While some farms are still facing cash flow deficits and a real net worth decline, the majority of those included in a recent study by Texas A&M University appear to do better under the new farm bill.

“Frankly, the new farm bill as we know it is projected to put most producers in a lot better shape than they would have been under the previous farm bill. Are there problems still? Yes, but things are significantly better, says Joe Outlaw, an economist with the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M University.

The study, which utilized representative farms across the South to analyze the farm level impacts of the 2002 farm bill, based its findings on expected cash flow and real net worth under both the previous farm bill and the 2002 legislation.

Specifically, Outlaw projected the probability of cash flow deficit and the probability of losing real net worth under both farm bills.

The probability of cash flow deficit was based on the chance that net cash farm income is less than family living, taxes, principal payments, and machinery replacement costs. The probability of losing real net worth is based on the chance that a producer's net worth, when adjusted for inflation, is less than his net worth at the end of 2001.

In simple terms, how many times out of 100 did a producer have to go back to the banker during the crop season? How many times out of 100 was the producer's net worth at the end of the projection period below what it was at the beginning of that crop year?

After determining a farm's overall financial position, Outlaw rated each farm using a stoplight analogy for both cash flow and net worth. In a nutshell, green is good, yellow is not so good, not so bad, and red is poor.

More specifically, a green good rating means a farm has less than a 25 percent chance of suffering a cash flow deficit and losing real net worth. A yellow marginal rating gives a farm a 25 to 50 percent chance of cash flow deficits and loss of real net worth, and a red poor rating predicts a greater than 50 percent chance of cash flow deficits and loss of real net worth.

Assuming no market loss assistance in 2002, every representative feed grain farm in the study would have experienced financial distress under the 1996 farm bill, according to Outlaw.

“From year to year, some farms may still have cash flow problems, most will be in better financial condition under the new farm bill. It's a situation where, relative to not having that market loss assistance payment, we should see significant improvement in economic viability across all farms,” he says.

According to the economic analysis by the Agricultural and Food Policy Center, six of the eight representative feed grain farms in Tennessee, South Carolina and Texas would be in the red category for cash flow deficit in 2002 under the 1996 farm bill. One of the remaining two farms would be labeled marginal, and one would be labeled good.

Anticipated declines in real net worth put three of the farms in the red category, three in the yellow category, and two in the green category.

Under the 2002 farm bill the economic outlook for these eight feed grain farms improve slightly with three in the green, three in the yellow, and two in the red, for cash flow deficit probability. Things look even brighter when it comes to a decline in real net worth, with six of the farms moving to green, one to yellow, and one to red.

The outlook for cotton farms is “considerably better,” Outlaw says. “Our estimates are that cotton will get a full counter-cyclical payment this year.

“Under the 1996 farm bill, not much out there was good, with four of our representative farms in moderate shape and seven in poor shape,” he says.

Jumping to the 2002 farm bill, all of the eleven representative cotton farms in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and North Carolina, face a less than 25 percent chance of losing real net worth this year. The probability of suffering a cash flow deficit is also low for six of the eleven farms, with three farms ranked as marginal, and two as poor.

The study's representative rice farms in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi, also appear to be better off for the most part.


e-mail: dmuzzi@primediabusiness.com.