Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • Land, Power, and Computing

    Land, Power, and Computing

    Somewhere between land use issues and clean energy initiatives lies a growing battleground for land, power, water, and innovation. Just west of Washington, D.C., Virginia’s Prince William County aims to lay claim to the world’s largest data center corridor. Known as the Digital Gateway project, over 2,000 acres of rural, agricultural, and undeveloped land are proposed to host 37 data centers, spanning a total of 22 to 23 million square feet. In early August, a decision from Prince William County’s Circuit Court Judge voided three rezonings for the proposed project for failure to comply with Virginia’s public hearing notice requirements. The Court has also since denied a stay pending the county’s appeal. Oak Valley HOA v. Prince William County Board of Supervisors, CL24000375-00 (Op. Aug. 7, 2025).

    Just south of the proposed Prince William project, another data center project is well underway north of Richmond in Caroline County. This 650-acre project valued at $8.8B is planned on the site of a shuttered indoor/outdoor flea market. While this project seems to have cleared land use hurdles, it is facing water usage concerns as a result of a plan for surface water withdrawal and an interbasin transfer of water from the Rappahannock River to the Mattaponi River via two existing wastewater treatment plants and discharging into the York River Basin. Caroline County Board of Supervisors. (n.d.) Statement on Caroline County Board of Supervisors’ Approval of Economic Development Performance Agreement with CleanArc. Development Updates, Caroline County VA. https://co.caroline.va.us/215/Development-Updates.

    Meanwhile, neighboring West Virginia’s legislature has pursued policy efforts aimed at attracting data center developers. “The Power Generation and Consumption Act of 2025” (the “Act”), enacted in July of this year, shifts the governance of data centers away from counties and municipalities to centralized state control, positing that national security and economic growth are fundamental grounds for state control. The Act emphasizes that data center projects, along with their accompanying microgrids, are the prerogative of the state. Furthermore, it asserts that West Virginia is the best candidate state for data center development in the U.S., citing low tax rates, few regulatory restrictions, and abundant energy resources. 

    Days after Governor Patrick Morrisey signed West Virginia’s Act into law, Virginia’s Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed identical bipartisan bills that would have required developer applicants to perform sound level assessments on data centers proposed in close proximity to communities. Additionally, the bills granted localities the ability to require that new development applicants assess potential effects on the nearby public resources. S.B. 1449, H.B. 1601, 406th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Va. 2025) https://lis.virginia.gov, Vetoed (May 2, 2025). Governor Youngkin asserts that the proposed legislation “limits local discretion and creates unnecessary red tape.” Virginia. Governor. May 2, 2025. Veto Explanation for S.B. 1449, https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/SB1449/text/SB1449VG.

    In Youngkin’s veto, he also declared Virginia to be the “data center capital of the world,” urging Virginia to not restrict local governments from “developing data centers based on their community’s specific circumstances.” Id. Youngkin’s veto, following the landmark Act passed in West Virginia, suggests an arms race for data center development between the two Virginias. 

    A 2024 report from Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) found that data center demand would drive an “immense increase” in Virginia’s energy needs, resulting in a 183% increase in unconstrained demand. JLARC (2024) “Data Centers in Virginia.” Commonwealth of Virginia. https://jlarc.virginia.gov/landing-2024-data-centers-in-virginia.asp. The report found that meeting the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) requirements while meeting the forecasted energy demand of data centers is not a likely outcome. Virginia would need to add twice the number of new solar facilities added on an annual basis compared to 2024, which comes with its own host of land use challenges, both socially and legislatively. The Commonwealth would also need to increase large natural gas plants at equal or faster rates than the peak build period of 2012 – 2018, and necessary new wind generation would exceed the potential capabilities of all existing and forthcoming offshore wind sites. Id. While states struggle to compete for innovative industries with rewarding economic incentives, land use and resources remain a common hurdle. 

    Friedel, Jennifer S.. “Land, Power, and Computing.” Southern Ag Today 5(44.5). October 31, 2025. Permalink

  • Recent Trade Tensions Cause U.S. Beef to Lose Ground in China, Spurs Gains for Australia and Brazil

    Recent Trade Tensions Cause U.S. Beef to Lose Ground in China, Spurs Gains for Australia and Brazil

    Over the past decade, China has gone from a minor player to the world’s largest beef importer, with purchases rising from around a $100 million in 2010 to nearly $18 billion in 2022, which is a staggering increase of over 17,000%. This surge isn’t just about spending more. The actual volume of beef purchased has grown by more than 8,000%, driven by rising incomes, urban lifestyles, and shifting diets that favor beef over traditional staples like pork. The outbreak of African Swine Fever in 2018, which devastated China’s pig population, further accelerated the shift, while government dietary guidelines have promoted beef as a healthier option. Due to rising demand and imports, coupled with lifting the import restriction on U.S. beef in 2017, China is now the third largest foreign market for U.S. beef—around $1.5 billion in 2024. This rise has been highlighted in previous Southern Ag Today articles (For example, see: https://southernagtoday.org/2025/04/17/high-tariffs-could-halt-u-s-beef-exports-to-china/).

    Rising trade tensions between the U.S. and China, which started earlier this year, raised concerns for U.S. beef exporters. Chinese tariffs on American beef soared as high as 145%, making it far more expensive than beef from countries like Brazil and Australia. Although those tariffs were later lowered to around 33%, the decline had already begun. On top of that, China let export approvals expire for nearly 400 U.S. beef processing plants in March, about 60% of all facilities allowed to ship beef to China, effectively blocking a large portion of U.S. supply (Marianetti, 2025). This move, seen as a non-tariff barrier, has created uncertainty, shaking confidence in the reliability of U.S. beef exports.

    In 2025, rising trade tensions quickly took a toll on American beef in China (see Figure 1). From January to September, U.S. beef exports fell sharply—from $814 million in 2024 to $442 million in 2025—a 46% drop driven mostly by lower volumes. The decline was even steeper in the second and third quarters, after China let key export approvals expire, with U.S. beef falling nearly 70%. This happened even as China’s overall beef imports grew in value. Meanwhile, Australia and Brazil gained ground: Australia’s exports to China rose 42%, and Brazil’s increased nearly 25%. In 2024, the U.S. held about 9% of China’s beef import market, compared to Brazil’s 48% and Australia’s 9%. By the third quarter of 2025, the U.S. share had dropped to less than 1%, while Brazil and Australia accounted for 59% and 13%, respectively. It’s a clear sign that when trade tensions rise, other suppliers are quick to take the lead.

    Figure 1. Chinese Beef Imports: 2024 and 2025 (Year-to-date: January–September) 

    Note: Imports are defined according to the Harmonized System (HS) classification HS 0202 meat of bovine animals, frozen. Frozen beef accounts for over 90% of China’s beef imports.
    Source: Trade Data Monitor®

    References

    Marianetti, J. (2025). USA Dairy Pork and Poultry Registrations Renewed while Beef Remains Overdue (GAIN Report No. CH2025- 0056). Foreign Agricultural Service, Washington, D.C.

    Trade Data Monitor. (2025). https://tradedatamonitor.com/

    Muhammad, Andrew. “Recent Trade Tensions Cause U.S. Beef to Lose Ground in China, Spurs Gains for Australia and Brazil.” Southern Ag Today 5(44.4). October 30, 2025. Permalink

  • Will the 2025 Peanut Crop Set a New Record?

    Will the 2025 Peanut Crop Set a New Record?

    We often look at the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report for guidance on expected supply, demand, and pricing for commodities.  Rarely, however, does this report mention anything about peanuts.  The last WASDE (September 12, 2025) before the government shutdown was one of those rare exceptions when it included the statement that “Other changes [in oilseeds] this month include higher U.S. peanut production.”  To obtain more details, one needs to look at the monthly Oil Crops Outlook (OCO), which focuses on oil crops and animal fats.  The last OCO on September 16, 2025, reported that peanut production for marketing year 2025-26 was increased to a record-high 7.4 billion pounds, due to an expected higher harvested acreage (mainly in Georgia and Texas) as well as an increase in the average peanut yield.  With the government shutdown, this report has also not been updated, leaving the peanut industry with a month-old forecast during the peak harvest period that indicates a record crop.

    Figure 1 shows U.S. peanut production and uses from 2020/21 to forecasted 2025/26.  Production is forecasted to reach record levels at 7.4 billion pounds, representing a 14.7% increase.  Meanwhile, total use for food, crush, and exports are expected to increase 8.5%, to 7 billion pounds.  The additional production is expected to increase ending stocks by 29.6% to 2 billion pounds, levels similar to the ending stocks in the 2022/23 marketing year. 

    The lack of readily available data further limits information in an already thin market that, unlike other commodities, does not have a futures market to help establish prices.  This leaves producers questioning what the actual production levels will be during the peak of harvest.  One could look at various weather conditions, especially in Georgia, Texas, and Alabama, the three largest peanut acreage states this year.   Dry weather that is prevalent in these areas has the potential to bring down yields or affect quality.  

    Another source of alternative information comes from the Georgia Federal-State Inspection Service, which publishes the National Tonnage Report.  This report contains data provided by buying points throughout the peanut belt on peanut production classified by segmentation. The official report is also affected by the government shutdown, but unofficial tonnage data have been made available.  Since October 1, data have been self-reported only for Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas.  While the total tonnage reported thus far stands at 3.1 billion pounds, it is certainly a data point that has too many caveats to use for pricing decisions.  

    The last source of information is the weekly Crop Progress & Condition report, which has also been affected by the government shutdown.  The last report at the end of September showed harvest ahead of last year and the previous 5-year average. However, at the end of October, harvest over the last 5 years has been, on average, about 70% completed.  Thus, there is still a way to go before we can figure out how big the 2025 peanut crop may be. In the meantime, the lack of official USDA reports is leaving producers with limited guidance.

    Source:

    Bukowski, M., & Swearingen, B. (2025). Oil crops outlook: September 2025 (Report No. OCS-25i). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

    Crop Progress & Condition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

    World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. U.S. Department of Agriculture, September 12, 2025.

    Rabinowitz, Adam. “Will the 2025 Peanut Crop Set a New Record?” Southern Ag Today 5(44.3). October 29, 2025. Permalink

  • A Wave of Milk and Slumping Prices

    A Wave of Milk and Slumping Prices

    We’ll take a break from the cattle and beef market news of the last week to take a look at dairy markets. However, there is one important interaction between beef and dairy markets that intersects with recent news.

    Profitable milk prices and falling feed costs in 2024 have led to a surge in the number of dairy cows since the first of the year.  USDA’s August Milk Production report indicated 9.52 million dairy cows in the U.S.  That is the highest number of dairy cows since 1993.  The number of dairy cows in the U.S. has typically fluctuated between 9.3 and 9.4 million over the last decade.  Cow numbers are particularly higher in the Plains.  Dairy cows in Texas hit 699,000 head; this is the most dairy cows in the state since 1958!  Milk processing capacity is growing hand in hand with cow numbers.  

    In addition to more cows, milk production per cow has increased since April.  Production per cow hit 2,050 pounds in August, the largest August milk production per cow on record, up 1.3 percent compared to August 2024.  The combination of more cows and more milk per cow has milk production up 3.6 percent over the last 3 months compared to the same period last year.  

    As production has surged, prices are beginning to decline sharply.  Cheese, butter, and non-fat dry milk (NFDM) prices are the basic product prices forming federal milk marketing order prices.  Cheddar cheese, 40 pound blocks, has moved between about $1.95 and $1.70 per pound all year.  While prices should be increasing seasonally, heading into the holidays, they are about $0.30 per pound below a year ago.  Butter prices have declined sharply over the last few weeks from $2.50 per pound to about $1.70 in mid-October.  NFDM prices have fallen sharply to $1.14 per pound, their lowest price of the year.  Lower product prices are filtering through to much lower milk prices to dairy farmers.

    One area of interaction between dairy and beef cows is the cull cow market.  While beef cow slaughter remains much lower than last year, dairy cow slaughter is picking up and has been equal to last year since mid-year.  More dairy cows in the herd, falling milk prices, and record high cull cow prices will likely cause some more cow culling in the coming weeks.  A recent newspaper article quoted a dairy farmer in Wisconsin as saying we really needed more dairy culling to boost milk prices and increase supplies of beef. Harkening back to the 1980s and the dairy herd buyouts, which caused even more worries for many cattle producers. At the moment, there is no government program to encourage dairy cow culling. Unless something changes, it looks like the market will take care of this, too.

    Anderson, David. “A Wave of Milk and Slumping Prices.” Southern Ag Today 5(44.2). October 28, 2025. Permalink

  • Peanut Crop Insurance: What’s Available and What’s New Under the OBBB Act

    Peanut Crop Insurance: What’s Available and What’s New Under the OBBB Act

    The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act, signed into law on July 4, 2025, introduces new opportunities for U.S. peanut producers to manage risk. This article explores the current crop insurance options available to peanut farmers and highlights how the new law expands these choices beginning crop year 2026. Under the OBBB, peanut producers continue to have access to traditional deep-loss and shallow-loss programs, while also gaining access to a new combination of income protection tools: the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) and Agriculture Risk Coverage – County (ARC-CO). These programs are designed to help farmers safeguard their income against unexpected losses. This article provides a detailed look at these options and how they can benefit peanut producers.

    Deep Loss Programs protect against significant losses, including complete crop losses. The Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) for peanuts offers three farm-level insurance plans that fall into this category. These plans form the foundation of a peanut producer’s risk management strategy. They are also referred to as the underlying policy that peanut producers can purchase to protect against potential losses. (1) Yield Protection (YP) insures against losses when yield falls below a selected coverage level due to natural disasters or other covered events. (2) Revenue Protection (RP) safeguards revenue when it falls below the selected revenue coverage level, either due to low yields, declining prices, or both. (3) Revenue Protection with Harvest Price Exclusion (RP-HPE) functions similarly to RP but does not increase the revenue guarantee if harvest prices rise above the projected price. This typically results in lower premium costs for producers. 

    Shallow Loss Programs provide additional coverage for smaller, more frequent losses that can impact a farmer’s income. For peanut producers, shallow loss insurance options include SCO and the Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO). These are add-ons, not standalone policies, and must be paired with an underlying policy, such as YP, RP, or RP-HPE. By layering SCO and/or ECO onto their base policy, producers can often achieve higher overall coverage at a lower combined premium than by raising the base policy’s coverage level alone. This layered approach, which combines shallow-loss and deep-loss tools, is explored here by Biram and Connor (2023), who demonstrate that strategic combinations can enhance overall risk protection. 

    Unlike deep loss programs, which provide protection at the farm level, shallow loss programs do not cover complete crop failures. SCO and ECO are both area-based programs, triggered by county-level yield or revenue outcomes depending on the underlying policy. They help fill the “deductible gap”, covering losses that fall between the individual coverage level of the underlying policy and the higher coverage level selected for SCO or ECO. Biram (2024) discusses how ECO may provide meaningful protection in years when county yields are strong, but market prices decline, offering producers an effective tool to manage upside yield risk and downside price exposure.

    Beginning crop year 2026, under the OBBB, producers can now purchase SCO regardless of whether their base acres are enrolled in ARC-CO, removing a major restriction from previous farm bills. This means that the same acres can now be enrolled in both the ARC-CO and SCO programs. Additionally, the maximum SCO coverage level was increased to 90%, and its premium subsidy rate was raised to 80% (Biram & Maples, 2025). RMA has issued guidance on implementing the legislative changes. Under this new guidance[1], the 80% higher premium subsidy rate will also extend to the Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO) and the Hurricane Insurance Protection–Wind Index (HIP-WI).

    Additional Program: In addition to the deep and shallow loss programs, peanut producers can also purchase Hurricane Insurance Protection – Wind Index (HIP-WI). This endorsement helps cover part of the deductible from the primary crop insurance policy when sustained hurricane-force winds impact the county or a neighboring one. HIP-WI can be combined with SCO and ECO, but only if the acreage is already insured under an underlying policy (YP, RP, or RP-HPE). HIP-WI has gained popularity, particularly in regions prone to hurricanes and tropical storms. 

    Understanding these insurance options empowers farmers to develop customized risk management strategies. By combining standalone policies with supplemental options and endorsements, producers can strengthen their financial resilience against both major and minor losses. For more information, producers are encouraged to visit the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency website and use the Agent Locator Tool to connect with a certified crop insurance professional.

    Table 1. Individual and Area Crop Insurance Products with Associated Indemnity Triggers and Standalone Status for Peanuts

    ProductTypeTriggerStandalone
    Deep Loss Programs
    Yield Protection (YP)IndividualFarm YieldYes
    Revenue Protection (RP)IndividualFarm RevenueYes
    Revenue Protection, Harvest Price Exclusion (RP-HPE)IndividualFarm RevenueYes
    Shallow Loss Programs
    Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO)AreaCounty Yield or County RevenueNo
    Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO)AreaCounty Yield or County RevenueNo
    Additional Program
    Hurricane Insurance Protection – Wind Index (HIP-WI)AreaHurricane or Tropical Storm No

    [1] Starting in 2027, RMA will increase the maximum SCO coverage level from 86% to 90%. For 2026, producers can use ECO to cover that band instead and will receive the same 80% premium subsidy that applies to SCO. 

    Reference:

    Biram, Hunter. “Can Yield Upside Risk Eclipse Price Downside Risk Protection in ECO Crop Insurance?” Southern Ag Today 4(47.3). November 20, 2024. 

    Biram, Hunter. D., and William E. Maples. “Stronger Farm Safety Net Included in the OBBB Act, ‘Skinny’ Farm Bill, and SDRP Disaster Payments.” Morning Coffee & Ag Markets, July 14, 2025.

    H. Biram and L. Connor. (2023). “Types of Federal Crop Insurance: Individual and Area Products.” University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Fact Sheet, Publication No. FSA75.

    Chong, Fayu, Yangxuan Liu, and Hunter Biram. “Exploring Diverse Crop Insurance Options for Cotton Producers.” Southern Ag Today 3(51.3). December 20, 2023.

    Swanson, Patricia. “MGR-25-006: One Big Beautiful Bill Act Amendment.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency. August 20, 2025. 

    Kalli, Susmitha, Yangxuan Liu, Hunter D. Biram, and Fayu Chong. “Peanut Crop Insurance: What’s Available and What’s New Under the OBBB Act.” Southern Ag Today 5(44.1). October 27, 2025. Permalink