Order Code RL34583
Midwest Floods of 2008:
Potential Impact on Agriculture
July 16, 2008
Randy Schnepf
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Midwest Floods of 2008: Potential Impact on Agriculture
Summary
Unusually cool, wet spring weather followed by widespread June flooding
across much of the Corn Belt has cast considerable uncertainty over 2008 U.S. corn
and soybean production prospects. As much as 5 million acres of crop production
may be either lost entirely or subject to significant yield reductions. Estimates of
crop damage vary widely, and could change based on the extent of plant recovery or
replanting. The likely impacts, however, cannot be estimated until August 12, when
USDA survey data becomes available. Significant damage also was incurred by
agricultural processing facilities, livestock operations, grain elevators and storage
facilities, and transportation infrastructure.
On June 30, 2008, USDA released preliminary estimates of U.S. crop area.
Since most of the survey data were collected prior to the flooding, USDA re-
interviewed a smaller sample of farmers in the flood-affected areas in late June to
improve estimates of abandoned and harvested acres for flooded areas. The new data
suggested that 87.3 million acres had been planted to corn and 74.5 million acres to
soybeans. However, the data suggested that a larger than normal share of planted
acres would be abandoned — much of it in the prime growing areas of the Corn Belt.
Thus, harvested area for corn and soybeans were projected at 78.9 million and 72.1
million acres, respectively. USDA plans to collect additional survey data on
harvested acres in the affected region in mid-July, which will be available by
August 12. On July 11, 2008, USDA forecast the national average corn yield at
148.4 bushels per acre, down 4% from the historical trend yield to account for the
combined effect of slow planting progress, unusually slow plant emergence, and a
lower share of harvested area in the higher-yielding Corn Belt due to the flooding.
However, final yields may still vary widely based on the extent of replanting and
growing conditions through the remainder of the growing season.
Congress has appropriated nearly $480 million in emergency funding, primarily
for conservation activities in flood-affected regions, as part of the FY2008
Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-252). USDA is also committing
resources to the flood-affected areas including rescue and clean up, food assistance,
housing, community assistance, business assistance, and farmer and rancher
assistance. In addition, USDA announced permission, on July 7, 2008, to use CRP
land for grazing only in disaster and contiguous counties.
In light of recent record high market prices for corn and soybeans, and the
outlook for extremely tight supplies by late summer, commodity market prices are
likely to remain volatile through the remainder of the growing season. If flood-related
crop losses ultimately prove sufficiently large (to be determined at harvest time), they
will likely contribute to higher commodity prices, thereby adding to pressure on
policymakers over concerns about consumer food price inflation, international food
aid availability, and the soundness of policy that dedicates commercial agricultural
crops to biofuels production, particularly corn used for ethanol.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Unusual Spring Weather Across the U.S. Corn Belt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
U.S. Corn Belt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Wet, Cool Weather Persists Since Late 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Planting Date Is Critical for Optimal Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
June Flooding Ravages Key Growing Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Flood-Related Crop Production and Marketing Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Transportation Infrastructure Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Agricultural Processing and Storage Facilities Disruptions . . . . . . . . . 4
Livestock Losses and Disposal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Estimating Crop Losses for 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Outlook for Corn Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Outlook for Corn Harvested Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Federal Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Designated Disaster Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Agricultural Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Potential Market Implications Due to Flood Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Figures
Figure 1. Corn Belt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2. Counties Designated as Presidential Disaster Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
List of Tables
Table 1. Estimated Corn Acres Lost Due to June 2008 Floods Based on Predicted
Abandonment Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 2. Estimated Soybean Acres Lost Due to June 2008 Floods Based on Predicted
Abandonment Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 3. Corn Area, Yield, and Production, U.S. and Corn Belt, Averages for 2002-
2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 4. Soybean Area, Yield, and Production, U.S. and Corn Belt, Averages for
2002-2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

---

Midwest Floods of 2008:
Potential Impact on Agriculture
Background
The United States plays a critical role in global markets for both feed grains and
oilseeds. The United States is the world’s leading producer and exporter of both corn
and soybeans. In 2007 the United States had 42% and 63% shares, respectively, of
world corn production and trade, and 32% and 41% shares of world soybean
production and trade. As a result of this dominant role, unexpected changes in U.S.
production for either corn or soybeans, such as those stemming from the Midwest
floods of 2008, can have a major impact on both U.S. and global commodity markets.
During the first half of 2008, U.S. and world agricultural markets for most
grains and oilseeds experienced tight supplies and record high prices.1 The high
prices provided a tantalizing incentive for U.S. farmers as they prepared to plant their
crops this past spring. In contrast, the dramatic, unexpectedly sharp price increases
of the past year have raised costs for livestock feeders and agricultural processors,
evoked considerable concern about consumer food-price inflation and international
food aid availability, and sparked a global debate — referred to as the “food versus
fuel” debate — about the increasing policy trend of dedicating commercial
agricultural crops to biofuels production, particularly corn used for ethanol. Against
this backdrop of producer anticipation and consumer angst, new concerns have
emerged about potential weather- and flood-related production losses to this year’s
U.S. corn and soybean crops.
Unusual Spring Weather Across the U.S. Corn Belt
U.S. Corn Belt. The Corn Belt is a 13-state region located in the Midwest
where corn is the predominant cash crop (Figure 1). It stretches from Ohio through
Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, northern Missouri, southern Wisconsin, and Minnesota to the
eastern fringe of the Great Plains states of North and South Dakota, Nebraska, and
Kansas. The Corn Belt also includes parts of Michigan and Kentucky. Since 2000,
these 13 states have accounted for 89% of U.S. corn production (Table 3). Iowa and
Illinois, in the heart of the Corn Belt, are the two leading corn-producing states with
a combined production share of 36%. Similarly, 88% of U.S. soybean production
occurs in the 13 Corn Belt states, with Iowa and Illinois again the two leading
producers with a combined share of 32% (Table 4).
1 For more information, see CRS Report RL34474, High Agricultural Commodity Prices:
What Are the Issues?, by Randy Schnepf.

---

CRS-2
Figure 1. Corn Belt
Wet, Cool Weather Persists Since Late 2007. The 2008 Midwest
weather-related crop problems — the late planting start, slow crop development, and
severe June flooding — were precipitated in 2007 by above-normal rainfall and a
cold, wet winter that saturated soils. In Iowa, 2007 was the fourth-wettest year on
record.2 The unusually cool, wet conditions persisted through spring 2008. Again
citing Iowa, which was subsequently hit the hardest by June floods (Figure 2), as an
example, the first six months of 2008 represented the wettest January-to-June period
on record. Cool weather inhibited evaporation rates, thus slowing the soil’s rate of
drying. As a result, many regions of the Corn Belt were saturated and vulnerable to
erosion, ponding (standing water), and flooding when heavy storms in late May and
early June dropped additional rainfall.
Planting Date Is Critical for Optimal Yields. Traditionally, farmers plant
corn as early as possible because early planting provides the greatest potential to
achieve maximum yields.3 Corn is usually planted ahead of soybeans. Early corn
planting is discouraged by wet or cold soils (below 50o F). As a result, more
southerly regions tend to have earlier optimal planting dates. In Iowa the optimal
corn planting dates are between April 20 and May 5. Yields begin to drop off as the
planting date is delayed. A significant yield reduction occurs when the planting date
is extended to late May or June. Similarly, the optimal soybean planting date in Iowa
is the last week of April for the southern two-thirds of the state, and the first week of
May for the northern third. Optimal planting dates in more northerly latitudes, such
as in Minnesota or Wisconsin, occur slightly later and have a smaller window for
delayed planting.
2 “Memorandum for Reporters and Editors,” Iowa Dept. of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship, July 1, 2008. Note that Iowa’s weather records date back to the early 1870s.
3 See Has the best time to plant corn changed? and Early planting of soybean is very
important, Integrated Crop Management (ICM), Iowa State University (ISU) Extension, at
[http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/2006/3-13/corntime.html] and [http://www.ipm.iastate.
edu/ipm/icm/2007/4-2/earlyplant.html].

---

CRS-3
Figure 2. Counties Designated as Presidential Disaster Areas
This year’s excessive rainfall coupled with unusually persistent cold ground
temperatures delayed both corn plantings and subsequent plant emergence across
much of the prime growing region of the Corn Belt. The late start pushes key plant
development stages of the corn growth cycle into the hotter weeks of July, when it
is susceptible to heat stress and dryness, and later into the fall, when the possibility
of an early freeze can prematurely end ear or pod filling. In addition, a late start to
corn generally implies a late start to soybean production (whose planting generally
follows corn), with similar growth concerns. As a result, crop yield concerns had
already emerged by late May.
June Flooding Ravages Key Growing Areas. With soils already
saturated and yield concerns mounting, widespread, heavy rains across the Corn Belt
in late May and early June washed out substantial areas recently planted to crops. In
addition, they produced severe erosion and gullying, and left saturated soils and
standing water in many fields. But most damagingly, the rains triggered widespread
flooding across the heart of the Corn Belt. Thousands of acres of prime cropland in
Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Missouri were flooded by rivers
that swelled their banks and caused levees to break as the storm surge moved through
the Mississippi River watershed. Indiana’s agriculture director said that the June
floods had likely caused the worst agriculture disaster in the state’s history, damaging
nearly 10% of corn and soybean crops.4
4 As cited in “Crop Development Issues, Food Prices and Ethanol Concerns,” posted by
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
The flooding has likely led to the abandonment of substantial planted crop
acreage, and to yield losses in those crops that survived the flooding but were subject
to extended periods of standing water or waterlogged soil.5 A further concern of
saturated soils persisting during the early stages of plant development (particularly
for late-planted crops) is that corn plants are more likely to develop shallow root
systems, which, in turn, increase their vulnerability to heat and dryness later in the
growing cycle.
Initial attempts to ascertain the extent of the crop damage are difficult because
the eventual yield and production outcomes for the affected areas will depend on how
quickly flood waters recede and whether plant growth resumes or new seed is
planted. For many farmers, by late June the replanting window for corn had already
closed or was approaching faster than the soils were drying. In many cases, the
indemnities offered under federally subsidized crop insurance represented greater
potential remuneration than incurring the costs of replanting subject to a substantial
reduction in yield coverage (due to the late planting date). Replanting to soybeans
was an option for some, but many farmers who initially planted corn had already
applied a round of herbicide, which would likely damage or kill the soybean seed.
Flood-Related Crop Production and Marketing Issues
Transportation Infrastructure Damage. While spring flooding in the
upper Midwest had caused problems for barge traffic earlier in the year, the extreme
rain in June stopped navigation on a nearly 300-mile stretch of the Mississippi
River.6 Major parts of the rail network in the Midwest were damaged, and several
major highways in Iowa were temporarily closed. The transportation infrastructure
damage resulted in significant delays as grain shipments were rerouted and repairs
were underway. By July 6, the Mississippi River had re-opened to commercial traffic,
but substantial delays persisted. As a result, many shipments of corn and soybeans
were still being rerouted to Texas Gulf ports.
Agricultural Processing and Storage Facilities Disruptions. The
flood waters partially submerged many grain elevators and storage facilities, as well
as two ethanol plants in Iowa. However, the main damage to agricultural marketing
and processing facilities located in the flood-affected region was economic and
primarily attributable to delays in the arrival of primary commodity shipments due
to the transportation infrastructure damage. Many grain elevators, ethanol plants,
soybean crushing plants, and other agricultural processing facilities were temporarily
4 (...continued)
Keith Good, FarmPolicy.com, June 20, 2008.
5 See Corn survival in flooded or saturated fields, and Planting and replanting scenarios,
ICM, ISU Extension, available at [http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/2007/4-30/flooded.
html] and [http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/2007/6-4/replant.html].
6 “Midwest Flooding Affects River, Rail, and Road Traffic,” Grain Transportation Report,
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, June 26, 2008. For more information about barge
transportation on the Mississippi River, see CRS Report RL32470, Upper Mississippi -
Illinois Waterway Navigation Expansion: An Agricultural Transportation and
Environmental Context, coordinated by Randy Schnepf.

---

CRS-5
closed or operating at reduced capacity in the weeks immediately following the
floods. The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association initially estimated that more than 300
million gallons (annualized) of ethanol production capacity were off line on June 13.7
In addition, several grain elevators and other types of storage facilities located within
the flood zone were damaged. The number of grain elevators damaged and the
potential volume of corn and soybeans stocks lost is not yet available but is being
evaluated by USDA.
Livestock Losses and Disposal Issues. The suddenness of the floods
across eastern Iowa resulted in the deaths of possibly thousands of head of livestock,
particularly hogs, although no officially tally is yet available.
Estimating Crop Losses for 2008
Outlook for Corn Yield. Corn yields in 2008 have already been negatively
impacted by delayed planting, late emergence, and flooding and standing water in
fields. Based on 1990-2007 data, the 2008 national average corn yield trend would
be 154.7 bushels per acre. However, in its most recent forecast, USDA has adjusted
the national average corn yield estimate downward 4% from trend to 148.4 bu./ac.
to account for the combined effect of slow planting progress, unusually slow plant
emergence, and a lower share of harvested area in the higher-yielding Corn Belt due
to the flooding.8 The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) estimates that Iowa
corn yields will likely be about 143 bushels per acre in 2008 compared with the pre-
planting projection of 170 bushels per acre — a decline of nearly 16%.9 AFBF
further estimates that farmers who replant are likely to harvest corn yields of about
50% of normal due to the late replanting date.
However, final yields may still vary widely based on the extent of replanting and
growing conditions through the remainder of the growing season. Timely rainfall
and mild temperatures could still contribute substantially to the final output. USDA
updates its crop production and market supply and demand estimates monthly.10
USDA’s first crop production estimates based on actual field cuttings will be released
on August 12, 2008.
Outlook for Corn Harvested Acres. USDA’s first projection for 2008 U.S.
planted and harvested corn area of 86.0 and 78.8 million acres, respectively (released
in the May 9 WASDE report), was based on a March survey of producers’ planting
intentions adjusted for historical abandonment rates and a derived demand for silage.
7 “Grain storage facilities take hit from flooding,” by Tim Hoskins, Minnesota Farm Guide,
July 3, 2008.
8 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), World Agricultural Outlook
Board (WAOB), USDA, July 11, 2008.
9 “Corn yield could fall 27 bushels to average 143 per acre,” by Dan Piller,
DesMoinesRegister.com, June 27, 2008.
10 USDA Crop Production reports are available at [http://www.nass.usda.gov/]; World
Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), at [http://www.usda.gov/oce/
commodity/wasde/index.htm].

---

CRS-6
However, widespread flooding of prime cropland in June is expected to result in
either more abandoned acres or more acres harvested for silage.11 USDA’s June 30,
2008, Acreage report detailed state-level estimates of planted and harvested area for
major U.S. crops.12 The new data suggested that 87.3 million acres had been planted
to corn (down 7% from 93.6 million in 2007 but still the second-largest since 1946)
and 74.5 million acres to soybeans (up 17% from 2007 and third-largest on record).
However, the data also suggested that a larger than normal share of planted acres
would be abandoned — much of it in the prime growing areas of the Corn Belt. Thus
harvested area for corn and soybeans were projected at 78.9 million and 72.1 million
acres, respectively (Tables 1 and 2).
An examination of the implied state-level abandonment rates compared to the
recent eight-year average abandonment rates suggests that over 1.7 million acres
planted to corn were lost in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Missouri (Table 1). However,
projected below-average abandonment rates throughout the remainder of the Corn
Belt, particularly in Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, Ohio, and in lower-yielding
non-Corn Belt states offset nearly 1.4 million of the lost acres. Applying the same
abandonment rate comparison to soybeans suggests that projected area loss related
to bad weather and flooding amounts to nearly 1.4 million acres in the Corn Belt,
partially offset by 184,000 acres of below-normal abandonment in non-Corn Belt
states (Table 2).
Most of the survey data for the Acreage report was collected during the first two
weeks of June prior to the worst flooding. In response to the changed circumstances,
USDA re-interviewed a smaller sample of 1,150 farmers in the flood-affected areas
of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin on June 23-25, to
supplement the earlier survey data in deriving estimates of abandoned and harvested
acres. USDA also announced that it would conduct a more thorough follow-up
survey of farmers’ harvesting intentions in mid-July, when it would re-interview
approximately 9,000 farmers in the flood-affected areas.13 USDA stated that under
a return to normal weather conditions, by mid-July most flooded fields would be dry
and affected farmers would be better able to assess their options. Data obtained from
the mid-July re-interviews will be incorporated into USDA’s August Crop
Production and WASDE reports.
The Federal Response
Designated Disaster Areas. The President is authorized — by the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) — to
issue major disaster or emergency declarations in response to catastrophes that
11 “Stocks and Acreage Exceed Expectations,” Univ. of Illinois Extension, Weekly Outlook,
June 30, 2008; at [http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/marketing/newsletters.html].
12 Acreage, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), USDA, June 30, 2008; at
[http://www.nass.usda.gov/].
13 “USDA Report Assesses 2008 Corn and Soybean Acreage,” USDA News Release, June
30, 2008; at [http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2008/06_30_2008.asp].

---

CRS-7
overwhelm state and local governments.14 Iowa, with 78 of its 99 counties declared
a federal disaster area, appeared to be the hardest hit by the storms and flooding.
However, counties in Indiana (44 counties), Illinois (24), Minnesota (4), Wisconsin
(30), Nebraska (53), as well as West Virginia (18), were also identified as primary
disaster areas related to the spring floods (Figure 2).15
A Presidential declaration results in the distribution of a wide range of federal
aid to individuals and families, certain nonprofit organizations, and public agencies
in the designated areas. Congress appropriates money to the Disaster Relief Fund
(DRF) for disaster assistance authorized by the Stafford Act, which is administered
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). Appropriations to the DRF remain available until
expended. However, DRF funds are not available to cover agricultural production
losses. Instead, USDA offers several permanently authorized programs to help
farmers recover financially from a natural disaster, including federal crop insurance,
the non-insured assistance program (NAP), and emergency disaster loans.16
Agricultural Assistance. USDA is actively engaged in committing
resources to the flood response. In this regard, USDA has undertaken a broad range
of activities in the flood-affected areas including rescue and clean up, food
assistance, housing, community assistance, business assistance, and farmer and
rancher assistance.17
Congress has appropriated nearly $480 million in emergency funding
specifically targeted to 2008 Midwest flood response activities as part of the FY2008
Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-252). This funding is available for
eligible farmers to defray the cost of clean-up and rehabilitation of farmland and
watersheds following a disaster.18 Of the total amount available, $89.4 million is for
the Emergency Conservation Program, which assists farmers in the cleanup and
restoration of farmland damaged by a natural disaster, and $390.5 million is for the
Emergency Watershed Protection Program, which is designed to relieve imminent
hazards created by natural disasters and to alleviate future flood risk.
The 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) included provisions that authorized and
funded a new four-year supplemental revenue crop disaster program (for crop years
14 For more information see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster
Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Keith Bea; CRS
Report RL31734, Federal Disaster Recovery Programs: Brief Summaries, by Mary Jordan;
and CRS Report RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer, by Francis X.
McCarthy.
15 Midwest Flood Response and Recovery, at [http://www.usa.gov/flooding.shtml].
16 For more information, see CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance, by
Ralph M. Chite.
17 For a list of USDA flood-related activities, see “Midwest Flood Response USDA
Actions,” Release No. 0163.08, updated on July 1, 2008, at [http://www.usda.gov/safety].
18 For more information, see CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance, by
Ralph M. Chite.

---

CRS-8
2008-2011).19 However, without advance payments, no emergency supplemental
disaster assistance for 2008 crop and livestock losses will be available before October
2009. This is because — according to the farm bill disaster program’s design — the
payment formula used to determine the level of payments for 2008 crop and revenue
losses is based on national average market prices which will not be known until Fall
2009. USDA claims that it does not have the authority to make advance payments.
Some policymakers want to amend the farm bill to require USDA to make advance
payments, while several farm groups contend that USDA already has the flexibility
and should exercise its authority.
USDA has also been under considerable pressure from Members of Congress
and groups representing the livestock, biofuels, and agricultural processing sectors
to do more to bring high commodity prices down — corn and soybean products are
important ingredients for those industries. Among other things, these groups have
called for the Secretary of Agriculture to announce a penalty-free release of acreage
presently under long-term contract in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)20 and
for the EPA Administrator to announce a waiver of the Renewable Fuels Standard
which mandates an increasing minimum use of biofuels in the national fuel supply.21
Flood-related crop production concerns have added to this pressure and have perhaps
contributed to the USDA decision on July 7, 2008, to announce that permission is
granted in both presidential disaster and contiguous counties to use CRP land for
grazing only.22
Potential Market Implications Due to Flood Losses
As mentioned earlier, the United States and world markets have experienced
tight supplies and record high prices during the first half of 2008.23 Most long-term
forecasts project prices for feed grains and oilseeds — as well as those crops that
compete for area with feed grains and oilseeds — to remain at significantly higher
levels than experienced during the recent 1998-2006 period.24 The main factors
behind higher long-term prices are projections for a steady rise in global population,
accompanied by steady income growth in the world’s developing economies, which
19 For more information, see CRS Report RL34207, Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance
in the 2008 Farm Bill, by Ralph M. Chite.
20 For more information, see CRS Report RS21613, Conservation Reserve Program: Status
and Current Issues, by Tadlock Cowan.
21 For more information, see CRS Report RL34265, Selected Issues Related to an Expansion
of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), by Brent D. Yacobucci and Tom Capehart.
22 “USDA Releases CRP Land in Flood Regions for Grazing,” Release No. 0179.08, July 7,
2008.
23 For more information, see CRS Report RL34474, High Agricultural Commodity Prices:
What Are the Issues?, by Randy Schnepf.
24 For examples of long-term agricultural forecasts, see U.S. Baseline Briefing Book, Food
and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, FAPRI-MU Report #03-08, March 2008, at
[http://www.fapri.missouri.edu/outreach/publications/2008/FAPRI_MU_Report_03_08.pdf].
See also “Agricultural Baseline Projections,” Economic Research Service, USDA, at
[http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Baseline/].

---

CRS-9
combine to sustain growth in demand for livestock products and the feedstuffs (e.g.,
coarse grains and protein meals) needed to produce those products. In addition, the
outlook for increased demand for agricultural feedstocks to meet large increases in
government biofuel-usage policies, particularly in the United States and the European
Union (EU), suggest that demand will increase strongly over the coming decade for
corn (the primary feedstock for U.S. ethanol production), and vegetable oils (the
primary feedstock for biodiesel production in the United States and the EU).
These long-run forecasts assume normal crop growing conditions and successful
harvests. As a result, any deviation from normal growing conditions can be expected
to have negative market repercussions and drive prices higher. The potential
weather- and flood-related production losses to this year’s U.S. corn and soybean
crops are unwelcome news to the market and, if realized, are likely to contribute to
higher commodity prices. Because the United States plays a dominant role in global
corn and soybean markets, U.S. price changes transmit directly to the international
marketplace.
In summary, if flood-related crop losses ultimately prove sufficiently large (to
be determined at harvest time), they will likely contribute to higher commodity
prices, thereby, adding to pressure on policymakers over concerns about consumer
food price inflation, international food aid availability, and the soundness of policy
that dedicates commercial agricultural crops to biofuels production, particularly corn
used for ethanol.

---

CRS-10
Table 1. Estimated Corn Acres Lost Due to June 2008 Floods
Based on Predicted Abandonment Rates
Marcha
Juneb
Abandonment
Ave:
Implied
State
Planted
Planted
Harvested
2008
2000-07
Area Loss
1,000 acres
1,000 acres
%
%
1,000 acres
Iowa
13,200
13,700
12,280
6.6
2.5
(553)
Illinois
12,600
12,300
11,500
6.5
1.3
(634)
Nebraska
8,800
9,000
8,750
2.8
5.0
198
Minnesota
7,600
7,800
7,250
7.1
7.0
0
Indiana
5,700
5,700
5,350
6.1
2.6
(199)
Ohio
4,650
4,650
4,200
9.7
15.3
260
South Dakota
3,900
4,100
3,900
4.9
10.0
209
Kansas
3,650
3,800
3,100
18.4
22.9
169
Wisconsin
3,350
3,350
3,150
6.0
6.8
28
Missouri
3,100
2,900
2,500
13.8
3.6
(295)
Michigan
2,250
2,400
2,150
10.4
18.1
185
Kentucky
2,350
2,350
2,080
11.5
11.4
(1)
North Dakota
1,230
1,230
1,150
6.5
7.0
6
Corn Belt
72,380
73,280
67,880
7.4
6.4
(722)
Non-Corn Belt
13,634
14,047
11,060
21.3
25.3
569
United States
86,014
87,327
78,940
9.6
9.3
(298)
Source: NASS, USDA.
a. Prospective Plantings, NASS, USDA, March 31, 2008.
b. Acreage, NASS, USDA, June 30.
c. Calculations are by CRS based on abandonment rate data.

---

CRS-11
Table 2. Estimated Soybean Acres Lost Due to June 2008
Floods Based on Predicted Abandonment Rates
Marcha
Juneb
Abandonment
Ave:
Implied
State
2000-07
Area Lossc
Planted
Planted
Harvested
2008
1,000 acres
1,000 acres
%
%
1,000 acres
Iowa
9,800
9,400
8,950
4.8
0.5
(406)
Illinois
8,800
9,100
8,600
5.5
0.5
(452)
Minnesota
7,100
7,100
6,950
2.1
1.7
(32)
Indiana
5,500
5,500
5,200
5.5
0.5
(271)
Missouri
5,200
5,300
5,000
5.7
1.2
(237)
Nebraska
5,000
4,750
4,700
1.1
1.2
8
Ohio
4,500
4,600
4,580
0.4
0.5
3
South Dakota
4,100
4,100
4,040
1.5
1.4
(1)
North Dakota
3,550
3,400
3,340
1.8
2.3
20
Kansas
3,200
3,200
3,100
3.1
5.1
64
Michigan
2,000
1,900
1,890
0.5
0.7
3
Wisconsin
1,650
1,650
1,560
5.5
2.1
(56)
Kentucky
1,330
1,330
1,320
0.8
1.2
6
Corn Belt
61,730
61,330
59,230
3.4
1.2
(1,384)
Non-Corn Belt
13,063
13,203
12,891
2.4
3.8
184
United States
74,793
74,533
72,121
3.2
1.6
(1,245)
Source: NASS, USDA.
a. Prospective Plantings, NASS, USDA, March 31, 2008.
b. Acreage, NASS, USDA, June 30.
c. Calculations are by CRS based on abandonment rate data.

---

CRS-12
Table 3. Corn Area, Yield, and Production, U.S. and Corn Belt,
Averages for 2002-2007
Corn
Major Cropsa
Acreage
Ave.
Total Planted
Farm
Value of
State
Area
Planted
Harvested
Abandonment
Yield
Production
Price
Production
—————1,000 acres ————
%
bu./ac.
Million bu.
$/bu.
$ Million
Iowa
24,658
12,600
12,281
2.5
162.6
2,002
2.40
4,906
Illinois
23,337
11,606
11,450
1.3
157.9
1,812
2.51
4,656
Nebraska
18,927
8,419
8,000
5.0
147.4
1,182
2.44
2,942
Minnesota
19,764
7,363
6,844
7.0
152.3
1,043
2.33
2,461
Indiana
12,340
5,763
5,610
2.6
150.4
845
2.50
2,138
Ohio
10,201
3,413
3,180
6.8
142.5
454
2.49
1,142
South Dakota
17,103
4,444
3,765
15.3
111.8
425
2.27
975
Kansas
23,045
3,381
3,044
10.0
129.1
395
2.54
1,016
Wisconsin
8,039
3,675
2,835
22.9
135.6
385
2.43
949
Missouri
13,856
2,931
2,825
3.6
130.3
369
2.47
921
Michigan
6,525
2,275
2,015
11.4
127.8
257
2.44
638
Kentucky
5,575
1,236
1,150
7.0
134.0
154
2.62
406
North Dakota
21,578
1,511
1,238
18.1
114.3
142
2.28
355
Corn Belt
204,946
68,616
64,236
6.4
147.0
9,467
2.44
23,506
Non-Corn Belt
117,844
12,307
9,191
33.6
126.1
1,159
2.75
3,182
United States
322,790
80,923
73,428
10.2
144.4
10,625
2.46
26,688
Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, Online Agricultural Statistics Database, July 9, 2008.
Note: States are ranked by average production for the six-year period.
a. USDA defines major crops as barley, corn, cotton, millet, oats, peanuts, rapeseed, sunflower, rice, rye, sorghum,
and wheat.

---

CRS-13
Table 4. Soybean Area, Yield, and Production, U.S. and Corn Belt,
Averages for 2002-2007
Soybeans
Major Cropsa
Acreage
Total Planted
Value of
State
Area
Planted
Harvested
Abandonment
Yield
Production
Price
Production
————1,000 acres————
%
bu./ac.
Million bu.
$/bu.
$ Million
Iowa
24,658
10,213
10,165
1.4
46.4
470
6.36
2,937
Illinois
23,337
9,981
9,929
0.3
44.6
442
6.45
2,777
Minnesota
19,764
7,138
7,019
0.8
39.6
277
6.15
1,681
Indiana
12,340
5,463
5,434
0.9
46.3
252
6.34
1,558
Nebraska
18,927
4,650
4,593
1.5
44.9
206
6.02
1,234
Ohio
10,201
4,481
4,459
1.3
42.4
2
6.24
1,181
Missouri
13,856
4,981
4,923
1.1
36.7
181
6.27
1,119
South Dakota
17,103
4,075
4,016
0.8
33.8
135
5.94
791
North Dakota
21,578
2,940
2,871
0.8
31.6
90
5.89
545
Kansas
23,045
2,825
2,680
0.5
30.1
82
6.21
505
Michigan
6,525
2,000
1,983
5.9
36.6
72
6.19
445
Wisconsin
8,039
1,578
1,545
23.0
38.8
60
6.04
355
Kentucky
5,575
1,253
1,238
1.1
39.1
49
6.43
303
Corn Belt
204,946
61,576
60,857
1.2
41.2
2,503
6.24
15,403
Non-Corn Belt
117,844
11,185
10,767
3.9
32.4
349
6.16
2,153
United States
322,790
72,763
71,623
1.6
39.8
2,852
6.25
17,584
Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, Online Agricultural Statistics Database, July 9, 2008.
Note: States are ranked by average production for the six-year period.
a. USDA defines major crops as barley, corn, cotton, millet, oats, peanuts, rapeseed, sunflower, rice, rye, sorghum,
and wheat.

---