Customer Support: Cost of Cutting Acres 10 Percent

September 19, 2016 11:57 AM

Last week we read two ideas about helping the farm economy. I have labeled these as supply control – where farmers deliberately produce less to raise prices and income; and price control – where commodity prices are simply set by the government.

This week we’ll look at the supply side, where farmers voluntarily plant fewer acres causing prices and income to rise. The first problem is the relationship to prices and income. Cutting back acres by 10% for example would mean prices would have to rise by about 11% to break even. There is no good way to ensure that happens, because it depends on many other factors, such as inventories on hand. It is very possible a 10% supply cutback would lower income, but it is essentially unpredictable. This is why previous attempts to artificially lower production paid farmers to reduce acres to overcome this income loss.

There are other issues. Most suggestions of reducing acres focus on US producers, but commodities like grains are produced around the world, so a cutback here would be a gift to Brazilian farmers, for example.

Planting 10% fewer acres would likely not reduce production by 10%, as farmers would idle their worst acres first. We have experience with this from earlier farm bills with set asides.

The biggest problem however, other than the math, is the moral hazard. While voluntarily reducing acres may be good for the group, cheating is the optimal strategy for the individual. After all, you get the same price as those who reduce planting. I don’t see any sense of commitment to a common cause that could overcome this powerful incentive.

Voluntary acre reduction is one of those theories that doesn’t scale up to a national or international level, but might work in a smaller group like a community or cartel like diamonds. But even then, history has shown us that market forces eventually undermine even the strongest supply reduction efforts.

Back to news



Spell Check

Central, IA
9/20/2016 09:53 AM

  You are a socialist John, from the word go and your comments are embarrassing. First of all, suggesting that the government should set prices is as communist/socialist as it comes. We have all witnessed first hand over decades everything government touches gets destroyed so even bringing that up is alarming! Secondly, having a 10% reduction in planted acres as a joint farmer effort is basically unionizing which is another scary event. Another plot that has ruined this country, unions are a net suck on the economy/businesses as a whole. At one time in history Unions were needed, today they allow people not worth their pay to get even more. That is why any/all good jobs are rapidly leaving this country, everyone thinks they are worth 75K a year when in all reality they are not... As far as your "cheaters" comment you're an even bigger idiot for. Being in business for yourself and getting the best price is what its all about, not about these collectivist efforts you speak of to alter prices. You should move to China, your short-sighted, government controlled economic ideas are pathetic and I'm sure they would appreciate them there. Take a look first hand at your suggestions and visit Venezuela today.


Corn College TV Education Series


Get nearly 8 hours of educational video with Farm Journal's top agronomists. Produced in the field and neatly organized by topic, from spring prep to post-harvest. Order now!


Market Data provided by
Brought to you by Beyer