effective target prices (the target price minus the³
direct payment) as a share of national average (2002-2005) per unit costs of
production. At the high end, the effective target price for peanuts amounts to 101%
of the total cost of production. At the low end, the effective target price for sorghum
amounts to 47% of the total cost of production. Economists Groenewegen and
Clayton argued in a professional journal that the “rationale for price support prices
should be to allow immediate, or cash, expenditures to be met. .... Price supports
should not provide owners of fixed agricultural resources the opportunity costs of
those resources.”⁴ Following this line of economic reasoning, total costs of
production may not be a sound basis for designing support, but they do facilitate a
comparison that shows a wide disparity of support between effective target prices for
some commodities.

² This argument was explained by E.C. Pasour, “Cost of Production: A Defensible Basis for
Agricultural Price Supports?” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May 1980, pp.

244-248.

³ The maximum counter-cyclical payment made to farmers when market prices are below
target prices is the difference between the higher target price and the lower sum of the loan
rate and direct payment rate. Therefore, the target price less the direct payment rate yields
what is called the effective target price.
⁴ John R. Groenewegen and Kenneth C. Clayton, “Agricultural Price Supports and Cost of
Production”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, May 1982, p.271.

Figure 4. Effective Target Price as Share of

2002-2005 Average Total Cost of Production

101%Peanuts
98%Corn
93%Cotton
92%Rice
91% Soybeans
64%Wheat
48%Barley
47%Sorghum

0 2 0% 4 0% 6 0% 8 0% 1 00 % 1 20 %

Source: Primary data are from USDA, ERS and P.L. 107-171. Effective target
price is target price less the direct payment.
Support Levels Compared to Market Prices
The argument that Groenewegen and Clayton made in 1982 seems equally valid
today that “... the level of price support should be established below trend market
prices.”⁵ One can think of the trend market price as reflecting the long-run
equilibrium market price. The logic of providing a “safety net” may be used to set
support prices at some level below the long-run equilibrium price. Currently, the law
specifies fixed support levels without consideration for market price trends (and
questionable economic equity by the previous analysis in this report). Paraphrasing
from Groenewegen and Clayton, trend market prices as a reference point should not
cause the support program to attract additional resources into the sector but will
provide a cash flow to farmers when market prices deviate substantially and
temporarily below trend levels. Possibly in recognition of this logic, the USDA’s
farm bill proposal to the Congress in January 2007 suggested that marketing
assistance loan rates be set “at 85% of the five-year Olympic average with maximum
loan rates as established in the House-passed version of the 2002 farm bill.”⁶
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ USDA, 2007 Farm Bill Proposals, undated but released January 2007.

How do support prices vary across commodities in comparison to market price
trends? One approach is to evaluate the relative equality of commodity loan prices
and target prices against benchmark market prices. Commodity loan prices are the
basis for making loan deficiency payments (LDPs) and target prices are the basis for
making counter-cyclical payments (CCPs). Market price trends for grain and oilseed
crops in this analysis are monthly average farm prices (MAFP). Market price trends
for cotton and rice are adjusted world prices (AWP).⁷ These market price data are
used, first, to examine the current level of price and income “safety-net” support; and
second, to evaluate the degree of adjustment to current policy parameters (i.e., loan
rates and target prices) needed to obtain equal levels of “safety-net” price and income
protection across program crops.
Comparison of Loan Rates. A comparison, by commodity, of monthly
average market prices with the marketing loan rate provides a general sense of the⁸
level of relative price support across program crops. The frequency market prices
fall below the loan rate suggests how often a particular commodity is “in the
money”(i.e., eligible for loan deficiency payments to offset low market price). When
such market conditions occur, the marketing loan rate is above the equilibrium
market price and acts as a floor or support price. Using a monthly average price
smooths out daily and regional variation from grain and oilseed data (these crops rely
on daily posted county prices for determining actual loan repayment rates), and
provides only a general approximation for how often a commodity actually has been
“in the money.” Since cotton and rice both use a calculated weekly adjusted world
price, only temporal smoothing occurs under monthly averaging for their price data.
Based on 120 monthly data points for the 1997 through 2006 period, market
prices dropped below their corresponding loan rates 36% of the time for nine
program commodities (Figure 5). However, wide variation appeared across
commodities. For example, upland cotton prices were below the cotton loan rate
77% of the time. In contrast, the barley market price was below the barley loan rate

3% of the time.

A simple approach to equalizing the level of loan support across crops is to
adjust the loan rates so that not more than an arbitrary 30% of the observed market

⁷ A comparison based on market prices necessarily assumes that the markets for these
commodities are efficient and fully reflect all of the market information embodied in both
the U.S. and international marketplaces. The United States is generally viewed as having
a global comparative and competitive advantage in grain and oilseed production. As a
result, U.S. grain and oilseed prices are generally viewed as representative of world market
prices. USDA recognizes this by using posted county prices (terminal prices adjusted for
transportation costs from the county to the terminal) as reference prices for operating its
grain and oilseed marketing loan repayment provisions. The situation is very different for
cotton and rice. In their case, world prices are determined in markets outside the United
States. Therefore, to operate the marketing loan repayment provisions for cotton and rice,
USDA first converts their international reference prices to a U.S. location by adjusting for
transportation costs. Then, these “adjusted world prices” (AWPs) for cotton and for rice are
used for operating the cotton and rice marketing loan repayment provisions.
⁸ MAFPs are used for grains and oilseeds; AWPs are used for cotton and rice. The
analytical results based on cotton and rice MAFPs are included for comparative purposes.

prices for the period fall below the loan rates (Figure 6). The barley loan rate must
be raised 17% to $2.16/bu. to achieve this ad hoc policy goal. The wheat and peanut
loan rates would be increased by 4%. The corn and oats loan rates would remain
essentially unchanged. In contrast, loan rates for rice and cotton would have to be
lowered by 41% and 25%, respectively, to $3.81/cwt. and 39.15¢/lb. The sorghum
loan rate would need a 9% cut, while the soybean loan rate would be reduced by a
modest 2%.
Comparison of CCP Support. Counter-cyclical payments (CCPs) are based
on national annual average prices, rather than monthly prices. As a result, a
comparison of the monthly market price with the effective target price for each
commodity provides a stylized representation of counter-cyclical income support
provided across program crops.
A comparison and hypothetical adjustment is used to evaluate the relative levels
of CCP support across major program crops, again using monthly price data for the
1997 through 2006 period. For all commodities over the entire period, market prices
were below their corresponding effective target prices 59% of the time (Figure 5).
The range included a low of 11% for barley and a high of 95% for upland cotton.
CCP support levels can be equalized by adjusting target prices (or direct
payments) upward or downward until the observed market prices for the period fall
below their respective effective target prices not more than an arbitrary 50% of the
time (Figure 7). As with the loan rate exercise, the largest adjustment is needed for
upland cotton. The cotton target price would have to be lowered by 31% (to
50.05¢/lb.) to achieve the threshold of market prices falling below the effective target
price in not more than 50% of the observed months. Target prices for rice, corn, and
sorghum also would have to be lowered by respectively 24%, 11%, and 8% to
achieve equity. Wheat (with a 2% lower target price) and soybeans (with a 3%
higher target price) would require the smallest adjustments. In contrast, target prices
for barley, oats, and peanuts would have to be raised by 17%, 12%, and 4%,
respectively.
To the extent that the 1997 through 2006 time period reflects long-run market
conditions, this exercise suggests that upland cotton, rice, and sorghum growers
receive a disproportionately high level of both CCP and marketing loan support
relative to the other major covered commodities. Barley, oats, and peanuts receive
disproportionately lower CCP and marketing loan support. The situation is mixed
for corn and wheat. Soybean loan rates and target prices are the closest to neutral.
While the choice of loan rate and target price levels used in this analysis that
would put the commodities in the money (30% of the time for loan deficiency
payments and 50% of the time and counter-cyclical payments 50%) are arbitrary.
However, the relative outcome remains the same under other choices. Furthermore,
the levels used in this analysis are roughly the in-the-money averages for all crops
under current law.

Figure 5. Frequency Selected Covered Commodities Are
“In the Money” Due to Low Market Prices (MP), 1997-2006

⁹⁵^%C o tto n
^77%
^92%Rice
^66%
^68%So rgh um
^47%
^76%Co rn
^28%
⁶⁰^%Wheat
^23%
^59%All Crops
^36%
⁴⁹^%P e an ut s
²²^%
⁴⁰^%S o yb ea ns
³³^%
^38%OatsEffective Target Price
^32%Loan Rate
¹¹^%Ba rle y
^3%

0 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 10 0%

% of Months Mkt Price < LR and Effective TP
Source: USDA, FSA and NASS, policy parameters are from the 2002 farm bill
[P.L.107-171].

Figure 6. Adjustments Needed to Equalize Loan Rates for Selected
Covered Commodities Based on Market Prices, 1997-2006

17%Barley
4%Peanuts
4%Wheat
1%Corn
-1%Oats
-2%
Soybeans
-9%Sorghum
-25%
Cotton
-41%
Rice
-50 % -30 % -10 % 10 % 30 %
Percent Change in Loan Rate
Note: Loan rates are adjusted until the market price falls below the loan rate not
more than 30% of the months during 1997 to 2006.
Source: USDA, FSA and NASS; policy parameters are from the 2002 farm bill
[P.L.107-171].

Figure 7. Adjustments Needed to Equalize Effective Target Prices for
Selected Covered Commodities Based on Market Prices, 1997-2006

17%Barley
12%Oats
4%Peanuts
3%Soybeans
-2%
Wheat
-8%
Sorghum
-11%
Corn
-24%
Rice
-31%
Cotton
-4 0 % -2 0 % -5 E -1 5 % 20 %0%
Percent Change in Target Price
Note: Targe prices are adjusted until the market price is less than the effective
target price no more than 50% of the months during 1997 to 2006.
Source: USDA, FSA and NASS; policy parameters are from the 2002 farm bill
[P.L.107-171].

Appendix: Data Tables
Table 2. “Covered Commodity” Payments, Harvested Acres, and
Crop Values
^Com^m^odity^Harv^ested^A^c^res,^Pa^y^m^eⁿ^t^s
^Pa^y^m^eⁿ^t^s^,^C^r^{op Y}^e^a^r^Pe^r^Va^lue^of^C^r^op
^Co^v^e^red^Yearl^y^A^v^erage^A^v^erage^Harvested^P^r^oduc^{tion, A}^nnua^l
^Com^m^odity^FY^03-⁰⁶^2002-⁰⁵^Ac^r^e^A^v^e^r^a^g^e^2002-⁰⁵
^{% o}^f^Mil.^{% o}^f^{% o}^f
^{Mil. $}^To^t^a^l^Ac^r^e^s^T^o^ta^l^$^{Bil. $}^To^t^a^l
^C^o^rⁿ^4,747^43.7^72.225³²^65.73^22.966^20.7
^C^o^tton²^,677^24.6^12.586⁶^212.69^4.659^57.5
^W^h^e^a^t^1,078^9.9^49.750²²^21.67^7.057^15.3
^Rⁱ^c^e⁸⁶⁹^8.0³^.221¹^269.79^1.492^58.2
^Soy^b^e^aⁿ^s⁷⁵⁰^6.9^72.575³²^10.34^17.131^4.4
^O^t^he^r^Fe^e^d^g^r^aⁱ^ns⁴⁶⁵^4.3^12.790⁶^36.33^1.703^27.3
^P^e^a^nuts²⁷⁰^2.5¹^.407¹^191.63^0.764^35.3
^O^t^he^r^O^ils^e^e^d^s¹⁹⁰^.2^4.254²⁴^.35⁰^.625^3.0
^A^{ll Com}^m^oditie^s^10,874¹⁰⁰^228.807¹⁰⁰^47.53^56.397^19.3
^S^o^u^rce^{: P}^r^im^a^r^y^da^ta^a^r^e^f^r^om^U^S^D^A^{, FSA}^{, N}^A^{SS, a}^{nd ER}^{S. C}^a^lc^ula^tions^a^r^e^by^the^a^u^thor^s^.
Table 3. Effective Target Prices Compared to Total Cost of
Production for Selected “Covered Commodities”
Commodity EffectiveEffective Target Price
and Total Cost ofTargetas Share of Total Cost of
Unit of MeasureProduction^a Price^bProduction
$/Unit$/Unit%
Peanuts (lb)$0.23 $0.23 101%
Corn (bu)$2.40 $2.35 98%
Cotton (lb)$0.70 $0.66 93%
Rice (cwt)$8.89 $8.15 92%
Soybeans (bu)$5.92 $5.36 91%
Wheat (bu)$5.34 $3.40 64%
Barley (bu)$4.13 $2.00 48%
Sorghum (bu)$4.77 $2.22 47%
^a^.^C^o^s^t^of^pr^oduc^{tion da}^ta^a^r^e^a^v^e^r^a^g^e^d^ov^e^r^the^2002-^{2005 tim}^e^f^r^a^m^e^.
^b^.^T^h^{e ef}^f^ectⁱ^v^{e t}^a^rget^p^rⁱ^{ce i}^s^t^h^{e t}^a^rget^p^rⁱ^{ce l}^e^{ss t}^h^{e d}ⁱ^rect^p^a^y^m^en^t^.
^S^o^u^rce^{: C}^o^s^t^of^pr^oduc^tⁱ^oⁿ^d^a^t^a^ar^e^f^r^om^U^S^D^A^{, ER}^{S. Ef}^f^e^c^tiv^e^ta^r^g^e^t^pr^ic^e^s^a^r^e^ba^s^e^{d on ta}^r^g^e^t^pr^ic^e^s^aⁿ^d
^dir^e^c^t^pa^y^m^eⁿ^ts^eⁿ^a^c^t^e^d^{in P}^.^L^.^107-^171.

Table 4. Policy Comparison Based on Monthly Market Price Data^a
Upland Cotton Rice
All
verageAll WheatCornSorghumBarleyOatsSoybeansPeanutsMAFPAWPMAFPAWP
bservations where: (MAFP or AWP) < Loan Rate^b
^36%^23%^28%^47%^3%^32%^61%^77%^40%^66%^33%^22%
^{t of}^Obs^e^rv^ation^s^w^h^{ere: (MA}^F^P^{or A}^W^P⁾^{< Ef}^f^ectiv^{e T}^a^rg^{et P}^r^ice^b
^59%^60%^76%^68%^11%^38%^86%^95%^60%^92%^40%^49%
^h^{e dat}^a^peri^{od cov}^e^rs^Jan^u^a^ry^{1997 t}^h^ro^{ugh Decem}^b^e^r²⁰⁰⁶^f^o^r^a^{total of}^{120 m}^oⁿ^t^h^s^{. MA}^F^P^{= m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^av^erag^{e f}^a^rm^prices^receiv^e^d;
^P^{= adj}^u^s^t^{ed w}^o^{rld price.}
^o^an^rat^e^s^an^{d t}^a^rg^et^pri^ces^es^t^a^blⁱ^s^h^e^{d f}^o^{r 2004-}^{2007 peri}^{od f}^o^{r m}^a^j^o^{r prog}^ram^crops^{are com}^pⁱ^l^e^{d f}^r^om^F^a^rm^S^ecu^ri^t^y^an^d^Rur^a^l
^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^A^c^{t of}^{2002 (P}^.L^{. 107-}^{171), T}^{itle I, Section}^s^{1103, 1104, an}^{d 1202. For m}^o^reⁱⁿ^f^o^rm^ation^,^s^ee^C^R^S^R^e^port^R^S^21999,^Far^m
^d^{ity Po}^licy:^Fa^{rm Bill I}^ssu^es^{, by}^Jⁱ^m^Mon^k^e^.
Table 5. Loan Rate Adjustments Needed to Equalize Policy Outcomes
Across Commodities
Upland CottonRice
All
All WheatCornSorghumBarleyOatsSoybeansPeanutsMAFPAWPMAFPAWP
$/ bu. $/ bu. $/ bu. $/ bu. $/ bu. ¢/ l b. ¢/ l b. $/ c wt . $/ c wt . $/ bu. ¢/ l b.
an Rate (LR)2.751.951.951.851.3352.0052.006.506.505.0017.75
ed Loan^a
t e 2.85 1.96 1.77 2.16 1.32 45.10 39.15 5.72 3.81 4.88 18.50
cent change4%1%-9%17%-1%-13%-25%-12%-41%-2%4%
^o^an^r^a^{tes ar}^{e eq}^u^a^lized^b^y^ad^j^u^stin^g^th^em^uⁿ^til^th^e^MA^FP⁽^o^r^A^W^P^f^o^r^co^ttoⁿ^an^d^rⁱ^ce)^f^a^{lls b}^e^lo^w^th^{e L}^Rⁱⁿⁿ^o^{t m}^o^r^e^th^an³^0%^of
^t^h^l^y^o^b^s^er^v^a^tioⁿ^s^{. T}^h^{e L}^o^an^{Rate (}^L^R)^{is ad}^j^u^sted^to^o^b^t^ain^th^{is r}^e^su^{lt an}^d^{is r}^e^f^e^r^r^ed^to^as^th^e^Eq^u^a^lized^L^o^an^Rate.^T^h^e^dat^a^peri^od
^e^rs^Jan^u^a^ry^{1997 t}^h^ro^{ugh Decem}^b^e^r²⁰⁰⁶^f^o^r^a^total^of^{120 m}^oⁿ^t^h^s^{. MA}^F^P^{= m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^av^erag^{e f}^a^rm^prices^receiv^e^{d; A}^W^P^{= adj}^u^s^t^ed
^{d pri}^ce.

Table 6. Target Price Adjustments Needed to Equalize Policy Outcomes Across
Commodities
Upland CottonRice
AllAll
Wheat Corn Sorghum Ba r l e y Oa t s Soybeans PeanutsM AFP AWP M AFP AWP
$/bu
$/ bu. $/ bu. $/ bu. $/ bu. . ¢/lb. ¢/lb. $/cwt . $/cwt . $/bu. ¢/lb.
rget Price (TP)3.922.632.572.241.4472.4072.410.5010.505.8024.75
ed Target^a
c e 3.83 2.34 2.37 2.62 1.61 55.17 50.05 9.72 8.00 5.97 25.80
hange
e Target-2%-11%-8%17%12%-24%-31%-7%-24%3%4%
^a^lization^is^defⁱⁿ^e^{d as}^s^e^ttin^g^th^{e ef}^f^ectiv^{e targ}^{et price at a lev}^e^{l w}^h^{ere th}^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y^av^erag^{e f}^a^rm^{price (MA}^F^P⁾^f^o^{r g}^r^ain^s^,
^ean^s^an^{d pean}^u^t^s^an^{d th}^{e adj}^u^s^t^{ed w}^o^{rld price (A}^W^P^{) f}^o^{r co}^ttoⁿ^an^d^rⁱ^{ce f}^a^{ll b}^e^lo^w^{it in}^m^o^r^e^th^an⁵⁰^%^o^f^th^{e m}^oⁿ^t^h^l^y
^a^tion^s^{. T}^h^{e targ}^{et price (T}^P⁾^is^adj^u^s^t^{ed to obtain}^th^is^res^u^{lt an}^{d is}^ref^e^{rred to as}^th^{e Equ}^a^{lized T}^a^rg^{et P}^r^{ice. T}^h^{e d}^{ata period}
^e^rs^Jan^u^a^ry^{1997 t}^h^ro^{ugh Decem}^b^e^r^{2006, f}^o^{r a t}^o^t^a^l^of^{120 m}^oⁿ^t^h^s^.