Economic and Policy Update

University of Kentucky Department of Agricultural Economics

Economic & Policy Update Volume 15, Issue 08

Edited by: Will Snell & Phyllis Mattox

August 26, 2015

Mid-year Cattle Inventory Report Shows Continued Herd Expansion

Featured Articles: Mid-Year Cattle Inventory Report Shows Continued Herd Expansion - Kenny Burdine

New Monthly Newsletter Available: Crops Marketing & Management Update -

- Todd Davis

Picking Apples from the Grazing Tree – Part II - Greg Halich

Retirement Options for Farmers without Employees - Amanda Jenkins

Dr. Jordan M. Shockley Joins the UK Dept. of Ag. Economics

USDA released their mid-year cattle inventory estimates in late July. The report showed continued expansion of the beef cow herd at a slightly greater pace than was seen in January. The combination of favorable weather and strong calf prices are continuing to keep mature cows in production and encourage heifer retention. Beef cow numbers were estimated to be up 2.5% from last July and heifer retention was estimated up by about 6.5%. July 1 inventory estimates for 2014 and 2015 can be found in Table 1.

 

Table 1: USDA July 1, 2015 Cattle Inventory Report 2014 2015 (1,000 hd) (1,000 hd) 96,300 98,400 Total Cattle and Calves

2015 as % of 2014 102

Cows and Heifers That Have Calved Beef Cows Milk Cows

39,000 29,750 9,250

39,800 30,500 9,300

102 103 101

Heifers 500 Pounds and Over For Beef Cow Replacement For Milk Cow Replacement Other Heifers

15,600 4,600 4,100 6,900

15,900 4,900 4,200 6,800

102 107 102 99

Steers 500 Pounds and Over Bulls 500 Pounds and Over Calves Under 500 Pounds

13,700 1,900 26,100

14,100 1,900 26,700

103 100 102

Cattle on Feed Calf Crop

11,900 33,900

12,100 34,300

102 101

Source: NASS, USDA

I think it is worth making note of the magnitude of the change in beef cow numbers that were seen in this report. Three years of severe drought from 2011-2013 (particularly in the Southern Plains) resulted in both a reduction in cow numbers and a reduction in the overall age of the cowherd. As weather has improved and calf prices have remained strong, we have seen a major decrease in cow slaughter since 2013. At the same time, we are also seeing the herd grow though heifer retention and both factors are leading to increased cow numbers at the national level. A 2.5% increase may not seem that large to many people, however it is worth noting that we have not seen a year-over-year increase of that magnitude since the early 1990’s. So, the cow herd is growing at a pace beyond what we have seen in recent history.

I often like to consider heifer retention as it relates to the size of the US cow herd. The 6.5% increase in beef heifer development represents an additional 300,000 heifers this year, which is equivalent to about 1% of the US cow herd. Another way to put heifer retention in perspective is to consider it as a percentage of the total US beef herd. This measure typically ranges from 13%-17% in the July report.

University of Kentucky Department of Agricultural Economics: Economic & Policy View all issues online at http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/extbluesheet.php

PAGE

2

For 2015, heifer retention as a percent of the beef cow herd is roughly 16%, which is very close to where it was in 1992-1994 when we were seeing expansion rates similar to what we are seeing now. Figure 1 below shows beef heifer retention as a percent of beef cow inventory from 1973 to 2015, as reported in USDA’s mid-year cattle inventory report. Note that we have reached a level comparable to what was seen in the early 1990’s, which was the expansion phase of that cattle cycle.

Figure 1: Beef Heifer Retention as a Percent of Beef Cow Inventory (USDA July 1 Estimates) 20% 18% 16%

14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2%

unacceptable for many producers and we start to see reductions in the size of the cow herd as producers cull more cows and sell weaned heifers rather than retain them. Again, in the short run marketings actually increase, but over time the cow herd becomes smaller and prices rise until profit levels are attractive again. Historically, these cattle cycles have lasted 10-14 years, but there is a great deal of variation in how long they last.

Figure 2 tracks beef cow inventory from 1950 to 2015 as reported in USDA’s January 1 estimates.

One can easily see the cyclical nature of beef cow numbers over the last 65 years. The last “cattle cycle”, and there is much debate over whether the term even applies in this case, began in 2004 and ended in 2014. One can barely discern the increases in beef cow numbers from 2004 to 2006 as they over overshadowed by the steep and steady decline from 2006 to 2014. It is my opinion that the expansion phase of that cattle cycle was cut short by serious weather challenges and the liquidation phase was extended due to both drought and rising grain prices.

0% 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Figure 2: US Beef Cow Inventory 1950-2015 (USDA January 1 Estimates)

Source: USDA, NASS

50 45

Finally, I wanted to review some cattle cycle basics as it relates to where we are today. A cycle begins when attractive profits are occurring at the cow-calf level, much like we have seen recently. These profits encourage producers to expand the sizes of their herds and they do so by holding back heifers. In the short-run, this actually results in fewer calves running through markets. However, as these heifers are developed, bred, and wean calves over the next few years, the number of calves being sold grows and puts downward pressure on prices. Typically, this continues until profits reach levels that are

40

Million Beef Cows

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013

I also think it is worth making mention of the current status of cow numbers in the Southern Plains as that was where we saw the largest decrease in beef cow numbers from 2011-2013. Texas led the way in terms of growth in beef cow numbers last year as they added over 250,000 cows during 2014. However, if one takes a longer term view, Texas is still down over 700,000 beef cows from where they were in January 2011. While it is impossible to predict how quickly cow numbers will grow in the Lone Star state, it is clear that expansion is ongoing and there is still much room to grow. I suspect this region will continue to be the leading growth area in the US as we look towards 2016.

Source: USDA, NASS

Perhaps a better reference is the previous cattle that began in 1990 and ended in 2004. That cattle cycle saw six years of herd expansion and eight years of liquidation. Unless something drastic changes between now and the end of the year, 2015 will be the second year of expansion in the most recent cattle cycle. Much like that cycle from 1990-2004, I would expect this expansion to continue for several years unless something very unexpected happens with the cattle market or weather challenges once again become a major factor. There is certainly more than ample profit at the cow-calf level and weather conditions have improved dramatically for much of cattle country over the past couple of years. My expectation is

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PAGE

that the net effect of the current cattle cycle will be an increase in beef cow numbers, which would likely result in a longer expansion phase than liquidation phase this time around. Of course, weather conditions over the next 8-12 years will also impact that discussion.

As we look to the next few years, calf crops will get progressively larger. A portion of those increases will be offset by heifer retention, but calf supplies will grow. As that happens, calf prices will decrease and profits will become lower at the cow-calf level. The good news is that calf prices are so high that they can drop quite a bit and remain at profitable levels for most operations. The bad news is that they will likely continue to do just that until expansion is no longer attractive for cow-calf operations.

I would expect that we would see several more years of herd expansion and I would also expect the pace of expansion to decrease after next year as decreased cow culling should have largely played out. Producers need to focus on maximizing returns in the coming years and getting themselves in position for lower prices which likely lie ahead on the horizon. Decisions made in today’s strong markets will have implications for how producers can handle the weaker markets that they will inevitably face in the future.

Kenny Burdine, kburdine@uky.edu

New Monthly Newsletter Available: Crops Marketing & Management Update The Crops Marketing and Management Update is a new monthly newsletter published by Dr. Todd Davis, the Crops Marketing and Management Economics Extension Specialist at the University of Kentucky’s Research and Education Center at Princeton, Kentucky. The newsletter reviews the latest monthly USDA reports and provides an update on price risk management opportunities for corn, soybeans and wheat.

Topics in this Month’s Update are: August 12th Crop Production Report Surprises Market; August 12th WASDE Update; Projected Profitability for Corn and Soybeans – How Effective is the Insurance & Farm Bill SafetyNet?; Corn and Soybean Crop Progress and

Crop Condition – Comparing 2015 to Previous Years; Price Risk Management for Corn and Soybeans; Crop Moisture and Temperature Maps and Weather Outlook; and Comparing Harvest-Time and January Cash-ForwardContract Bids and Managing Risk.

The August Crops Marketing and Management Update can be viewed at: http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/extcmmuv2 015-651.pdf. Previous month’s newsletters are also available on the Department of Agriculture Economics website at: http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/extmkt.php.

Todd Davis, todd.davis@uky.edu

Princeton

For information about the UK Research and Education Center at Princeton, go to http://wkrec.ca.uky.edu/history

3

PAGE

4

Picking Apples from the Grazing Tree: Is Every Day Grazed Money Saved?

Part II – Laying the Groundwork Last month we went over a key reason why every day grazed is not always money saved (http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/pubs/extBluesheet 7-201512.pdf). By introducing the concept of the Grazing Tree we learned that the cost of a grazing day is not constant: it increases the further we extend our grazing season, and that at some point the cost of hay feeding will typically be cheaper than grazing further into the winter. We also learned that in the last few years, with high cow profitability, you would actually want to back off your extended season grazing compared to the pre-2010 period (assuming you had pushed the limits). In this article, we will learn how to estimate actual hay feeding and baseline grazing costs and show examples of each. The end result of this series of articles (there will now be a part III, IV, V and maybe more) will be to estimate the cost of various types of extended season grazing so that we will eventually be able to determine how much hay feeding is reasonable for a particular cattle farm.

Before we do this, we must first determine reasonable estimates for our baseline grazing and hay feeding costs. The most effective way to show this is through examples: starting with simple ones and making them increasingly complex. As discussed in Part I, the typical reason given to push extended season grazing is that the average cost of grazing is much cheaper than the average hay feeding cost. We will start there.

Assume we are told that the average cow-day grazing cost is $0.40/day and the average cow-day hay feeding cost is $1.50/day. We are told that by finding ways to graze further into the fall/winter each additional day will save us $1.10 per cow day ($1.50/day less $0.40/day). This sounds like a pretty strong reason to find ways to graze additional days. In Part I we learned unfortunately, that this grazing cost will not stay constant, and that the cost to graze additional days will be higher than the average and will increase as we graze additional days. But ignoring this potential problem is the rest of the analysis correct? More specifically, is the $0.40 per cow grazing day a realistic number?

I have seen the cost of a grazing day cited as low as $0.15 - 0.20/day. That said, I will argue that $0.40 per cow day is a more realistic number today, but also that it only represents a particular type of cost: variable or cash costs of grazing. Table 1 shows an example of how we might arrive at a $0.40 per cow day grazing cost for these variable costs. Assuming we average 100 grazing days from an acre of pasture, and have cash costs of $15/acre for fertilizer and lime, $15/acre for bush-hogging,

$5/acre for seeding, and $5/acre for other pasture costs, the resulting cost per cow grazing day would be $0.40 ($40/100 days). Two points regarding these variable costs: 1) these variable costs will be higher on many cattle farms, and 2) the cow grazing days per acre are likely lower for most cattle farms in Kentucky. So the variable cost per cow day could easily be higher than this $0.40 figure shown in this example.

Table 1: Grazing Cost Estimation Variable Costs Only 100

Cow Grazing Days per Acre Inputs and Machinery (per acre): Fertilizer and Lime (acre) Bush Hog (acre) Seeding (acre) Other Subtotal Variable Costs per Cow Day

$15 $15 $5 $5 $40 $0.40

Table 2 shows the per day hay feeding cost for a 1300 lb cow given various combinations of hay prices and waste rates. Using this table we can see that the $1.50 per day hay feeding cost we used earlier would equate to roughly a hay cost of $75/ton (about $35-40 for a 5’x5’ roll) using a 20% waste rate. Assuming we can either buy or produce 1 hay at this cost level, is the $0.40 per day grazing cost a fair comparison to the $1.50 per day hay feeding cost? The short answer is no, as the $1.50 per day hay feeding costs reflects the full cost of the hay for the user, while the $.40 per grazing day only reflects only a portion of the grazing cost.

Table 2: Hay Feeding Cost per Day 1300 lb Cow Waste Rate

Hay Cost per Ton $40

$60

$80

$100

$120

10% $0.71 $1.06 $1.41 $1.77 $2.12 20% $0.79 $1.19 $1.59 $1.99 $2.38 30% $0.91 $1.36 $1.82 $2.27 $2.72 40% $1.06 $1.59 $2.12 $2.65 $3.18 Note: 2.2% dry matter intake. Labor and nutrient value not accounted for in this table.

1

The cost of producing your own hay will likely be higher than $75/ton for most cattle farmers. We will discuss this situation in a later article.

PAGE

So what other costs do we need to account for with grazing? The main missing costs are land, fencing, and other grazing infrastructure costs, which are typically considered fixed costs. In the short-run we tend to ignore them (sometimes for valid reasons), but in the long-run they must be accounted for. Table 3 shows an example of how we might arrive at a reasonable fixed cost for grazing. Assuming the same 100 cow-days per acre and having a land cost of $40/acre and a fencing cost of $20/acre, the resulting fixed costs would be $0.60 per cow grazing day.

Without getting caught up with too much detail, let’s just say that both are conservative estimates if you own the land. In other words, they are likely low estimates. On rented ground the actual rent/acre would be the combined land/fencing charge and would typically be lower than this $60/acre figure. Using the owned example, the variable and fixed grazing costs are now up to $1.00 per cow grazing day ($0.40 variable + $0.60 fixed). These fixed pasture costs are generally much higher than most people would expect. The cost difference in our example is now $0.50 per day compared to the original $1.10 per day.

Table 3: Grazing Cost Estimation Fixed Costs Cow Grazing Days per Acre Land-Fencing: Land Rent (acre) Fencing (acre) Subtotal Land Cost/grazing day

100 $40 $20 $60 $0.60

We have ignored labor for both grazing and hay feeding so far, as well as machinery costs for hay feeding. These will be highly variable from one farm to the next. Labor costs for grazing are typically lower than combined labor/machinery costs for hay feeding, but not always. For a 30 cow operation using a $15/hr labor rate and a $15/hr tractor operating cost, here is an example of what these costs might be: Grazing: Days between paddock moves 2 days Time per paddock move 45 minutes Other time per week 1 hour Total Labor/equipment Cost Grazing:$0.26 per cow day Hay Feeding: Tractor time per week 2 hours Other time per week 1 hour Total Labor/Equipment Cost Hay Feeding: $0.36 per cow day

With this example the combined labor/machinery costs were about $0.10 per cow day cheaper for grazing. However, there are situations that these costs will be almost identical and even some situations where it will be cheaper for hay. On average I would guess there is a cost advantage of $0.05-0.20 per cow day for grazing over conventional hay feeding. The more intense the rotation, the lower the cost advantage would be for grazing. Using the technique of “bale grazing” (a topic for another article) these costs can be virtually identical. You can go to the following site http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/halich_greg_beef. php to use the “Grazing and Hay Cost Calculator” to help estimate your own labor and machinery costs.

The final major adjustment we need to make for a fair apples-to-apples comparison of hay feeding with grazing is to account for the potential nutrient value of the hay. In each ton of hay, there is a certain amount of N, P, and K as well as organic matter. How much of that N, P, and K is effectively recycled and put to productive use is dependent on where and how the hay is fed. For high percentages of these nutrients to be effectively recycled two conditions must be met: 1) the hay must be fed in an area that actually needs those nutrients (e.g. low soil test levels of P and K), and 2) the hay must be fed in a way that the manure and wasted hay are spread around the field and not concentrated in small areas.

The percentage of N, P, and K that are effectively recycled will always be well below 100%, even in pastures that desperately need these nutrients.

This is because a portion of these nutrients will be carried away with the livestock, a portion will become locally concentrated, and a portion will be lost to rain and other environmental factors (this is especially true for N during the winter).

Table 4 (next page) shows a situation where we are getting good effective recycling of N, P, and K. Here we are getting 25% effective recycling of the N and 50% effective recycling of the P and K. The total net nutrient value of feeding this hay was $0.36 per cow day in this example. If the actual hay cost was $1.50 per cow day, this would represent about 25% of the total hay value. The upper limit is probably around 75% on P and K and 50% on N and at today’s fertilizer prices that would be about $0.60 per cow day, or about 40% of the value of the hay in this example. You can go to the same site above, http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/halich_greg_beef. php, to use the “Grazing and Hay Cost Calculator” to estimate these effective hay nutrient values for your farm.

5

PAGE

6

Table 4: Fertilizer Value Hay Feeding Example

Nitrogen

Price ($/lb) $0.50

% Effective as Fertilizer 25%

Nutrient Value / cow day $0.09

P2O5

$0.40

50%

$0.05

$0.40 50% K2O $0.22 Total $0.36 Note: Assumes 1300 lb cow and 20% waste rate for hay.

Combined Costs for Hay Feeding and Grazing for Our Examples (per day per cow): Hay Cost Labor/machinery Nutrient Value Total Cost Hay Feeding Day

$1.50 $0.36 ($0.25) $1.61

Variable Grazing Cost Labor/machinery Land/Fencing Cost Total Cost Grazing Day

$0.40 $0.26 $0.60 $1.26

After adding in all costs and crediting a fairly low fertilizer value for hay (effective recycling of 15% for N and 35% for P and K), the resulting combined costs are $1.61 per hay feeding day and $1.26 per grazing day, or a difference in favor of grazing of $0.35 per cow day. So it does appear that grazing is cheaper than feeding hay in this scenario, but not of the magnitude as has been often portrayed. Further, the $1.26 per cow grazing day is the average cost for our baseline grazing: the 100 cow days per acre in our example.

Remember from the analogy of the Grazing Tree, those baseline grazing days were the low hanging fruit. As we try to increase the number of grazing days and reduce our hay feeding days, the grazing cost per day will increase in most situations (we are going higher and higher into the Grazing Tree). The $0.35 per grazing day advantage will keep going down and at some point feeding hay will likely be a cheaper option than trying to extend the grazing season further.

Some people reading this will invariably say that the $1.26 per cow day grazing cost is way too high, and not realistic. You will find some farms that have lower combined costs, but very few that have significantly lower costs. You will also find quite a few that are higher than what is shown in the example. On my own farm southwest of

Lexington, the variable grazing costs are a little lower, but the land/fencing costs are a bit higher (after converting from stocker days to cow days).

What does the market have to say on this matter?

While not common in Kentucky, there are some areas of the country where custom grazing beef cows occurs fairly frequently. I would argue that the market rate for a cow-day of grazing should at least put us in the ballpark of what the true cost of grazing is.

Back on my home farm, in upstate New York, I’m building up a sheep herd with a local partner and we are custom grazing beef cows in the short-run to fill our excess pasture capacity. We currently get $1.00 per cow day for our baseline grazing (the low hanging fruit), and $1.50 per cow day for stockpiled grazing (defined as any grazing past st October 1 ). That puts us in the ballpark of the $1.26 per grazing day and I can promise you we would not pay for the farm at these low rates. We are only doing this in the short-run (at these rates) until we can fully utilize our pastures with our own stock.

The purpose of this article was to lay the groundwork for more detailed analysis of extended season grazing as well as hay costs.

We still have a lot of ground to cover and have glossed over a number of aspects. One in particular that will help make grazing look better is forage quality. The quality of pasture will typically be better than that of hay, and we will have to modify the analysis for this and other nuances later on.

Matt Adams, our ANR agent in Hardin County summarized the quality issue up well in an email to me using a Grazing Tree analogy. To paraphrase his email, he said that a reason to go further up into the Grazing Tree is that the apples will generally be of good quality, while the alternative (feeding hay) oftentimes would be the equivalent of eating the rotten apples that have fallen to the ground. Touché Matt. I couldn’t have said it better myself. We will visit this and other intricacies in future articles in this series.

Greg Halich, greg.halich@uky.edu Greg Halich is an Associate Extension Professor in Farm Management Economics for both cattle and grain.

He also raises stocker cattle and grass-finishes steers for direct sale in southern Woodford County. He can be reached at Greg.Halich@uky.edu or 859-257-8841.

PAGE

7

Retirement Options for Farmers without Employees “Retirement options; why bother I’m going to farm until I die. I have acquired plenty of land that I can rent out and that will be my retirement.”

This is the mindset of many farmers, but there are other options to go along with these. A few of these options include: Simplified Employee Pension (SEP), Individual 401(k), and Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees (SIMPLE).

Simplified Employee Pension (SEP): A self-employed SEP is an above the line deduction on the 1040 for tax payers, meaning it reduces your gross income, the amount income taxes are figured on, but it does not affect income self-employment tax is figured on. The contribution limit for a SEP plan is 25% of your net earnings from self-employment up to $53,000 in 2015. Two reductions are needed when figuring net earnings from selfemployment: 1) one-half of your selfemployment tax and 2) contributions to your SEP. It must be set up and a contribution made by your tax return filing deadline (including extensions) of your income tax return for that year. It will not be counted as income until the money is withdrawn from the retirement account.

A withdrawal from the account before the recipient turns 59.5 will result in a penalty.

Individual 401(k) Plans: Similar to the SEP, an individual 401(k) plan is an above the line deduction on the 1040 for those who are self-employed. The contribution limit for an individual 401(k) plan is usually more than for those participating in the SEP. With an individual 401(k), you can make a contribution as both the employee and the employer. As an employee, the contribution limit is 100% of your net earnings from self-employment up to $18,000 in 2015. The employer contribution is similar to the SEP; a contribution can be made up to 25% of your net earnings from selfemployment up to $53,000 in 2015.

This account must be set up by December 31 of the first year a contribution is to be made; however,

you have until the day your tax return is due to contribute to the account (including extensions).

Similar to a SEP, the money is not counted as income until it is withdrawn from the retirement account.

Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees (SIMPLE): Once again, a SIMPLE IRA is an above the line deduction on the 1040 for those self-employed individuals. Unlike the SEP or an individual 401(k) plan, all your net earnings from selfemployment income can be contributed to the plan up to $12,500 in 2015 as the employee contribution and the employer portion is equal to 3% of your net earnings from self-employment.

Net earnings from self-employment is figured differently for the SIMPLE IRA. It is equal to 92.35% of your revenues minus expenses. The deadline to set up a SIMPLE IRA is October 1 of the first year you want to make a contribution.

The employee portion of the contribution must be made by January 30 of the following year, while the employer portion must be made by the business’s tax return due date.

The contributions will not be counted as income until the money is withdrawn from the retirement account. As with the SEP, a penalty will be charged if you withdraw before you are 59.5.

In most cases, an individual 401(k) plan will allow you to contribute the most in one year to a retirement account. However, that plan has the most paperwork and fees in setting it up and maintaining it. This information pertains to those farmers who do not have any employees.

Retirement account options become more complicated as employees are added to the mix.

With a good plan in place, there is potential for tax savings and adequate retirement income.

As with any decision, you should research each plan to understand which retirement account will work best for your individual situation.

Amanda R. Jenkins, amanda.r.jenkins@uky.edu

Kentucky Farm Business Management Associations

PAGE

8

Dr. Jordan M. Shockley Joins the UK Department of Agricultural Economics Jordan was born and raised in a small rural town on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. He grew up working on traditional grain operations and various types of livestock operations from poultry to buffalo. He then moved to Kentucky to attend the University of Kentucky as an undergraduate. Spent 10 years in Lexington where he received both his Masters and Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics. Then he went into the corporate world where he was the Agricultural Economist on a multidisciplinary agricultural team for BP Biofuels North America. He spent 4 years conducting strategy analyses, enterprise budgeting, and analyzing any new decisions that were required for their corporate farming operations in Florida, Louisiana and Texas.

His contact information is: Dr. Jordan M. Shockley University of Kentucky Dept. Agricultural Economics 410 Charles E. Barnhart Building Lexington, KY 40546-0276 Phone: 859-218-4391 Fax: 859-323-1913 Email: jordan.shockley@uky.edu

He is now an Assistant Extension Professor within the Department of Agricultural Economics.

Jordan’s areas of expertise include farm management, production economics, and operations research. Future program interests include machinery management, land leasing issues, energy issues, poultry economics, and evaluating new technologies (e.g. precision agriculture) for Kentucky farmers. His mission is to provide economic opportunities to Kentucky producers by conducting meaningful, applied research in Farm Management and effectively communicate those opportunities to positively influence the success of producers statewide.

315 Charles E. Barnhart Bldg. Lexington, KY 40546-0276 Phone: 859-257-7288 Fax: 859-257-7290 http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/extbluesheet.php University of Kentucky Department of Agricultural Economics: Economic & Policy Update Please note that our website address has changed.

View all issues online at http://www.uky.edu/Ag/AgEcon/extbluesheet.php

Educational programs of Kentucky Cooperative Extension serve all people regardless of race, color, age, sex, religion, disability, or national origin.

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND KENTUCKY COUNTIES, COOPERATING