Last week, Reuters news reported that, “Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign has solicited advice from California regulators on how to revamp a federal regulation requiring biofuels like corn-based ethanol be blended into the nation’s gasoline supply…”

However, Christopher Doering reported on Friday at The Des Moines Register Online that, “Hillary Clinton’s campaign fought back Thursday against a report the Democratic presidential nominee might make significant changes to the mandate requiring ethanol be blended into the fuel supply.

“Clinton’s campaign confirmed Thursday that an aide with her office met with a California official recently to discuss the federal ethanol mandate known as the Renewable Fuel Standard and the state’s low-carbon fuel standard, among other topics. Reuters reported the meeting was a sign that Clinton, if elected, would look to adjust the regulation.

“But Tyrone Gayle, a Clinton spokesman, said Clinton does not support replacing the existing RFS with one that requires lower-carbon fuels.”

Mr. Doering added that, “As part of her plan to right the RFS, Clinton has said the mandate needs to provide certainty for investors, improve consumer access to fuels with higher ethanol blends and spur the development of cellulosic and other advanced biofuels.

“A spokesman with the Agriculture Department said Secretary Tom Vilsack, speaking on his own behalf, has talked with Clinton and her advisers about the importance of biofuels and maintaining the RFS. He said when the former Iowa governor read reports that the campaign was listening to opinions on replacing the RFS with a national low-carbon fuel standard, Vilsack reached out to his contacts within her organization to express some concern.”

“America’s Renewable Future, a bipartisan political group backed by top Iowa elected officials and people in agriculture and the ethanol industry, has given both Clinton and Trump high marks for their positions on ethanol and the RFS,” the Register article said.

Recall that some respected observers of the U.S. farm economy have recently pointed out that farm revenue from corn and soybean production may be lower in 2016, and have concurrently stressed the importance of cost cutting.

With respect to farm costs, a news release last week from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) indicated that, “U.S. farmers spent $362.8 billion on agricultural production in 2015, down 8.8 percent from 2014, reversing a long-term trend of growing costs, according to the Farm Production Expenditures report, published today by [NASS].”

The NASS news update added that, “Per farm, the average expenditures total $176,181 compared with $191,500 in 2014, down 8.0 percent. Last year, an average U.S. farm spent $28,408 on feed, $22,047 on livestock, poultry and related expenses, $20,202 on farm services, and $15,443 on labor.”

Meanwhile, Bloomberg writer Alan Bjerga reported on Friday that, “U.S. farmland values in 2016 dropped for just the second time in almost three decades after grain and soybean prices extended a slump, eroding grower profit and capping a decade-long boom when land costs jumped 65%.

“Farmland values in the lower 48 states, including land used for crops and for livestock, declined $10 to $3,010 an acre, the first drop since 2009, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said Friday in a report. Cropland declined 1 percent to $4,090 an acre, while pastureland was unchanged at $1,330 an acre.”

The Bloomberg article pointed out that, “Corn and soybeans, the two most-valuable U.S. crops, have dropped from records in 2012. As of Friday, the grain fell 61 percent to $3.3425 a bushel from the all-time high of $8.49, while the oilseed declined 45 percent.

“In February, the USDA said declining commodity prices will push farm income down 2.8 percent to $54.8 billion this year, less than half the 2013 record.”

And, a tweet from Iowa State University on Friday stated that, “Data from @usda_nass land & rental value surveys, 2016 #IowaAg rents, $235/acre, down 6% from 2015; rent as % of cropland value was 2.9%“

Production issues and potential damage to soybean crops from dicamba, a powerful herbicide that is  prone to drifting into neighboring fields, has been an issue that has garnered recent attention in the press.

For producers who have suffered crop damage due to a neighbors use of dicamba, and are seeking compensation for yield losses, Wall Street Journal writer Jacob Bunge recently explained that, “While state regulators can fine farmers for illegal spraying, they can’t compensate neighboring farmers for losses, a separate process typically worked out between neighbors on country roads, or through civil lawsuits.”

More broadly, DTN writer Emily Unglesbee reported yesterday that, “The legal path to compensation for a herbicide-damaged crop is long and complex, but there is one simple part: Don’t expect crop insurance to kick in.

“‘Multi-peril crop insurance is to insure against naturally occurring disasters or problems, like hail storms,’ said University of Missouri agricultural economist Ray Massey. ‘Dicamba drift, or any herbicide drift, is a management problem and isn’t covered.’

“With a record number of suspected-dicamba-injury cases being reported in parts of the Midwest and South, farmers may find litigation is their most likely source of compensation, said Ted Feitshans, a North Carolina State University Extension professor who covers environmental and agricultural law.”

The DTN article stated that, “Trying to negotiate compensation with the farmer or applicator whom you suspect caused the problem is the simplest first step, but beware of the possible consequences, Feitshans said. He recommends immediately contacting your state department of agriculture and then dialing a lawyer, particularly if you don’t know or trust the person behind the herbicide drift.”

And Ms. Unglesbee added that, “The most important step is proving the presence of the suspected chemical on your farm, Feitshans said. That means getting the damaged field tested and taking detailed pictures of the damage with time stamps and detailed notes to authenticate them.

“A state department investigation’s findings are extremely valuable, because they are a neutral third party with respected testing standards, Feitshans said.

“If possible, don’t wait for damage to show up before reporting a suspected drift event. Dicamba dissipates fairly quickly in a field, so the faster you can get a sample tested, the better, he said.”

The DTN article also pointed to additional information about pesticide drift issues from the University of Illinois and the National Agricultural Law Center.

University of Illinois agricultural economist Gary Schnitkey indicated this week at the farmdoc daily blog (“Corn and Soybean Revenue Projections for 2016 and 2017“) that, “While considerable uncertainties still exist, revenue projections for 2016 and 2017 are provided in this article for the average of high-productivity farms located in central Illinois. The 2016 revenue projections provide an indication of whether 2016 will be a better or worse income year than 2015, a year in which net incomes on many grain farms were extremely low. The 2017 projection provides information useful when making cash rent, input purchase, and crop choice decisions for 2017. Overall, revenue for 2016 likely will be lower than in 2015. Continued low revenues should be expected for 2017, meaning that cost cutting must continue.”

Dr. Schnitkey also noted that, “When making 2017 decisions, it seems prudent to expect low revenues into 2017, with a fairly good chance that revenues will be lower in 2017 as compared to 2016. Hence, there will be a continuing need to cut costs, particularly for those operations with low amounts of working capital.”

Meanwhile, a recent news release from Purdue University stated that, “Indiana farmland values have continued their downward trend of last year, with average declines of 8.2 to 8.7 percent depending on land quality, according to the 2016 Purdue Farmland Value Survey. Declines of this size have not been seen since the mid-1980s.

“Over the past two years, the average farmland value has fallen about 13 percent. The declines are largely the result of tighter profit margins from low commodity prices.

“Cash rents – the amount a farmer pays to rent land to farm – also declined for the second consecutive year.”

The Purdue news release also pointed out that, “This year’s decline in cash rents across all land qualities was the largest since 1987. Over the past year, cash rents declined by an average of 9.8 percent to 10.9 percent. Top land had an average cash rent of $257 per acre, average land $204 per acre and poor land $157 per acre.

“The survey respondents indicated that they believe there will be a continuation of low grain prices, low and stable long-term interest rates and low inflation rates. If they prove to be correct, the authors said there is likely to be slower growth in farmland earnings and that producers’ per-unit cost of production would need to be lowered further.”

More broadly with respect to “farm income,” the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research (ERS) Service recently explained that, “The roughly 2.05 million U.S. family farms vary widely in size and by the share of household income from farming. Farm income contributes little to the annual income of farm households operating residence farms–those with annual gross cash farm income (GCFI) less than $350,000 and where the principal operator is either retired or has a primary occupation other than farming. In contrast, farm income is a secondary source of income for households with intermediate farms—those with annual GCFI less than $350,000 and a principal operator whose primary occupation is farming.”

The ERS update added that, “For commercial farms with annual GCFI greater than $350,000, farm income is a primary source of income. In 2014, 40 percent of residence farms had positive income from farming activities, which contributed only 7 percent to total household income for the typical (or median) household reporting positive farm income. For households of intermediate farms, 56 percent had positive farm income, which comprised 27 percent of their total household income. Most commercial farms–85 percent–had positive farm income, and farm income typically accounted for 77 percent of total income for these households.”

Reuters writers Alerie Volcovici and Rory Carroll reported today that, “Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign has solicited advice from California regulators on how to revamp a federal regulation requiring biofuels like corn-based ethanol be blended into the nation’s gasoline supply, according to campaign and state officials.

“The move is the clearest sign yet that, if elected, Clinton would seek to adjust the regulation, called the Renewable Fuel Standard, possibly hurting her chances in corn-growing states like Iowa where she faces a tough battle against Republican rival Donald Trump in the Nov. 8 election.

“The Renewable Fuel Standard, created by Congress in 2005, mandates that transportation fuel sold in the United States contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels. It was intended to cut greenhouse gas emissions and expand the U.S. renewable fuels sector while lowering reliance on imported oil, but is opposed by the oil industry and environmentalists and has been criticized as a mere subsidy to corn producers.”

Today’s article stated that, “Clinton advisers have contacted the California Air Resources Board to discuss whether a policy like California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a market-based system rather than a mandate, could be applied at a national level to replace or augment the Renewable Fuel Standard, CARB officials said.

“Mary Nichols, head of the CARB, said she discussed the state’s regulations with Clinton advisers.”

The Reuters reporters added that, “A Clinton campaign official, who asked not to be named, confirmed the discussions with CARB but gave no further details. A campaign spokesman said the campaign has been seeking advice from ‘a diverse set of stakeholders.'”Eht