Mixed Fattening Deer Grazing Stock Breeding Cropping

Live Animal and Animal Germplasm Export Certificates
Fill in one or both of the search fields below to bring up a list of relevant export certificates. Results of this search will give you a list of export certificates that are available, not the actual export certificates. Please note that only countries with export certificates available are listed. For further information, please contact Animal Imports and Exports, Animal Biosecurity Group, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (see below). The Dairy Industry

Description Quality Dairy Run Off/Mixed Cropping Farm
Contour Rolling
Soil Type
Rainfall (Not Available)
Livestock (Not Available)
Production (Not Available)
Land Use (Not Available)
DDT Levels (Not Available)
Fertiliser 400kgs per ha. Serpentine super
Water Water right 20lt/sec - under ground mains. Approx 150 acres by K line. This well has not been fully developed. Stock Water - Country Scheme. 4.5 points (point = 400 gal) - pumped to some areas.
Irrigation (Not Available)
Subdivision (Not Available)
Shelter (Not Available)
Farm Buildings Large Hay Barn, 8 bay shed - Calf shed, Workshop, 15 aside Herringbome pland - one side used, Cattle yards
Homestead

Attractive 4 bedroom homestead built in 1981 approx. 2500sq ft. Large, spacious living areas. Heat pump, Double garage, Set in attractive grounds.

Comments This is an extremely versatile property, presently all in pasture, which would lend itself to either grazing or cropping.
Sale Price (Not Available) Description Large Scale Breeding & Fattening
Contour (Not Available)
Soil Type Eyre
Rainfall approx 500-700mm per annum
Livestock Stock Wintered 2003. 1430 Merino Ewes, 2750 Romney Ewes, 1050 Romney Ewes Hoggets, 950 M/S Merino Hoggets, 70 Rams & Killers. 58 Breeding Cows, 10 R2 M/S, 94 R1 Fresian Bulls, 2 Bulls. 42 M/A Hinds, 20 R1 Stags, 18 R2 Stags, 1 Sire Stag. Equates to approx 6750 s.u plus cropping.
Production (Not Available)
Land Use As at December 2003 approx. 38ha Lucerne, 300ha Good Pasture, 100ha Fair Pasture, 50ha Poor Pasture, 26ha Barley, 6ha Oats, 8ha Greenfeed, 9ha Fellow Lucerne, 13ha Fellow Winterfeed, 660ha Improved Native, 5ha Trees, Buildings, etc. Large areas of property have had Matagouri mulched and then ploughed. Extnesive direct drilling. Substantial Limeing and topdressing.
DDT Levels (Not Available)
Fertiliser Approx 100t/annum Super, including D.A.P & Crop 20 on Winterfeed. 800t Lime over last couple of years approx.
Water Electric pump from well adjoining Haka River, solar pump from Peter Stream, reticulated, pumped and gravity stock water, also supplies domestic.
Irrigation Ecan Water Permit CRC No 930285-1. To spray irrigate some 50ha.
Subdivision Extensively fenced into 90 paddocks or thereabouts with approx 50ha deer fenced. Sheep, cattle and deer yards.
Shelter (Not Available)
Farm Buildings Cloverbank - Cattle yards, Cowshed, 2 x haysheds, implement shed/workshop, woolshed and sheepyards. Tararua - Cattle yards, hut, 2 x haysheds, implement shed, woolshed, sheepyards, silo and workshop
Homestead

Cloverbank Homestead - 3 bedrooms plus office and two bedroom sleepout. Brick with iron rof. Woodburner. Landscaped and 3 bay garage. r bedroom split block home with iron roof. Woodburner. Landscaped and double garaging.

Comments Approx carrying capacity 7,000 s.u - 3000 acres. Deer, sheep, cattle and cropping. Irrigation and scope. This property has the potential to go a lot further. Production is rising with the current development and repasturing program.
Sale Price (Not Available)

Mesopotamia
General characteristics:Entre Rios, Corrientes and Misiones provinces. Different and special conditions each one. Entre Rios:similar as Wet Pampa:cattle and grains. Corrientes:cattle,forestry (strongly) and ryce. Misiones: excelent for its soils and tropical climate for forestry.The best growing rate of pines and any kind of fine natural trees, biospher reserved areas and touristic developments (Iguazú Falls).

You will find here a list of available farms and land in this Region. Those farms are selected regularly between a big number of opportunities, so don't hesitate to contact us to obtain aditional information about those farms show here and others in our database.NOA Region
General characteristics: Provinces:Jujuy, Salta and Tucuman. North west region of Argentina. Jujuy: incredible seightseeings,touristic region,historical places and ancient populations. Salta: "beautifull Salta",mountains, virgin lands and rainforests.Productions:soybeans, corn,cotton,tobaco,beans (black,white,etc),cattle,forestry. Tucuman:"garden of the country" ,the best combination of tropical climate and excelent soils and people.The first lemon exporter of the world,excelent citrus plantations, sugar canne,tropical fruits,cattle

Zone Locations Aptitude Prices u$s/Ha.

Agricultural soils forest clean with irrigation Orán, Perico ,Gral.San Martín, Valle Lerma, Río del Valle, Metán, Concepción, La Coche Agriculture

Agricultural soils, forest clean without irrigation Pichanal, Las Lajitas, Rosario de la Frontera, Los Ralos, Simoca, Graneros Agriculture

Forest clean without irrigation Tonono, Corralito, J.V.Gonzalez, Burruyacu, Araoz, Lamadrid Agriculture

Agricultural soils with natural dry forest La Maravilla, Balbuena, Dragones,Macapillo, Nueva Esperanza, Pozo Hondo Dry agriculture

Cattle land with natural dry forest Morillo, Rivadavia, Tolloche Cattle

Economic Research Service/USDA Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina / WRS-01-3 1
U.S. agriculture has historically benefited from its
generous endowment of resources that include
abundant, fertile soils, favorable climate, strategic
inland waterways, and long coastlines with deepwater
ports. This initial resource endowment has been
supplemented by a well-developed rural transportation
and marketing infrastructure, well-educated agricultural
entrepreneurs who are quick to adopt new technologies,
and a strong network of agricultural research,
extension, and credit institutions. In addition, U.S.
agriculture has benefited from private corporations that
respond quickly to investment opportunities in agricultural
production, processing, and marketing. This
broad-based agricultural structure has permitted the
United States to maintain a strong position among the
world’s leading producers and exporters of most
temperate-zone field crops including soybeans, corn,
cotton, wheat, sorghum, and rice.
However, in the past decade two Southern Hemisphere
competitors—Argentina and Brazil—have begun to tap
more deeply into their own vast array of agricultural
resources. Spurred by economic policy reforms, private
investment (much of it from external sources) has been
pouring into their agricultural sectors, applying cuttingedge
technologies to historically underdeveloped
production, marketing, and processing sectors. As a
result, crop area and yields have been expanding
rapidly, generating sharp increases in production. This
output expansion, in turn, has translated into strong
gains in global competitiveness in several commodity
markets important to the United States, most notably
soybeans and its products (fig. A-1).
In Brazil, soybean production doubled from an average
of 18.5 million metric tons in 1989-91 to an estimated
41.5 million tons in 2001, while Argentina’s production
rose from 11.1 million tons to 27 million tons
over the same period (table A-1). Soybean production
in these two countries has expanded faster than
domestic use, thereby contributing to rising exports
and displacing U.S. export market share. From a
global market share of over 80 percent during the
1960s, the U.S. share of soybean and product exports
(in soybean equivalents) declined to only 39 percent in
1989-91 and about 35 percent in 1999-2001. The
combined share for Brazil and Argentina has grown
from less than 10 percent in the 1960s to nearly 50
percent today. The continued decline of the U.S. trade
share since the mid-1990s is particularly remarkable
since U.S. farmers planted record area to soybeans for
four consecutive years starting in 1998.
1964 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 2000
0
20
40
60
80
100
Figure A-1
U.S. share of world soybean and soymeal
market has steadily eroded*
% of global exports
*Soybeans and soymeal as soybean equivalents.
Source: USDA, August 10, 2001.
Brazil
Argentina
Other
United States
Chapter 1
Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina
Developments and Prospects
for Major Field Crops
Introduction
2 Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina / WRS-01-3 Economic Research Service/USDA
Argentina’s corn and wheat production and exports
have also made significant gains since 1990 and have
coincided with a decline in the U.S. share of these
exports. Rebounding from a severe decline during the
late 1980s, Argentina’s corn production doubled from
1989-91 to 2001 and wheat production rose by 75
percent. In contrast, U.S. soybean and corn production
each expanded by about 42 and 25 percent in the last
decade, while wheat production has declined. Since
1990, Argentina’s shares of global corn and wheat
trade have nearly doubled, to 13 and 10 percent.
Argentina is also among the world’s leading exporters
of sorghum, sunflower, and peanuts.
Brazil, traditionally a net importer of wheat, corn,
cotton, and rice, has also been expanding its capacity
to produce field crops other than soybeans. Brazil has
been the world’s third-leading corn producer for the
past 40 years, but has averaged net imports of almost 1
million tons per year during the 1990s. However, with
a record corn crop of 41 million tons in 2000/01—up
nearly 60 percent since 1990—Brazil is projected to
become a net exporter of about 3.7 million tons of
corn in 2000/01. Brazil’s corn export surge may be a
temporary phenomenon, but it would be the first time
since 1981 that it has been a net corn exporter.
In contrast to soybeans, corn, and more recently
cotton, Brazil’s predominantly tropical setting has
prevented the expansion of most small grain production
beyond the southernmost States. Brazil’s wheat
industry has been in decline since production subsidies
and import protection were removed in the early
1990s. Continued population and income growth have
bolstered demand for wheat products, and Brazil was
the world’s leading wheat importer in 1999/2000 (7.6
million tons) and 2000/01 (7.2 million tons).
Despite great strides to date, Argentina and Brazil have
yet to fully develop their agricultural resources. Until
recently, trade policies in both countries suffocated
their agricultural sectors by closing domestic markets
to outside competition, technology, and investments,
while imposing taxes on agricultural exports to finance
other sectors of their economies. Both countries also
suffered from government mismanagement that
fostered hyperinflation, severe exchange rate overvaluation,
high interest rates, endemic currency devaluations,
and a generally poor investment climate. The net effect
Table A-1—Average production, yields, net exports, and market share (selected commodities): Argentina,
Brazil, and the United States
Trade1
Production Yields 2 U.S. Argentina Brazil
U.S. Arg. Brazil U.S. Arg. Brazil Qty 3 Share4 Qty 3 Share4 Qty 3 Share4
------- mmt ------- ------- mt/ha ------- mmt Percent mmt Percent mmt Percent
Soybean1
1969-71 31.2 0.0 2.4 1.83 1.28 1.22 16.3 78.7 0.0 0.0 1.8 8.7
1989-91 52.9 11.1 18.5 2.26 2.31 1.79 23.6 39.1 10.9 18.0 13.5 22.3
1999-20015 75.5 24.9 38.0 2.55 2.52 2.65 35.2 33.9 24.1 23.2 27.6 26.6
20015 79.1 27.0 41.5 2.64 2.52 2.68 35.1 32.1 26.2 24.0 30.5 27.9
Corn
1969-71 122.7 8.4 14.4 5.15 2.21 1.40 16.1 48.7 4.8 14.7 1.0 2.9
1989-91 194.2 7.8 25.8 7.18 3.79 1.95 48.1 67.8 4.3 6.0 -0.7 --
1999-20015 244.1 16.1 36.2 8.52 5.61 2.76 49.9 59.8 11.1 13.2 1.0 2.2
20015 239.5 15.5 36.0 8.55 5.74 2.81 51.8 62.1 10.7 12.8 0.5 1.2
Wheat
1969-71 40.0 5.9 1.6 2.14 1.33 0.88 17.6 31.4 1.6 2.9 -1.8 --
1989-91 61.2 10.3 4.0 2.39 1.98 1.37 31.6 27.3 5.8 4.9 -3.5 --
1999-20015 58.9 16.6 2.4 2.80 2.57 1.68 26.3 22.3 12.1 9.4 -7.1 --
20015 53.3 17.5 3.2 2.71 2.57 2.00 25.4 21.7 13.0 10.1 -6.5 --
1Soybean trade includes both soybeans and soymeal expressed in soybean equivalents. 2 mt/ha = metric tons per hectare.
3 Qty = quantity traded where >0 are net exports and <0 are net imports; mmt = million metric tons. 4 Share = country-specific exports
as a percent of world exports. 5Year 2001 is marketing year 2001/02, estimated as of October 12, 2001, and may be subject to revision.
For Brazil and Argentina, the 2001 crop is not harvested until early 2002.
Source: Economic Research Service, USDA.
Economic Research Service/USDA Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina / WRS-01-3 3
of these policies was to hinder investment in the agricultural
sector and in the transportation and marketing
infrastructure needed to support agricultural growth.
Nevertheless, economic and political reforms of the
early to mid-1990s have improved the investment
climate, unleashing a reservoir of latent comparative
advantage in each country’s agricultural sector. While
significant hurdles remain for Argentina and Brazil to
fully realize their agricultural production potential, it
remains substantial.
This report examines the factors underlying
Argentina’s and Brazil’s surge in agricultural production
and trade during the 1990s—i.e., its origins and
sustainability, as well as the prospects for further
expansion. More specifically, it focuses on the relative
competitiveness of Argentina, Brazil, and the United
States in international soybean markets. The report
also assesses the longrun production and trade outlook
for both Argentina and Brazil.
Important informational needs remain, but this report is
intended to provide a foundation for further study into
the nature and potential consequences of continued
agricultural development by Argentina and Brazil.

Economic Research Service/USDA Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina / WRS-01-3 53
Introduction
Competitiveness in commodity markets reflects the
influence of many different factors. These include
relative resource endowments and agro-climatic conditions,
but also the impact of macroeconomic policies
(affecting exchange rates, work incentives, investment,
energy costs and availability, etc.), sector-specific policies
(e.g., credit subsidies, import or export taxes on
inputs or final products), infrastructure (for storage
and transportation), and supporting institutions (e.g.,
credit, regulatory, news and information, etc.) that help
markets to work effectively. Export shares and growth
trends also depend on domestic demand, relative
returns to other crops, and other conditions.
However, in its simplest terms, international market
competitiveness is the ability to deliver a product at
the lowest cost—i.e., with the lowest combined farmlevel
production, transportation, and marketing costs.
On this basis, analysis of 1998/99 cost structures
underlying soybean production, transportation, and
marketing from principal growing regions to a
common export destination, Rotterdam, suggests that
the United States lags slightly behind Argentina and
Brazil in soybean export cost competitiveness.
At the farm level, soybean producers in the U.S.
“Heartland” had the highest overall average costs of
production at $5.11 per bushel, ranging from 18 to
25 percent above those of Argentine or Brazilian
competitors.1 Total production costs were lowest in
Argentina’s central soybean growing region (southern
Santa Fe and northern Buenos Aires Provinces) and in
Brazil’s interior expansion zone (the State of Mato
Grosso), at about $3.90 per bushel in both regions.
Production costs in Brazil’s coastal State of Parana (in
Brazil’s traditional heartland) were estimated at $4.16
per bushel. High imputed land costs in the United
States account for much of the difference in overall
production costs.
The U.S. production cost disadvantage is partially
mitigated by internal transportation and marketing cost
savings. In Brazil and Argentina, these costs are two to
three times higher, on average, than in the United
States, despite important efficiency gains in recent
years. Freight charges to Rotterdam are also higher
from South America. As a result, the delivered cost of
Argentine and Brazilian soybeans at Rotterdam ranged
from 2 to 12 percent less than U.S. costs in 1998/99.
Methodology Behind the
Cost Comparisons
The export cost competitiveness of U.S., Brazilian, and
Argentine soybean producers is examined by
comparing the components and distribution of farmlevel
production costs, the costs of internal marketing
and transportation, and shipping costs to a common
export destination. Cost data for each country were
from local 1998/99 marketing years, the most recent
year for which detailed comparisons were possible.
First, production costs were separated into their variable-
and fixed-cost components. Variable costs
include the use of inputs such as seed, fertilizer, chemicals,
fuel, machine repair, interest on operating
capital, and other direct costs incurred during crop
production. Land costs—e.g., rental, maintenance,
etc.—are not included with variable costs of production,
but are combined with fixed production costs
following ERS methodology that uses land rental rates
to value the opportunity cost of all land farmed. Fixed
costs include costs that are not directly tied to the
production decision, such as land payments on prin-
Chapter 5
Soybean Production Costs and Export
Competitiveness in the United States,
Brazil, and Argentina
1 The Heartland is defined as western Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa,
northern Missouri, western Kentucky, and parts of Nebraska, Minnesota,
and South Dakota.
54 Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina / WRS-01-3 Economic Research Service/USDA
cipal, interest and taxes, depreciation of machinery and
equipment, and farm overhead.
Cost data from the U.S. Heartland region, where most
U.S. soybean production takes place, were chosen to
represent the United States. U.S. data are based on
surveys by the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS), using the Agricultural Resource Management
Study (ARMS). The data are compiled and published
by the Economic Research Service (ERS) for regional
and national aggregates.2 For Brazil, data from USDA
and Brazilian Government sources were compiled for
two regions: the State of Parana, a leading soybean
producer in the South; and Mato Grosso, the largest
soybean producing State in the Center-West.
In Argentina, average variable cost-of-production data
for northern Buenos Aires/southern Santa Fe (the heart
of the corn-soybean region) were obtained from
Margenes Agropecuarios (January 1999) based on notill,
Roundup Ready soybean production for highyielding
corn and soybean land. The lower end of the
average yield range of 3.4 to 3.8 tons per hectare (50.6
to 56.5 bushels per acre) was used in the per-bushel
cost calculations. Argentine land rents are also based
on data from Margenes Agropecuarios (July 1999)
for rental rates in the northern Buenos Aires production
region. Other fixed cost data were adapted from
Vieira and Williams (1996). A detailed and comparable
breakdown of variable production costs for the
Buenos Aires/Santa Fe region was not available, but
the distribution of variable production costs based on
suggested practices in the northern Province of Chaco
was available, and is presented in table 13 for comparison
purposes.3
Internal marketing and transportation costs in the
United States and Brazil are estimated by calculating
the average monthly spread between farm-level
soybean prices and the f.o.b. (free on board) port
prices during calendar years 1998 and 1999. These
spreads should reflect differences in transportation,
storage, drying, loading and unloading, taxes, and
other costs associated with bringing soybeans from
Why Compare Costs?
In addition to providing an overview of current cost
conditions in each country, cross-country comparisons
of production and marketing costs can be a
useful tool for decision-makers considering production,
investment, or policy alternatives, and can help
guide expectations of future market developments.
For example, a country that can produce and transport
a commodity to an export destination at lower
cost would be expected to increase production and
gain market share relative to its competitors, holding
other factors equal. In addition, information on the
contribution of particular cost components to total
production and marketing costs can be used to interpret
the impact of changing input prices on production
incentives in different countries. A sustained rise
in fuel prices, for instance, could have a greater negative
impact on Brazilian soybean supply and export
growth than in the U.S. or Argentina since the costs
of transporting soybeans from production regions to
ports are disproportionately large in Brazil, especially
from the country’s interior Center-West region. This
is due to the greater reliance on road (truck) transportation
to ports in Brazil than in the United States
(where commodities are generally transported by
barge), and greater average distances to port than in
Argentina (average distance from farm gate to the
Argentine port of Rosario is about 330 kilometers,
compared with about 1,500 kilometers from Brazil’s
Center-West to Atlantic ports).
Similarly, natural gas prices may have a stronger
impact on corn-soybean planting tradeoffs in the
United States than Argentina since (natural-gas
based) nitrogen fertilizers are more heavily used by
U.S. corn producers. The contribution of internal
transportation costs to final port prices can also
inform policy-makers and private investors about the
potential impacts of transportation infrastructure projects.
Other investment decisions, such as the
construction of new processing facilities, can be
guided by information on the cost-competitiveness of
production in different countries and regions within
each country.
2 For soybean cost-of-production data, see
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/costsandreturns/car/soybean2.htm.
3 Chaco is primarily a cotton growing region, but soybean production
has emerged there in the past decade. According to Hinrichsen
(2001), 350,000 hectares of soybeans were planted in Chaco in
1999, making it the fifth leading soybean Province in Argentina, by
area planted.
Economic Research Service/USDA Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina / WRS-01-3 55
farm to cargo vessel. Port prices are from the U.S.
Gulf ports and the port of Rio Grande in Brazil.4
For Argentina, monthly farm-level prices were not
available, so internal marketing and transportation
costs were estimated in two steps. First, port and associated
charges (including a 3-percent export tax) were
estimated as the difference between f.o.b. port prices
and f.a.s. (free alongside ship) Rosario terminal
prices—reflecting port charges (loading, export tax,
and quality control). Next, costs of bringing soybeans
from farm to port were estimated using information
from other sources on internal transportation charges
at the average distance to port in 1998, plus estimates
of other marketing costs (loading/unloading, and
brokers’ commission).5
The third factor affecting the competitiveness of U.S.
and South American soybeans in export markets is
the cost of bringing the soybeans from the point of
embarkation to their export destination. These costs are
estimated by examining the average monthly spread
between f.o.b. port prices and the c.i.f. (cost, insurance,
and freight) price at a destination port, in this case
Rotterdam during 1995-99. The European Union is the
world’s largest importer of soybeans and soymeal—
accounting for about 35 percent of global soybean
imports and about 40 percent of soymeal imports during
the 1998 and 1999 marketing years—and Rotterdam is
the leading port of entry for these products.
Table E-1 summarizes the production cost data on a
per-acre and per-bushel basis, and table E-2 presents
estimates of the overall “export cost” from the
different production regions using a “landed” soybean
price in Rotterdam—calculated by adding the estimated
shipping charges and internal marketing and
transportation costs to the farm-level costs of production
for each country.
The comparisons made here are only rough indicators
of competitiveness. Comparisons of farm-level costs of
production, in particular, are difficult and potentially
imprecise for a number of reasons. For example, the
methods used to calculate costs vary considerably
from country to country, with certain components of
cost included by one country and omitted by others. In
addition, cost estimates may be based on different
production practices (such as single- or double- cropping,
till or no-till production) or slightly different
time periods (based on local growing seasons).
Estimates are further complicated by exchange rate
conversion issues, differences in financial versus
economic accounting, the impact of policy distortions,
and the fact that data reflect production and marketing
costs for regions that bear different relationships to
national averages in their respective countries. Data
presented here may not correspond exactly with source
data due to certain assumptions and the omission or
reformulation of some data to make them as comparable
as possible.
Soybean Production Cost Structure
Favors Argentina and Brazil
With their favorable natural resource endowments and
climates, Argentina and Brazil are naturally low-cost
producers of soybeans, giving them a strong competitive
edge in international markets. Based on 1998
farm-level soybean production cost and yield data,
total per-bushel costs in Brazil’s Mato Grosso ($3.89
per bushel) and Argentina ($3.92 per bushel) were 23-
24 percent lower than the U.S. Heartland’s $5.11 total
cost per bushel. Production costs in Parana ($4.16 per
bushel) were 19 percent lower. Similarly, total per-acre
soybean production costs were highest in the U.S.
Heartland, averaging about $235, some $60-$70 more
than in Brazil and about $35 an acre higher than in
Argentina during 1998/99 (table E-1).6
The relatively high overall costs in the United States
are attributable largely to high fixed costs of production,
particularly the large imputed land costs faced by
U.S. producers. This is especially true in comparison
with Brazil, where estimated rental rates are just $6 (in
4 Although other major ports in Brazil (e.g., Santos and Paranagua)
lie closer to the production regions in Parana and Mato Grosso, a
consistent series of f.o.b. prices was available only for the port of
Rio Grande. Nevertheless, f.o.b. prices for Rio Grande should be
reflective of f.o.b. prices at other ports in Brazil’s South since they
all lie in relatively close proximity to oceangoing cargo vessels.
5 Estimates of freight and other charges from farm to port are
based on data from the Brazilian oilseed crushing association
(ABIOVE), cited in Verheijden and Reca (1998), and data provided
by the Argentine brokerage firm Cortina-Beruatto
(Frogone, 2001).
6 Total per-acre soybean production costs in the Heartland are
slightly above the U.S. national average, largely reflecting higher
land costs, but higher yields led to somewhat lower (about
$0.25/bushel) per-bushel costs of production than the national average.
We exclude the opportunity cost of unpaid labor from the U.S.
data. It is likely also excluded from Argentine and Brazilian data.
56 Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina / WRS-01-3 Economic Research Service/USDA
Mato Grosso) to $14 (Parana) per acre, compared with
$88 in the U.S. Heartland and $63 for prime land in
northern Buenos Aires Province. The particularly low
rental rates in Brazil’s Center-West reflect the abundance
of cerrado soils still available for conversion
into agricultural production. Recent reports indicate
that high yielding land in Mato Grosso can still be
purchased for as little as $200 an acre, compared with
over $2,000 per acre in the U.S. Corn Belt.
Differences in land costs clearly play a crucial role in
assessments of competitiveness based on overall
production costs. For example, if land costs are
excluded from overall production costs, the United
States would rank ahead of Brazil, but still behind
Argentina, in production-cost competitiveness.7
Table E-1—Soybean production costs: United States, Brazil, and Argentina, 1998/99
Brazil2 Argentina
U.S. Heart- N. BA /
Cost item land1 Parana Mato Grosso S. SF3 Chaco4
U.S. $ per acre
Variable costs:
Seed 19.77 16.69 11.23 n/a 17.90
Fertilizers 8.22 20.66 44.95 n/a 0.00
Chemicals 27.31 20.56 39.97 n/a 16.90
Machine operation/repair 20.19 26.88 18.22 n/a 24.00
Interest on capital 1.81 5.63 12.11 n/a n/a
Hired labor 1.29 22.72 5.58 n/a 4.30
Harvest n/a n/a n/a n/a 22.24
Miscellaneous n/a 2.00 n/a n/a n/a
Total variable costs 78.59 115.14 132.06 96.29 85.34
Fixed costs:
Depreciation of
machinery/equipment5 47.99 41.04 8.97 19.08
Land costs (rental rate) 87.96 14.28 5.84 62.72
Taxes and insurance 6.97 1.63 0.55 n/a
Farm overhead6 13.40 n/a n/a 20.67
Total fixed costs 156.32 56.95 30.01 102.47
Total production costs 234.91 172.09 162.08 198.76
Yield (bushels/acre) 46.00 41.35 41.65 50.60
Variable costs per bushel 1.71 2.78 3.17 1.90
Fixed costs per bushel 3.40 1.38 0.72 2.02
Total costs per bushel 5.11 4.16 3.89 3.92
1
U.S. data are from ERS, USDA; http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/costsandreturns/car/soybean2.htm. The U.S. marketing year is September
1998 to August 1999. Data presented here exclude opportunity cost of unpaid labor. 2 Data for Parana are from USDA, FAS attache,
Annual Report 2000, Brazil: Oilseeds and Product (“FAS-USDA 2000”), and from the Parana State Department of Agriculture (SEAB/DERAL).
Data for Mato Grosso come from CONAB, GEAME, CUSTOS. Yield estimates are from FAS-USDA, 2000. Brazil’s marketing year is
February 1998 to January 1999. Producer price data are from the Fundacao Getulio Vargas, provided by CONAB. 3 Variable costs are
average direct plus harvest costs for no-till, Roundup Ready soybean production in northern Buenos Aires/southern Santa Fe based on
assumed yield (Source: Margenes Agropecuarios, January 1999). Land cost data are based on northern Buenos Aires Province rental rates
(Source: Margenes Agropecuarios, July 1999). Other fixed costs for Argentina are adapted from 1991 data from Vieira and Williams (1996)
based on the assumption that these fixed costs increased at the Argentine rate of (CPI) inflation between 1991 and 1998. Argentina’s
marketing year is April 1998 to March 1999. The Argentine producer price is based on the difference between f.o.b. port prices (SAGPyA)
in October 1998, and the estimated costs of internal transportation and marketing (ABIOVE data cited in Verheijden and Reca, 1998; and
Frogone, 2001). 4 Variable cost data for Chaco are based on suggested practices for conventional soybean planting techniques and are
indicative of the relative importance of different inputs (Source: INTA, Argentine Ministry of Agriculture – SAGPyA). 5 In addition to
depreciation, the U.S. figure includes interest on nonland capital, which amounts to approximately one-fifth of the $47.99 total.
6 For Argentina, this category includes maintenance on fixed capital.
7 Previous studies (Ortmann et al., 1989; Vieira and Williams,
1996) show similar results.
Economic Research Service/USDA Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina / WRS-01-3 57
Based on variable costs alone, soybean growers in the
U.S. Heartland are the low-cost producers. In Parana,
greater fertilizer and labor costs (due to small-scale and
labor-intensive production practices) inflate variable
costs. In Mato Grosso, higher fertilizer and chemical
costs (due most likely to higher prices rather than greater
intensity of application) keep variable costs high.
Low expenditures on lime or fertilizers keep Argentine
variable costs closer to U.S. costs. A previous ERS
study (Trapido and Krajewski, 1989) also showed that
the main Argentine producing Provinces (Buenos Aires
and Sante Fe) had slightly higher variable costs per ton
of production than the U.S. Corn Belt/Lake States, but
another study (Ortmann et al., 1989) calculated per-ton
variable costs to be slightly lower in Argentina.
Also favoring soybean farms in Argentina and Brazil’s
Mato Grosso is their much larger size (averaging over
1,000 hectares) relative to soybean farms in the U.S.
Heartland (120-150 hectares) or Brazil’s Parana (about
30 hectares)—where land is scarcer and a large class
of landless or near-landless labor exists. Large farm
size spreads overhead costs over more acres, resulting
in much lower per-unit costs. As a result, average
depreciation of machinery and equipment costs were
significantly lower in Mato Grosso and Argentina than
in the United States.
The United States had higher production costs than
Parana throughout the 1990s. U.S. average soybean
costs rose steadily from $185 per acre in 1989 to $235
per acre in 1998, slightly below the general pace of
consumer inflation.8 The increase was due mainly to
rising fixed costs, particularly land. Increased chemical
costs were responsible for a slight growth in variable
costs.
However, fluctuations in the Brazilian currency render
U.S. dollar-valued representations somewhat
misleading. For example, in dollar terms, costs of
production in Parana have fluctuated considerably in
the last 10 years. After declining sharply from $256
per acre in 1989 to $134 in 1991, total costs of
production rose again to $169 per acre in 1992.
Production costs ranged between $158 per acre and
$205 per acre during 1993-98, before falling to a
decade low of $129 per acre in 1999 (according to just
recently available data).
In local currency terms, however, total production
costs in Parana rose nearly 30 percent between 1995
and 1999, so the apparent decline is largely a reflection
of the weakening Brazilian currency, particularly
after the real was allowed to float freely in international
exchange markets. In Mato Grosso, most of the
increase in total production costs between 1991 and
1998 (from $99 to $162 per acre) was due to higher
chemical costs and interest on operating capital.
Limited data from Argentina suggest that soybean
producers there have had lower farm costs than U.S.
producers throughout the 1990s.
Internal Marketing and Transportation
Costs are Lowest for United States
The Brazilian and Argentine advantage in farm-level
production costs was historically offset by much higher
internal marketing and transportation costs. However,
significant reductions in these costs since 1992 in
Argentina and after 1996 in Brazil have boosted their
soybean export competitiveness in recent years.
During 1998-99, internal marketing and transportation
costs for soybeans destined for export averaged two to
three times higher in Brazil and Argentina than in the
United States, tending to dampen farmgate prices.
Based on average farm-to-port distances, these costs
averaged $49 per metric ton ($1.33/bushel) from Mato
Grosso, $31 per ton from Parana, and $30 per ton for
Argentine producers. In the United States, these costs
amounted to just $16 per ton. For producers in Mato
Grosso, transportation and marketing costs were equivalent
to one-quarter of the average f.o.b. port price
during 1998.
These figures correspond with the combined freightto-
port and port charges estimated by ABIOVE
(Brazilian vegetable oil industry association) for
each country. According to ABIOVE, at the average
distance to port, these charges totaled $18 per ton
for the United States and $25 per ton in Argentina
(including export taxes but not a broker’s commission
of $2-$5 per ton) in 1998. For Brazil, these charges
were estimated at $41 per ton.
Since the mid-1980s, the average U.S. producer-tof.
o.b. port price spread has remained relatively
constant at $16-$18 per ton. In Argentina and Brazil,
however, privatization and deregulation of railways
8 U.S. data prior to 1997 are for the North Central region, and for
the newly defined Heartland in 1997 and 1998. Data for Brazil are
from USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, “Brazil Oilseeds and
Products Annual report.” various issues.
58 Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina / WRS-01-3 Economic Research Service/USDA
and ports, and the elimination or reduction of export
controls have lowered transportation and marketing
costs in recent years.
In Argentina, the margin between the terminal cash
price at Rosario and the f.o.b. price of soybeans at
Argentine ports has narrowed from an average of $68
per metric ton during 1980-91, to just $11 per ton
since 1991. Nevertheless, farmgate-to-terminal transportation
costs remain high due to a heavy reliance on
trucking for bulk transport, high toll rates on private
highways, and seasonal transportation bottlenecks.
In Brazil, similar internal cost reductions may have
resulted in part from transportation infrastructure
improvements, but also reflect the elimination (through
rebates) of the 13-percent value-added ICMS tax on
soybean exports in 1996. For Mato Grosso producers,
whose soybeans must traverse roughly 1,500 kilometers
to reach an east coast seaport, the producer-f.o.b.
price spread averaged $76 per ton from 1983 to 1997.
Since 1997, they have averaged an estimated $47 per
ton. In Parana, where soybeans have a much shorter
distance to oceangoing vessels, substantial internal
cost reductions have also occurred as the producerf.
o.b. price spread has fallen from an average of $52
per ton during 1983-97 to $29 since 1997.
Lower transport and marketing costs for the United
States reflect, in part, the efficient barge transportation
system that can transport grains long distances at low
cost. In Argentina and Parana, the fact that most
soybean production takes place within 250-300 kilometers
of ports has kept their costs significantly below
those of Mato Grosso.
Shipping Charges to Rotterdam Favor
United States
The United States has a small advantage ($0.11 per
bushel) over Argentina and a somewhat larger one over
Brazil ($0.19 per bushel) in shipping charges to
Rotterdam. This further narrows the export cost differentials
when the combined production, marketing, and
transportation costs are compared at the import destination
of Rotterdam (table E-2).
The difference between the f.o.b. export price and c.i.f.
import price spreads for the United States and South
American countries is mostly attributable to distance
(to Rotterdam), but may also reflect higher insurance
rates and demurrage costs for ships originating from
South American ports. With even greater relative
distances to East Asian ports (e.g., Japan, South Korea,
and China), Brazilian and Argentine soybean exports
Table E-2—Hypothetical assessment of “export cost competitiveness,” 1998/99
Brazil Argentina
U.S. Buenos Aires /
Cost item Heartland Parana Mato Grosso Santa Fe
$/bu. $/bu. % of $/bu. % of $/bu. % of
U.S. cost U.S. cost U.S. cost
Production costs:1
Variable costs 1.71 2.78 3.17 1.90
Fixed costs 3.40 1.38 0.72 2.02
Total production costs 5.11 4.16 81 3.89 76 3.92 77
Internal transport & marketing2 0.43 0.85 1.34 0.81
Cost at border 5.54 5.01 90 5.23 94 4.73 85
Freight costs to Rotterdam3 0.38 0.57 0.57 0.49
Price at Rotterdam 5.92 5.58 94 5.80 98 5.22 88
1 Variable and fixed costs in each country are based on local marketing year costs in 1998/99 (see table 13). 2 Internal transport and
marketing charges for Argentina are estimated as the sum of port charges [the spread between f.o.b. and free-alongside ship (f.a.s.) Rosario
prices] and estimated transportation and other marketing costs. For Brazil, internal marketing and transportation costs are the average
spread between farm prices and f.o.b. port prices during calendar years 1998 and 1999. 3 Freight costs are calculated as the average
spread between f.o.b. port prices for each country and the c.i.f. port price in Rotterdam during calendar years 1995-99.
Sources: c.i.f. Rotterdam prices ( Oil World Weekly); U.S. f.o.b Gulf Port prices (AMS, USDA); Rosario f.o.b. and f.a.s. port prices
(Argentine Ministry of Agriculture, SAGPyA; Rio Grande (Brazil) f.o.b. port prices (Safras & Mercado); U.S. farm prices received
(NASS, USDA); producer prices in Parana and Mato Grosso (CONAB); Argentine transportation and internal marketing costs to port:
Verheijden and Reca (1998) and Frogone (2001).
Economic Research Service/USDA Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina / WRS-01-3 59
face a larger disadvantage (compared with the United
States) in shipping rates to these destinations.
The gap between shipping rates from the United States
and Brazil to Rotterdam has remained relatively constant
over the last 15 years. But for Argentina, the average
f.o.b.-to-c.i.f. price spread has narrowed from $26 per
ton during 1984-94 to $18 per ton during 1995-99.
Producer Revenues
With substantially higher total costs of production and
similar yields, per-bushel and per-acre net revenues
based strictly on a market price (ignoring LDPs,
production flexibility contract payments, emergency
supplementary income payments, and subsidized crop
insurance) for U.S. Heartland soybean producers fall
short of those for producers in Brazil and Argentina,
assuming similar producer prices. However, higher
internal transportation and marketing costs have
depressed Brazilian producer prices to levels well
below those in the United States. In October 1998,
producer prices of $4.81/bushel in Parana and
$4.58/bushel in Mato Grosso lagged the $5.16/bushel
received (excluding LDPs) in the U.S. Heartland. In
Argentina, average producer prices were estimated at
$4.98/bushel in October 1998.9
Nevertheless, in 1998, estimated per-bushel and peracre
net producer returns in Argentina were the
highest among the three countries, followed by Brazil
and the United States. Argentine producers received an
estimated $1.06/bushel in 1998, compared with
$0.69/bushel in Mato Grosso, $0.65/bushel in Parana,
and just $0.05/bushel in the U.S. Heartland.10
Despite relatively low market-based returns in 1998
and consistently higher costs of production in the
United States than in Brazil, estimated per-acre net
revenues from soybean production in the United States
have actually exceeded those of producers in Parana
over much of the past decade (fig. E-1). Between 1989
and 1996, per-acre net returns in Parana exceeded
those of U.S. North Central/Heartland soybean
producers only once, in 1991. From 1997 to 1999,
however, net revenues in Parana surpassed those in the
United States, and were especially strong in 1998.11
Reduced internal transportation and marketing costs,
as well as declining production costs (in dollar terms),
have seemingly improved the bottom line for Brazilian
producers since 1996. From limited data, it appears
that net revenues in Mato Grosso have equaled or
exceeded those in Parana during the 1990s, which is
consistent with the trend toward increased production
(and economies of scale) in that region.
9 Argentine producer prices were based on the difference between
actual October 1998 f.o.b. prices ($213/ton) and the estimated
costs of internal marketing and transportation ($30/ton).
10 The net revenue figure of 5 cents per bushel for U.S. Heartland
producers is based on market prices only, and does not include
potential extra revenue from marketing loan benefits. When prices
are below the loan rate, U.S. producers can realize gross revenues
above the loan rate of $5.26 per bushel by receiving benefits under
the marketing loan program early in the market year when prices
are typically lowest, and then by selling their crop later in the marketing
year when prices have risen. In the 1998 marketing year, for
example, the weighted average marketing loan benefit (marketing
loan gains and loan deficiency payments) for the soybean crop was
$0.44 per bushel. This benefit augmented the season-average price
of $4.93 per bushel, raising the average per-unit gross revenue for
soybeans to $5.37 per bushel, $0.11 above the national soybean
loan rate.
Figure E-1
Net farm revenues per acre of soybean
production: United States and Brazil, 1989-99
$U.S./acre
Source: USDA; CONAB; IFS/IMF; authors' calculations
1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Brazil (Parana)
United States
11 The trend comparisons made here are based on local harvestperiod
prices, rather than adjusting prices to the same month
(October 1998) as done elsewhere in this analysis. In the U.S.,
average producer prices are from October; average March-May
producer prices were used for Brazil. For the U.S., data prior to
1997 are for the North Central region, and for the newly defined
Heartland in 1997, 1998, and recently available 1999 data.
60 Agriculture in Brazil and Argentina / WRS-01-3 Economic Research Service/USDA
Conclusion: Argentina Appears
Most Competitive
Both Argentine and Brazilian soybeans have become
more competitive in recent years due to declining
internal marketing and transportation costs, including
the reduction/elimination of export taxes on soybeans.
Brazilian soybeans have also benefited from substantial
currency depreciation since 1999.
In 1998/99, the underlying cost structures for
producing, transporting, and marketing soybeans from
Argentina’s southern Santa Fe/northern Buenos Aires
region and Brazil’s two principal growing areas
allowed them to bring soybeans to Rotterdam at prices
slightly below U.S. soybeans grown in the Corn Belt.
These cost advantages help explain the rapid expansion
of soybean production and soybean/product
exports by Argentina and Brazil during the last decade.
In the future, increased soybean plantings by Argentina,
holding other factors constant, may be restrained by
limitations on the ability to expand total area devoted to
agricultural production. In contrast, increased soybean
production in Brazil’s Center-West (e.g., Mato Grosso)
appears especially promising, given abundant, inexpensive
land available for cultivation.

index