Blog

Top Five Food Safety and Quality New Year’s Resolutions for 2026

Contributors: Stephanie Brown, Jennifer Hagen, Josey Keener, and Natasha Parks

As 2025 comes to a close and 2026 awaits, there’s no better moment to level up your home kitchen food safety habits. Explore our top five expert tips to help you prepare every meal with greater confidence and peace of mind in the year ahead.

Wash Hands, Clean, and Sanitize: The holidays bring gatherings and plenty of food, whether from parties, potlucks, or gifts. Now’s the perfect time to wash your hands often and focus on food safety. Organize, clean, and sanitize your kitchen and food storage areas, so you’re ready for extra treats and leftovers.

In the home, using a four-step method for cleaning and sanitizing is recommended. They are 1) pre-rinse; 2) clean with detergent; 3) rinse; and 4) apply a sanitizer (Stone et al., 2020). If you skip steps, like using a sanitizer on dirty surfaces, this wastes product and doesn’t keep you safe. This is because the dirt and food debris on a dirty surface can bind to the active ingredients in many sanitizers, thereby preventing the sanitizer from reaching any foodborne pathogens present on these surfaces. When prioritizing which surfaces need to be cleaned and sanitized, consider the following:

Keep your cell phone out of the kitchen and remember to clean and sanitize it regularly – phones carry a surprising number of microorganisms!
- Refrigerators, freezers, or any other cold storage areas. This includes shelving, drawers, and walls inside of the unit(s).
- Surfaces in storage and preparation areas including countertops, sinks, and shelves.
- Common touch points such as light switches, knobs for stoves, and handles on doors, cabinetry, and equipment (e.g., microwave, refrigerator, and dishwasher).
- If using reusable bags as part of your shopping habits, don’t forget to clean these as well. General sanitation tips to consider: Not all sanitizers should be used on surfaces that touch foods (i.e., food contact surfaces). Reading a sanitizer’s EPA approved label will tell you if a product is approved for food contact uses. To learn more about sanitizer basics, we recommend reviewing Stone et al., 2020. While this article was written with the food industry in mind, many of these concepts and tips can be applied to home settings.
Separate Don’t Cross-Contaminate: Reducing opportunities for cross-contamination to occur begins with bringing ingredients and food into your home. Many food items are stored in the refrigerator, including ready-to-eat items (such as leftovers and most dairy products), raw produce, meats, and more. These items can cause cross-contamination issues if not stored separately, particularly if they can spill or otherwise comingle with different food types.

Another best practice is to store items that are thawing in a refrigerator in a secondary container to prevent dripping onto other foods (Ahn et al., 2021). For example, raw meats should be thawed in a clean bin or plate to prevent liquids from dripping onto ready-to-eat foods (e.g., lettuce intended for salad). Using a secondary container can also be a great way to separate items of different types if you cannot dedicate whole refrigerator shelves to similar food types.

Use the Right Tools for the Right Job: Having the right tool, utensil, or piece of equipment to support food handling and storage can help keep your food safer and may make tasks easier to accomplish. To best explain, let’s use a food thermometer as an example. From monitoring refrigerator and freezer temperatures to checking the internal temperatures of foods, having thermometers can help determine whether foods have maintained or reached a safe temperature. However, having a thermometer is only one piece of the puzzle. If the thermometer will not measure the intended temperature range, it is hard to use or clean, is breakable, hard to calibrate, or not made of food grade materials, then this thermometer is not the right tool for this job.

Every so often, tools and equipment should be reviewed to see if they need to be replaced. Items that commonly need to be replaced because they are difficult to clean due to wear and tear include silverware, can openers, cutting boards, and cooking utensils.

Times and Temperatures Matter: Many foods require holding or storage at a specific temperature range for a given timeframe to maintain their safety (i.e., time/temperature controlled for safety (TCS) foods). Instead of giving the gift of foodborne illness this holiday season and beyond, consider these practical tips:
- Do not rely on visual clues alone for determining a food’s safety. Always store perishable foods and leftovers promptly, and cook foods to their recommended internal temperature, which should be measured using a food thermometer. The USDA’s safe minimum internal temperature chart can be found in Table 1(USDA, 2025b). The maximum recommended time that foods should be kept out of the temperature danger zone (40ºF – 140ºF) is two hours. If working in temperatures above 90ºF, this time frame shortens to one hour (USDA, 2020).
- Don’t forget about the temperature danger zone when it comes to traveling with or hosting events with perishable foods. Consider using insulated containers/coolers or food warmers to keep foods at a safe temperature.
If you can’t finish leftovers in three to four days (USDA, 2020), consider freezing them to keep them safe. Using labels or stickers on your food containers are great reminders for what the safe storage time should be. You can also repurpose leftovers into new meals like soup, salads, casseroles, and more! Planning ahead saves money, reduces food waste, and helps prevent illness.
- Food delivery is more popular than ever. Whether it’s delivering homemade treats to friends or ordering meals and meal kits right to your door, temperature is an important consideration, especially if living in warmer climates. Where possible, consider using coolers or other insulated devices to help keep perishable foods at a safe temperature.

Food Date Labels and Waste: When was the last time you checked the back of your fridge, pantry, or cabinets for forgotten foods and spices? Items left or pushed to the back can spoil, leading to unnecessary waste. Spoiled foods tend to have an unpleasant smell, taste, or other sensory properties that indicate a food has changed. This can happen at any time during a food’s shelf life, regardless of the date-based label associated with the product. It is important to remember that the microorganisms responsible for food spoilage are not the same as those that make us sick (i.e., pathogens). However, if food is spoiled, it means conditions have allowed all types of bacteria, including harmful ones, to multiply. Therefore, for safety’s sake, we recommend throwing out any spoiled foods to help protect yourself and others from possible foodborne illness.

Along with spoilage, date-based labeling has been commonly used when making decisions about discarding foods. A 2025 food label survey demonstrated that the percentage of consumers relying on date-based labeling for decision making is on the rise (43% versus 37% in 2016; Neff et al., 2025). However, relying solely on date-based labeling leads to extra food waste and money loss for consumers. The 2019 EPA estimates for wasted food from food retail, food service, and residential sources reached 66.2 million tons (EPA, 2023). Of this, 40% was attributed to home use (EPA, 2023). The only food requiring date-based labels in the U.S. is infant formula (USDA, 2025a). The “use-by” date for this product is the final date that a manufacturer can guarantee the nutritional value and quality of this food (21 CFR 107). While most other foods contain date labels, these terms are unregulated, not standardized across the industry, and are typically used by companies to refer to a food’squality attributes, not safety.

Table 1: Safe Minimum Internal Temperature Chart from USDA.

Product	Minimum Internal Temperature and Rest Time
Beef, Pork, Veal and Lamb Steaks, Chops and Roasts	145 degrees F (62.8 degrees C) and allow to rest at least 3 minutes
Ground Meats	160 degrees F (71.1 degrees C)
Ground Poultry	165 degrees F (73.9 degrees C)
Ham, Fresh or Smoked (Uncooked)	145 degrees F (62.8 degrees C) and allow to rest at least 3 minutes
Fully Cooked Ahm (to Reheat)	Reheat cooked hams packaged in USDA- Inspected plants to 140 degrees F (60 degrees C) and all others to 165 degrees F (73.9 degrees C)
All Poultry (Breasts, Whole Bird, Legs, Thighs, Wings, ground Poultry, Giblets and Stuffing)	165 degrees F (73.9 degrees C)
Eggs	160 degrees F (71.1 degrees C)
Fish & Shellfish	145 degrees F (62.8 degrees C)
Leftovers	165 degrees F (73.9 degrees C)
Casseroles	165 degrees F (73.9 degrees C)

*Table is from USDA’s Safe Minimum Internal Temperature Chart webpage (USDA, 2025b).

References:

Ahn, S., Lepper, J. A., and Schneider, K. (2021). Food safety tips for the holiday season. University of Florida Institute of Food and Agriculture Extension, FSHN14-13. Available at: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FS260

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2023). 2019 Wasted food report: Estimates of generation and management of wasted food in the United States in 2019. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/2019-wasted-food-report_508_opt_ec_4.23correction.pdf

Etaka, C. A., McEntire, E., and Strawn, L. K. (2024). Best practices for reusable grocery bags. Virginia Cooperative Extension Publications, FST-476NP. Available at: https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/FST/fst-476/fst-476.html.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (2020). How to sanitize your phone and other devices. Available at: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/how-sanitize-your-phone-and-other-devices.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2025). Questions and answers regarding food allergens, including the food allergen labeling requirements of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (edition 5): Guidance for industry. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/117410/download.

Mafe, A. N., Edo, G. I., Makia, R. S., Joshua, O. A., Akpoghelie, P. O., Gaaz, T. S., Jikah, A. N., Yousif, E., Isoje, E. F., Igbuku, U. A., Ahmed, D. S., Essaghah, A. E. A., and Umar, H. (2024): A review on food spoilage mechanisms, foodborne diseases and commercial aspects of food preservation and processing. Food Chemistry Advances, 5: 100852.

Neff, R., Broad Leib, E., Khan, A., and Gunders, D. (2025). Consumer perceptions of food date labels: 2025 national survey. Available at: https://chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Consumer-perceptions-of-food-date-labels-2025-national-survey-policy-brief.pdf.

Olsen, M., Campos, M., Lohning, A., Jones, P., Legget, J., Bannach-Brown, A., McKirdy, S., Alghafri, R., and Tajouri, L. (2020). Mobile phones represent a pathway for microbial transmission: A scoping review. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 35:101704.

Stone, D., Kovacevic, J., and Brown, S. (2020). Sanitizer basics for the food industry. Pacific Northwest Extension Publishing, PNW 752. Available at: https://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pnw-752-sanitizer-basics-food-industry

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (2020). Leftovers and food safety. Available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/leftovers-and-food-safety.

USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service (2025a). Food product dating: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/food-product-dating

USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service (2025b). Safe minimum internal temperature chart. Available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/safe-temperature-chart.

Brown, Stephanie, Jennifer Hagen, Josey Keener, and Natasha Parks. “Top Five Food Safety and Quality New Year’s Resolutions for 2026.” Southern Ag Today 5(52.5). December 26, 2025. Permalink

December 26, 2025

Soybean Exports Continue to Lag

Authors: Will Maples; Mississippi State University; Grant Gardner; University of Kentucky

As the calendar year comes to a close, U.S. soybean exports remain one of the more disappointing components of the soybean balance sheet. USDA currently projects soybean exports at 1.635 billion bushels, down 13 percent from last year. This weakness has been evident throughout the marketing year, with export commitments consistently running below historical norms and showing little of the typical seasonal acceleration.

Figure 1 shows that U.S. soybean export commitments for the 2025-2026 marketing year have consistently trailed historical benchmarks. Commitments remained near the bottom of the five-year range through the winter and spring, reflecting limited early-season booking activity. Although export sales began to improve in late summer and early fall, the pace remains well below both the five-year average and USDA pace targets. Historically, roughly 70 percent of total soybean export commitments are in place by this point in the marketing year. Based on the five-year average pace, the U.S. would need approximately 30.9 million metric tons of commitments to meet USDA’s export projection. Currently, commitments total just 21.8 million metric tons, highlighting the substantial gap that remains.

The largest wildcard for U.S. soybean exports is China. Historically, China has been the single largest buyer of U.S. soybeans, accounting for 25% of U.S. soybean production (Gardner, 2025). However, Chinese purchases effectively halted last spring following the onset of the trade war. After the U.S. and China reached a trade agreement in October, China resumed soybean purchases. Under the agreement, China committed to purchase at least 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans in 2025, with an additional 25 million metric tons to be purchased in each of the following three years. Putting these numbers in perspective, 12 million metric tons account for 10% of U.S. soybean production this year.

Initially, the 2025 commitment was expected to be met by the end of the calendar year, though the timeline has since become less clear, with the administration later indicating the target could be reached by the end of February. Regardless of the exact deadline, progress to date suggests the original target will not be met by year-end. For the export report ending November 27, USDA reports China had purchased 3.0 million metric tons of soybeans. While recent announcements of additional sales to China suggest this figure is now higher than officially reported, purchases remain well short of trade deal commitments.

Despite the Chinese trade agreement, questions remain about the economic feasibility of large-scale Chinese purchases of U.S. soybeans relative to Brazilian soybeans. China has already sourced a substantial volume of soybeans from South America, and overall import demand is likely to remain limited regardless of trade commitments. With USDA projecting another increase in Brazilian soybean production, U.S. soybeans will likely remain trading at a premium to Brazil.

The lag in exports creates downside risk for producers with unpriced soybeans in storage if marketing decisions are based solely on the expectation of a late-season surge in Chinese purchases. Rather than relying on a potential export-driven price rally, producers should consider establishing price floors or incorporating other risk management strategies to protect against continued export weakness. As producers consider marketing old-crop soybeans for 2026 delivery, price recovery remains uncertain. Periodic sales at or above breakeven can help mitigate downside price risk, particularly if export demand continues to lag.

Figure 1. U.S. Total Soybean Export Commitments for 2025-2026 Marketing Year Compared to Previous Five Years (2020-2024)

Source: USDA-Foreign Agriculture Service

Sources:

Gardner, Grant. “Major Players in US Trade and Grain Market Volatility.” Southern Ag Today 5(15.3). April 9, 2025. Permalink

Maples, William E., and Grant Gardner. “Soybean Exports Continue to Lag.” Southern Ag Today 5(52.3). December 24, 2025. Permalink

December 24, 2025
Tamale Time!

For some of us, Christmas means tamales!  To stick with the traditional tamale, this means pork. Yes, some people do make other kinds, and a wide variety are traditional in other countries and the Delta, but we will stick with pork for today’s article because it’s a good reminder to check on recent pork prices.

Hog and pork prices tend to have a highly seasonal pattern that, generally, peaks mid-year.  That price seasonality is related to production seasonality.  Hog slaughter is the lowest during the summer and tends to peak in the fall.  Dressed weights per carcass are usually the lowest in the heat of summer. Following slaughter and weights, pork production bottoms are the lowest in the summer and peaks in the fall.

Pork production during June-August 2025 was 3.2 percent lower this year than last year.  However, since August, pork production has been 1 percent more than last year.  Production during the second week of December hit 593.6 million pounds, which was the largest weekly production in more than two years.

Hog and wholesale pork prices have declined sharply as production has increased.  National, weighted average, hog carcass prices net of any carcass premiums and discounts were $82.96 per cwt in mid-December, down from a peak of $108.79 earlier in the summer.  The shoulder cuts, butts, and picnics are often used in pork tamales.  Pork butt and picnic primal values were $111.03 and $83.39 per cwt, respectively, in mid-December.  Both were a little above the values for the same week in 2024 and well below their summer peak.

Hogs and Pigs report

USDA will release the December Hogs and Pigs report in the afternoon of December 23^rd (today, if you’re reading this early Tuesday morning).  Market analysts expect the breeding herd to be about 1 percent smaller than December 2024.  The number of market hogs should be about the same as a year ago.  The report will have an estimate of expected sow farrowings during the first 6 months of 2026.  Analysts expect farrowings to be slightly larger than during the first half of 2025.  The report will be an interesting one because producers have struggled over the last several years.  Falling feed costs and this past Summer’s high prices returned some profits to producers.  High fertilizer prices have made the manure much more valuable, helping the overall farm operation.  But, falling prices late this year brought profits down to about break even again.

Tamale Day

My friends and I have our tamale-making day scheduled for December 21^st, so by the time you read this, we’ll be relaxing for Christmas.  All of us livestock economists at Southern Ag Today wish you the Merriest of Christmases!

Anderson, David. “Tamale Time!“ Southern Ag Today 5(52.2). December 23, 2025. Permalink

December 23, 2025
Broiler Revenue Drivers – Part 2

Contract broiler growers must make business management decisions like any other farmer. However, the scope of those decisions is very different compared to farmers growing and marketing grain, for instance. Broiler growers raising birds on contract for integrated poultry companies have contractually limited abilities to implement production management changes, and since they essentially have one “customer”, they have no chance at varying marketing strategies.  Even so, some management choices may positively or negatively influence pay rates they get from the broiler company, and things that influence livability can certainly impact pounds delivered to the plant. Therefore, there may be some opportunities, like row crops or livestock farming, where a grower can choose to focus on production or pay rate improvements to potentially increase revenue. The question is whether one strategy is better than the other.

It should be reiterated that a contract broiler grower’s business operates under a simple gross revenue (GR) equation of pounds delivered to the company plant multiplied by the pay rate per pound. If we designate pounds as “L” and pay rate as “P”, the equation is simply L x P = GR. Under current typical competitive contract scenarios, a grower’s pay rate for any individual flock is a function of feed conversion ratio and corresponding flock cost compared to other farms finished and caught in the same week by the company. How well a farm’s cost compares to the average cost that week determines the pay rate. Given the limited abilities to positively impact either pounds or pay rate, the question is which might have a greater chance at positively influencing their GR? In Part 1 of our look at Broiler Revenue, we examined the variability of broiler gross revenue by looking at the two metrics of pay rate in dollars per hundred pounds delivered ($/CWT) and broiler production in pounds broken down to per square foot of housing (lbs./SF) in a nominal fashion on two similar farms across 17 flocks. From that nominal case study, we saw that although there was evidence that either could negatively or positively affect revenue, for many flocks, changes in lbs./SF seemed to override the expected effect of an increase or decrease in pay rate.

The next step looks at the same two farms and attempts to further decipher how the extent of the changes in lbs./SF and $/CWT for each flock impacts GR when compared to the farms’ own averages over the period, further trying to decide if one or the other has the most impact. By simply graphing the percent change from farm average (0%) of each of these metrics (Fig. 1a &1b), we again see what suggest lbs./SF may have a slightly more significant impact on the overall GR equation for many flocks, as often its increasing or decreasing column is the largest of the two and goes in the direction of GR. The problem is that these percentages are likely not directly comparable. In 21 of the 34 flocks, both production and pay rate moved in the same direction as the revenue line. It remains difficult to know which made the most difference to revenue because adding the % change for both does not always equate to the corresponding percentage change in revenue. In fact, it usually doesn’t. This is likely a result of the varying competitive situation that exists for every flock.

Pay rates are certainly not irrelevant, and avoiding extreme discounts is important.  A close look at flock #6 for Farm A and flock #5 for Farm B is warranted. Pay rate had a significant impact on these two flocks for both farms, but Farm A got the worse end of the deal. These flocks were the lowest revenue flock for each farm, as both suffered a similar catastrophic disease outbreak (not HPAI), evidenced by the drastic decrease in production. This also resulted in significant decreases in pay rates for both as they were unable to compete positively in the tournament pay system for these flocks. However, for Farm A, the pay rate decrease was greater. This could be attributed to simple chance in the tournament pay settlement structure that week, as mentioned above. But when combined with an almost equal loss in production, the result for Farm A was 17% less revenue in dollars per house than Farm B’s bad flock ($6,879 vs. $8,283). Thus, the significantly lower pay rate cost Farm A more when combined with the lost pounds. In many cases, since there is no governmental disaster support system for such losses, the farm that suffers from such a disease outbreak receives no additional revenue support from the company either. They simply suffer the loss of birds and revenue along with the company.

Clearly, if either farm could consistently perform better in the tournament and increase their pay rate, they would generate more gross revenue, even if pounds didn’t change.  However, be it for efficiency or outdated technology issues, they may be limited in their opportunity to compete for better tournament pay. In such cases, more pounds may be their only opportunity for more revenue. To examine this a little further, we can look at which improves gross revenue more for those negative revenue flocks – improving lbs./SF or increasing $/CWT. If we were to wave a magic wand over these two farms and increase the $/CWT on the negative flocks up to the farm averages, Farm A would gain $9,715, and Farm B would gain $8,514 in revenue. However, if we were to raise lbs./SF for each of those negative flocks up to farm average, Farm A would gain $11,350, and Farm B would gain $11,685. For both farms, increasing lbs./SF on poor flocks impacts revenue more, even at decreased pay rates. In the next installment, we look at what implementing changes to pay structures across the board could do to growers’ actual revenue dollars.

Figures 1 A & B: In the figures below, the 0% lines represent each farm’s average revenue, production, and pay rate across the 17 flocks. Above or below that line represents the percent change above or below farm average.

Figure 1A

Figure 1B

Find Part 1 Here.

Brothers, Dennis. “Broiler Revenue Drivers – Part 2.” Southern Ag Today 5(52.1). December 22, 2025. Permalink

December 22, 2025
Federal Estate Tax and Gift Tax Limits Announced For 2026

Introduction

In October 2025, the IRS announced the revised federal estate tax exemption and gift tax limit for 2026.  The federal estate tax exemption will rise from $13.99 million in 2025 to $15 million in 2026.  The federal gift tax exclusion will remain at $19,000 per recipient.  Whether the value of a person’s estate falls above or below that limit, it is critical to develop an estate plan to assist in transitioning the farm to the next generation. Understanding the potential for estate and/or gift tax liability should be part of this planning process.

Federal Estate Taxes

For 2026, the federal estate tax exemption increases to $15 million for an individual and $30 million for a couple.  This increase is not due to inflation but, instead, to the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, P.L. 119-21, July 4, 2025. This made permanent the existing estate tax exemption passed initially in 2017.

One last note on federal estate taxes: a surviving spouse has an unlimited marital deduction.  This means a predeceasing spouse can transfer assets to the surviving spouse estate tax-free.  Additionally, the surviving spouse can include the predeceasing spouse’s unused federal estate tax limit in their federal estate tax limit. This concept is known as portability.  It is important to consult qualified estate planning attorneys and accountants to ensure that the surviving spouse satisfies the requirements for portability.

Federal Gift Tax Limit

Federal tax law allows each taxpayer to gift up to $19,000 per year to one individual without incurring federal gift taxes. The federal gift tax limit will remain at $19,000 in 2026. This exemption is tied to inflation but can only increase by $1,000 per year.

How Does This Impact Producers?

Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “In this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” With that in mind, farm families concerned about an estate exceeding the federal estate tax exemption need to begin working on farm succession and estate plans to limit potential estate taxes down the road. Working with a tax advisor early on can help limit taxes and devise a tax plan to keep the farm in operation for future generations. Failure to properly plan can force surviving family members to sell family assets to pay taxes. Along with a tax advisor, producers should consider working with additional team members, such as an attorney and a financial planner, to begin developing a succession plan for their operation.

Goeringer, Paul. “Federal Estate Tax and Gift Tax Limits Announced For 2026.” Southern Ag Today 5(51.5). December 19, 2025. Permalink

December 19, 2025