Crop Yield and Price Distributional Effects on Revenue Hedging

The use of crop yield futures contracts is examined. The expectation being modeled here reflects that of an Illinois corn and soybeans producer at planting, of revenue realized at harvest. The effects of using price and crop yield contracts are measured by comparing the results of the expected distribution to the expected distribution found under five general alternatives: 1) a revenue hedge using just price futures, 2) a revenue hedge using crop yield futures, 3) an unhedged scenario where revenue is determined by realized prices and yields, 4) an unhedged scenario where revenue is determined by realized prices and yields and by participation in government support programs with deficiency payments, and 5) a no hedge scenario where revenue is determined by realized prices and yields and by participation in a proposed revenue-assurance program. We draw four major conclusions from the results. First, hedging effectiveness using the new crop yield contract depends critically on yield basis risk which presumably can be reduced considerably by covering large geographical areas. Second, crop yield futures can be used in conjunction with price futures to derive risk management benefits significantly higher than using either of the two alone. Third, hedging using price and crop yield futures has a potential to offer benefits larger than those from the simulated revenue assurance program. However, the robustness of the findings depends largely on whether yield basis risk varies significantly across regions. Finally, the qualitative results described by the above three conclusions do not change depending on whether yields are distributed according to the beta or lognormal distribution.published or submitted for publicationnot peer reviewe

CROP YIELD AND PRICE DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS ON REVENUE HEDGING

The use of crop yield futures contracts is examined. The expectation being modeled here reflects that of an Illinois corn and soybeans producer at planting, of revenue realized at harvest. The effects of using price and crop yield contracts are measured by comparing the results of the expected distribution to the expected distribution found under five general alternatives: 1) a revenue hedge using just price futures, 2) a revenue hedge using crop yield futures, 3) an unhedged scenario where revenue is determined by realized prices and yields, 4) an unhedged scenario where revenue is determined by realized prices and yields and by participation in government support programs with deficiency payments, and 5) a no hedge scenario where revenue is determined by realized prices and yields and by participation in a proposed revenue-assurance program. We draw four major conclusions from the results. First, hedging effectiveness using the new crop yield contract depends critically on yield basis risk which presumably can be reduced considerably by covering large geographical areas. Second, crop yield futures can be used in conjunction with price futures to derive risk management benefits significantly higher than using either of the two alone. Third, hedging using price and crop yield futures has a potential to offer benefits larger than those from the simulated revenue assurance program. However, the robustness of the findings depends largely on whether yield basis risk varies significantly across regions. Finally, the qualitative results described by the above three conclusions do not change depending on whether yields are distributed according to the beta or lognormal distribution.Marketing,

Program Participation and Farm-Level Adoption of Conservation Tillage: Estimates from a Multinomial Logit Model

The conservation compliance provision of the 1985 Food Security Act requires highly erodible land to be cropped according to a locally approved conservation plan. There is overwhelming evidence that conservation compliance has reduced soil erosion. A key issue confronting Congress as they consider 1995 Farm Bill options is the fate of these erosion benefits if commodity programs are eliminated or it the subsidy level is greatly reduced. This study provides policymakers with additional insights into the relationship between conservation tillage practices and government programs by using observed farmer behavior. The central question addressed is: If future program benefits are not tied to conservation practices, will there be a significant decline in the amount of acreage on which conservation practices are adopted? Tillage adoption decisions are modeled within a multinomial logit framework. There is limited evidence to argue that there will be a significant decline in conservation tillage for corn if program benefits are reduced. For wheat, the results suggest that conservation tillage practices are costly, and that wheat farmers may reduce conservation tillage if conservation compliance provisions are weakened or eliminated. However, no-till on wheat fields may increase with more flexibility. For corn, there is significant support for an increased in no-till if more corn-soybean rotations are adopted

CROP YIELD AND PRICE DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS ON REVENUE HEDGING

The use of crop yield futures contracts is examined. The expectation being modeled here reflects that of an Illinois corn and soybeans producer at planting, of revenue realized at harvest. The effects of using price and crop yield contracts are measured by comparing the results of the expected distribution to the expected distribution found under five general alternatives: 1) a revenue hedge using just price futures, 2) a revenue hedge using crop yield futures, 3) an unhedged scenario where revenue is determined by realized prices and yields, 4) an unhedged scenario where revenue is determined by realized prices and yields and by participation in government support programs with deficiency payments, and 5) a no hedge scenario where revenue is determined by realized prices and yields and by participation in a proposed revenue-assurance program. We draw four major conclusions from the results. First, hedging effectiveness using the new crop yield contract depends critically on yield basis risk which presumably can be reduced considerably by covering large geographical areas. Second, crop yield futures can be used in conjunction with price futures to derive risk management benefits significantly higher than using either of the two alone. Third, hedging using price and crop yield futures has a potential to offer benefits larger than those from the simulated revenue assurance program. However, the robustness of the findings depends largely on whether yield basis risk varies significantly across regions. Finally, the qualitative results described by the above three conclusions do not change depending on whether yields are distributed according to the beta or lognormal distribution.

CROP YIELD AND PRICE DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS ON REVENUE HEDGING

The use of crop yield futures contracts is examined. The expectation being modeled here reflects that of an Illinois corn and soybeans producer at planting, of revenue realized at harvest. The effects of using price and crop yield contracts are measured by comparing the results of the expected distribution to the expected distribution found under five general alternatives: 1) a revenue hedge using just price futures, 2) a revenue hedge using crop yield futures, 3) an unhedged scenario where revenue is determined by realized prices and yields, 4) an unhedged scenario where revenue is determined by realized prices and yields and by participation in government support programs with deficiency payments, and 5) a no hedge scenario where revenue is determined by realized prices and yields and by participation in a proposed revenue-assurance program. We draw four major conclusions from the results. First, hedging effectiveness using the new crop yield contract depends critically on yield basis risk which presumably can be reduced considerably by covering large geographical areas. Second, crop yield futures can be used in conjunction with price futures to derive risk management benefits significantly higher than using either of the two alone. Third, hedging using price and crop yield futures has a potential to offer benefits larger than those from the simulated revenue assurance program. However, the robustness of the findings depends largely on whether yield basis risk varies significantly across regions. Finally, the qualitative results described by the above three conclusions do not change depending on whether yields are distributed according to the beta or lognormal distribution