Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • An Update of the United States Sugarcane and Sugarbeet Crops

    An Update of the United States Sugarcane and Sugarbeet Crops

    Authors: Michael Deliberto, Associate Professor and Louisiana Farm Bureau Endowed Professor in Agricultural Policy, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University Ag Center. Karen L. DeLong, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

    Introduction

    Industry experts are projecting supply uncertainty for the beet and cane sugar crops for fiscal year (FY) 2026/27. The primary contributing factors to this uncertainty include drought-related reductions in sugarbeet planted acreage, relatively low sugar prices, high input costs, and uncertainty about sugar demand, potentially stemming from the growing popularity of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. While the lower beet sugar production was anticipated because of reduced planted acreage, increased cane sugar production from expanded sugarcane acreage may only partially offset the decline because of a new infestation of pasture mealybug that is affecting the southern U.S. sugarcane crop (Figure 1).

    Figure 1. Planted Acres Reported to the USDA Farm Service Agency for U.S. Sugarbeets and Sugarcane, 2009-2026. Source: USDA Farm Service Agency (2026a).

    Sugarbeet and Sugarcane Production

    According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) August 2026 Crop Production report, the 2026 harvested sugarbeet area is projected at 1.008 million acres, the third lowest in 45 years. The projected sugarbeet harvested area was reduced for five of the 10 sugarbeet-producing states, with the largest declines being in Idaho and North Dakota (USDA NASS, 2026). According to the USDA Farm Service Agency (2026a), prevented-planted sugarbeet acreage totals 30,560 acres and failed acreage is projected at 2,861 acres for a combined total of 33,421 acres (3.33% of total sugarbeet planted area), which is the largest amount on record (Figure 2).[1] The majority of the prevented-planted acreage was located in Nebraska (13,042 acres), Idaho (6,890 acres), Colorado (5,503 acres), and Wyoming (4,444 acres). In many of those regions, reduced snowfall depleted irrigation supplies that would normally be used to irrigate sugarbeets (Nebraska Public Media, 2026). In addition to the poor spring planting conditions, the August U.S. Agriculture in Drought report states that 59% of sugarbeet production is in areas experiencing drought, compared with 55% the previous week and 32% during the same period last year (USDA, 2026).

    Figure 2. Prevented and Failed U.S. Sugarbeet Acreage Reported to the USDA Farm Service Agency, 2009-2026. Source: USDA Farm Service Agency (2026a).

    USDA’s September World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) (2026) projects U.S. FY 2026/27 beet sugar production at 4.769 million short tons raw value (STRV), reflecting two consecutive years of decline (down 307,000 STRV year-over-year) and the lowest beet sugar output since FY 2019/20. U.S. cane sugar output is projected at 4.071 million STRV, 3% lower than the record FY 2025/26 sugarcane crop.

    Sugarcane processors in Florida have indicated negative impacts on the sugarcane crop from pasture mealybug infestation. In addition, all of Florida’s sugarcane production is in areas experiencing drought, according to the August U.S. Agriculture in Drought report (USDA, 2026). Much of the crop was also affected by a historic freeze in February, which may have affected the rootstock (Hudson, 2026). While none of Louisiana’s sugarcane-producing areas are currently experiencing drought, mealybug infestation is present, and potential impacts are still being assessed. Louisiana FY 2026/27 cane sugar production is now projected at a new record high of 2.266 million STRV, marking the fifth year that Louisiana has surpassed Florida’s production and its seventh consecutive year of growth.

    Given the challenges associated both with drought and pasture mealybug, USDA revised its projections for the FY 2026/27 U.S. cane sugar production downward by 0.6% in the August 2026 WASDE, to 4.159 million STRV.

    Sugar Imports

    For FY 2026/27, U.S. sugar imports are projected at 3.582 million STRV, about 740,000 STRV or 26% higher than the revised FY 2025/26 estimate (Figure 3) (USDA WASDE, 2026). The increase largely reflects a sharp adjustment to imports of Mexican sugar, which are projected at 1.346 million short tons, unchanged from July but more than 500% higher than the 220,000 short tons forecast for the current year. However, the levels of over-quota (Tier-2) sugar imports are still expected to increase the total U.S. sugar supply.

    The U.S. produced a record volume of sugar in FY 2024/25, and projections call for record cane sugar production for FY 2025/26 and near-record cane sugar output in FY 2026/27. At the same time, historically large volumes of Tier-2 (over-quota) sugar have entered the U.S. market as low global sugar prices make it profitable for traders (even with applicable duties) to import and sell sugar competitively in the U.S. market. Annual Tier-2 sugar imports generally remained below 100,000 STRV for nearly two decades before exceeding 200,000 STRV in FY 2019/20 and surging to approximately 1.2 million STRV in FY 2023/24, as reported in our previous Southern Ag Today article (https://southernagtoday.org/2026/04/23/how-to-ensure-a-domestic-sugar-industry-increase-the-tier-2-sugar-tariff/).

    Figure 3. U.S. Sugar Imports, by Source, FY 2022/23-FY 2026/27.

    Note: FY 2025/26 is estimated and FY 2026/27 is projected. Source: USDA WASDE (2026).

    Although Tier-2 sugar imports may decline this year, they remain historically elevated. With continued low world sugar prices, Tier-2 sugar imports are likely to continue to enter the U.S. at high levels, boosting overall U.S. sugar supplies. Those additional imports of low-priced world sugar will likely continue to limit domestic sugar price increases that would otherwise help domestic sugar farmers offset inflation-driven increases in input costs.

    [1] The USDA Risk Management Agency (2026) defines prevented planting as “the failure to plant an insured crop with the proper equipment by the final planting date or late planting period, if applicable. To qualify, you must be prevented from planting by an insured cause of loss that is general to the surrounding area and that prevents other producers from planting acreage with similar characteristics.”  The USDA Farm Service Agency (2026b) definition of failed acreage is “acreage that was timely planted with the intent to harvest, but because of disaster related conditions, the crop failed before it could be brought to harvest.”

    References

    Hudson, L. 2026. “Florida’s February Freeze: The $3 Billion Cold Shock to the State’s Crops.” Retrieved from: https://www.wusf.org/weather/2026-03-06/floridas-february-freeze-the-3-billion-cold-shock-to-the-states-crops

    Nebraska Public Media. 2026. Drought Could Reduce Nebraska Sugar Beet Crop by One-Third. Retrieved from: https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/drought-could-reduce-nebraska-sugar-beet-crop-by-one-third/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

    USDA. 2026. U.S. Drought Monitor. Retrieved from: www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/AgInDrought.pdf

    USDA Farm Service Agency. 2026a. Crop Acreage Data. Retrieved from: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/freedom-information-act-foia/electronic-reading-room/frequently-requested/crop-acreage-data

    USDA Farm Service Agency. 2026b. Acreage and Compliance Determinations. Retrieved from: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/2-cp.pdf

    USDA NASS. 2026. August 12, 2026, Crop Production Report. Retrieved from: https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/crop-production

    USDA Risk Management Agency. 2026. Prevented Planting Insurance Provisions-Drought. Retrieved from: https://www.rma.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/Prevented-Planting-Insurance-Provisions-Drought-Fact-Sheet.pdf

    USDA WASDE. 2026. WASDE Report. Retrieved from: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/staff-offices/office-chief-economist/commodity-markets/wasde-report

    Recommended citation format: Deliberto, Michael, and Karen L. DeLong. “An Update of the United States Sugarcane and Sugarbeet Crops.” Southern Ag Today 6(39.3). September 23, 2026. Permalink

  • How Higher LRP Subsidies Changed the Cost Comparison with CME Put Options

    How Higher LRP Subsidies Changed the Cost Comparison with CME Put Options

    Authors: Eunchun Park, James L. Mitchell, Xiaoyi Fang, and Lawson Connor[a]

    Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) and Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) put options both protect cattle producers against lower prices while preserving the opportunity to benefit if prices rise. These risk management tools are not identical, but they function similarly, and their premiums can be compared to assess the cost of establishing a price floor. Understanding how these products compare in terms of cost is especially important in the current market environment, as record-high cattle prices and heightened market volatility have made price protection increasingly expensive. Additionally, USDA’s 2019 and 2020 subsidy expansions substantially changed that comparison.

    In a recently published article, Park et al. (2026) compared LRP premiums with similar (matched) CME put premiums before and after the subsidy expansions. The study matched LRP endorsements with CME put options from 2005 through 2024. The main sample included 6,115 fed cattle endorsements and 34,645 feeder cattle endorsements. Each endorsement was paired with a put for the same cattle market and contract month and with a coverage level within one percentage point of the LRP contract.

    The comparison uses a “net wedge” equal to the matched CME put premium minus the producer-paid LRP premium minus an assumed $0.20 per cwt implementation cost. A positive wedge means the put premium exceeds the producer-paid LRP premium after the assumed cost; a negative wedge means LRP was relatively more expensive than the put. Before July 2019, average net wedges were -$0.948 per cwt for fed cattle and -$0.604 for feeder cattle. After the tiered subsidy schedule began in July 2020, those averages became $0.105 and $0.119, respectively.

    The sign change did not occur because gross LRP premiums fell below option prices. In the post-2020 sample, gross LRP premiums exceeded matched put premiums by $1.880 per cwt for fed cattle and $2.696 for feeder cattle. The statutory subsidy components averaged $2.186 and $3.016 per cwt, more than enough to offset those gross gaps on average.


    Figure 1 applies the pre-expansion subsidy rate to the post-2020 contracts while holding gross LRP and matched put premiums fixed. The average net wedge changed from $0.105 to -$1.276 per cwt for fed cattle and from $0.119 to -$1.788 for feeder cattle.

    These are averages, not guaranteed savings on every endorsement. Even after July 2020, only 49.9 percent of matched fed cattle endorsements and 46.9 percent of matched feeder cattle endorsements had a positive net wedge. LRP and CME puts also differ in contract size, settlement, eligibility, liquidity, brokerage costs, margin requirements, and basis exposure. A positive wedge does not imply risk-free arbitrage, and LRP will not be cheaper for every producer.

    This is important for many Southern cattle producers since their sale lots are often smaller than standardized futures contract sizes. LRP can be tailored by head count and target weight, while CME cattle options correspond to standardized 40,000-pound live cattle or 50,000-pound feeder cattle futures contracts (USDA RMA, 2026; CME Group, n.d.). When comparing the two, producers should first match the LRP endorsement end month to the CME contract month and use similar coverage levels. The comparison should then be made on an all-in $/cwt basis, with attention to the expected local cash sale price. After the subsidy expansion, LRP became less expensive than matched CME puts on average, although that was not true for every endorsement.


    Figure 1. Post-2020 net wedges under actual and pre-expansion subsidy rates

    Note. The counterfactual holds matched CME put premiums and gross LRP premiums fixed while replacing actual post-2020 subsidy rates with the pre-expansion rate. A net wedge is equal to the matched CME put premium minus the producer-paid LRP premium minus an assumed $0.20 per cwt implementation cost. Source: Park et al. (2026), Table 4.

    References

    Park, E., X. Fang, L. Connor, and J. L. Mitchell. 2026. “Subsidy Expansions, Pricing Wedges, and Derivative Markets: Evidence from Livestock Risk Protection.” Journal of Risk and Insurance, 1-29. doi:10.1111/jori.70068.

    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency. 2026. Livestock Risk Protection Insurance Standards Handbook (FCIC-20010), 2027 crop year. USDA RMA handbook PDF.

    CME Group. n.d. Cattle Futures and Options Fact Card. Accessed August 25, 2026. CME cattle futures and options fact card PDF.

    [a] Eunchun Park, Lawson Connor, and James L. Mitchell are assistant professors in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness at the University of Arkansas. Xiaoyi Fang is a postdoctoral fellow in the department. Mitchell is also the livestock marketing extension specialist for the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture.

    Recommended citation format: Park, Eunchun, James L. Mitchell, Xiaoyi Fang, and Lawson Connor. “How Higher LRP Subsidies Changed the Cost Comparison with CME Put Options.” Southern Ag Today 6(39.2). September 22, 2026. Permalink

  • Analyzing the Relationship Between the Yield Ratio and Optimal Crop Insurance Coverage Levels

    Analyzing the Relationship Between the Yield Ratio and Optimal Crop Insurance Coverage Levels

    Authors: Dr. Hunter D. Biram, Assistant Professor and Extension Agricultural Economist, University of Arkansas, Mr. Enil Serrano Puerto, Ph.D. Student, University of Kentucky, Dr. Grant Gardner, Assistant Extension Professor, University of Kentucky

    The Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) has been a standard in farm risk management with nearly 500 million acres insured across row crops, forages, and specialty crops, resulting in up to $192 billion in insured liability in 2024, or 78% of the total value of U.S. crops (USDA-RMA and USDA-ERS, 2026). Despite its popularity as a risk management tool, the question of the best coverage level remains each year. Because premium rates are capped at annual increases of 20%, base premiums tend to change very little from year to year. However, the expected insurance price used to calculate coverage is influenced by futures market prices. As a result, insurance costs can fluctuate based on changes in commodity prices and the mix of crop acres planted by producers. This often leaves farmers with the question of how much insurance to buy or whether to renew with the same coverage from the year before. In response, a large suite of tools has been developed by university extension services. A total of 13 decision aids have been developed by universities from across the U.S., with 9 focusing on farm programs (i.e., Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage) administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), and 4 focusing on federal crop insurance programs administered by the Risk Management Agency (RMA) (Serrano, Gardner, and Biram, Forthcoming). We add a decision aid to this suite of tools that provides analysis for both FSA farm programs and federal crop insurance programs, the Crop Insurance Decision-Maker (CIDM). The CIDM is a free, web-based decision aid that provides expected revenue net of production expenses and insurance premiums paid under scenarios with and without crop insurance. After analyzing multiple scenarios, the CIDM highlights the risk management option with the highest expected net return as a potential optimal coverage choice. The tool further provides analysis of farmer risk preferences by including data for farmers who are risk-averse and are concerned about extreme weather and pest pressure lowering expected net returns.

    In an article published in the latest edition of the Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers (JASMFRA), Serrano, Gardner, and Biram (2026) provide an explanation for CIDM, how to interpret the results in the decision aid, how the results were generated, and where it fits in the greater suite of farmer decision aids. In most instances, results follow those of Biram et al. (2022), who show that even in the presence of ARC and PLC, the optimal decision in most cases is to choose 80-85% coverage. Biram et al. (2022) show that the base premium rate drives the coverage level, with higher base premiums resulting in increasing cost of insurance, and therefore lower optimal coverage levels. 

    We suggest here that another driver of optimal coverage is the ratio of the farm-level yield expectation, measured by the Actual Production History, to the county-level yield expectation measured by the county Reference Yield determined by RMA. Using Arkansas and Kentucky as examples, Figures 1 and 2 plot optimal coverage levels for risk-averse farmers across various yield ratio levels based on Serrano, Gardner, and Biram (2026). We first note that in all instances, except for cotton grown in one county in Arkansas, purchasing some level of crop insurance is always preferred to not purchasing any crop insurance at all (see Figures 1-2). We also find that the optimal coverage level is at least 70% or greater when the farm-level yield expectation is at least half that of the county yield expectation for Arkansas (Figure 1) or the farm yield expectation is at least 60% of the county yield expectation in Kentucky.

    Since these general results are across multiple combinations of states, counties, and coverages, we direct farmers and other users involved in the crop insurance purchase process to consult the CIDM for optimal coverage in a specific county.

    Figure 1. The Relationship Between the Yield Ratio and Optimal Coverage Level in Arkansas

    Figure 2. The Relationship Between the Yield Ratio and Optimal Coverage Level in Kentucky

    References

    Biram, H. D., Coble, K. H., Harri, A., Park, E., & Tack, J. (2022). Mitigating price and yield risk using revenue protection and agriculture risk coverage. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 54(2), 319-333.

    Serrano, E., Gardner, G., & Biram, H.D. (2026). Enhancing Crop Insurance Decisions with Data-Driven Tools. Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers.

    United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (Accessed 2026). Farm income and wealth statistics.

    United States Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency. (Accessed 2026). Revised premium ratings for corn and soybeans: Frequently asked questions.

  • The Headline Rate Does Not Tell the Whole Story: Water Infrastructure Financing Across Selected Southern States

    The Headline Rate Does Not Tell the Whole Story: Water Infrastructure Financing Across Selected Southern States

    Authors: Wes Brondos, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, James Mingie, Research Specialist, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Sreedhar Upendram, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics

    Drinking water systems across the South face increasing repair, replacement, and upgrade costs. State Revolving Funds (SRFs) are an important source of affordable financing. Under the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides capitalization grants to states, which combine federal and state matching funds to provide loans and other assistance to eligible water systems. Since states have flexibility in setting loan terms, the rate a community pays can vary substantially across state lines.

    A comparison of nine Southern states – Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee – shows that DWSRF rates differ both in level and structure. Figure 1 summarizes the range between standard and most-discounted published rates. Some states rely mainly on a single benchmark or formula, while others use multiple discount tiers based on household income, fiscal capacity, or other affordability measures. Consequently, a state’s standard rate may not reflect the financing available to a lower-income or financially constrained community.

    Figure 2 illustrates the standard DWSRF rates in the nine Southern states. Mississippi has the lowest standard DWSRF rates at 1.95 percent with no discount tiers, followed by North Carolina and Louisiana at 2.00 percent and 2.45 percent, respectively. Alabama’s rate includes an interest rate of 0.10 percent and a yearly fee of 2.65 percent that adds up to a rate of 2.75 percent.

    Tennessee’s standard DWSRF rate is the highest of the nine, at 3.66 percent without discounts. The state sets a quarterly base rate and applies discounts based on an Ability-to-Pay Index (ATPI). For July-September 2026, Tennessee’s standard rates range from 3.29 percent for 20-year loans to 3.74 percent for 30-year loans, while qualifying communities receive lower rates. While Tennessee’s loan interest range starts at 1.03 percent for a five-year loan, South Carolina’s interest rates start at 2 percent for a five-year loan. States such as Kentucky and South Carolina also use tiered approaches while states such as Georgia use relatively flat rates or formulas tied to market conditions or local income. Fees, loan terms, principal forgiveness, and assistance for disadvantaged communities can further change borrowing costs. Lower financing costs can reduce debt-service pressure on utilities and lessen the need for customer rate increases.

    Communities also have federal financing alternatives. USDA Rural Development’s Water and Waste Disposal program serves eligible rural communities, generally those with populations of 10,000 or fewer, and offers repayment terms of up to 40 years. For July-September 2026, USDA’s poverty, intermediate, and market rates are 2.875, 3.750, and 4.750 percent. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) assistance is primarily related to grant funding, while HUD’s Section 108 program allows eligible communities to leverage future CDBG allocations through loan guarantees.

    The key takeaway is that there is no single consistent SRF rate across the South. Water systems should compare the rates they are eligible to receive and consider fees, repayment terms, service area limitations and the potential for available subsidies. For policymakers, the comparison highlights a choice of three sources to seek water infrastructure funds and enable water systems to choose between simpler, broadly uniform pricing and targeted discounts that direct assistance toward communities with greater financial need. Based on the information presented, water systems can strategize which funding source to target to get better terms on their loans and avail the maximum discounts to repair, replace and upgrade water systems. As a consequence, the savings can be potentially passed on to consumers with lower rate increases for water infrastructure upgrades.

    Figure 1. Published DWSRF standard and discounted rate ranges in nine Southern states, July 2026.

    Figure 2. Standard Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Rates across the nine Southern States, July 2026.

    Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program overview; state SRF rate sheets and Intended Use Plans from Alabama ADEM, Florida DEP, Georgia GEFA, Kentucky Infrastructure Authority, Louisiana DEQ/DOH, Mississippi Department of Health/MDEQ, North Carolina DEQ, South Carolina Rural Infrastructure Authority, and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation; USDA Rural Development, Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program. Tennessee rates shown are State Fiscal Year 2027 first-quarter rates, updated July 22, 2026; USDA rates are for July-September 2026.

    Recommended citation format: Brondos, Wes, James Mingies, and Sreedhar Upendram. “The Headline Rate Does Not Tell the Whole Story: Water Infrastructure Financing Across the South.” Southern Ag Today 6(38.5). September 18, 2026. Permalink

  • Making the ARC/PLC Election for the 2026 Crop Year

    Making the ARC/PLC Election for the 2026 Crop Year

    Authors: Bart L. Fischer, Joe L. Outlaw, Henry L. Bryant, Hank R. Nelson, Natalie G. Stewart, J. Marc Raulston, Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M University.

    The ARC/PLC election & enrollment for 2026 is now live through December 11. You can access AFPC’s decision tool here.

    Earlier this week, USDA announced (link) that the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) election and enrollment period for the 2026 crop year will run from September 16 through December 11, 2026. This typically occurs much earlier in the year, but the process for the 2026 crop year was delayed due to the amount of time it has taken USDA to implement the Working Families Tax Cuts Act (i.e., One Big Beautiful Bill) which added up to 30 million acres of additional base acres across the United States. This delay is a substantial benefit for producers, since the 2026 crop either has been or soon will be harvested across the country, and producers will have a much better sense of what yields will be (which has a significant bearing on the performance of ARC in particular). With that said, both ARC and PLC use marketing year average prices from the 12 months following harvest.  So, while producers may have a clearer sense of what yields will be, the marketing year average price is far from settled. As a result, when they make their election and enrollment decisions over the next 3 months, they must take that uncertainty into account.

                      The Agricultural & Food Policy Center (AFPC) at Texas A&M University has decades of experience in developing decision aids for producers.  We have provided an annual decision tool for ARC and PLC since those programs were first created in the 2014 Farm Bill.  We have once again updated the decision aid for the changes made in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act.  We have also refreshed the tool to make it easier to use. If you’ve used it in the past, your existing data should load once you log in. You can find a link to the tool on our website (link). Before using the tool, it would be helpful to make sure you have access to your base acre and program yield data which can be found on the FSA-156EZ form.

                      The following screen captures provide a general walk-through of the decision tool. You will be prompted to log-in primarily so you don’t have to enter data again each time you visit the tool. Once you are on the Tools and Decision Aids landing page, simply click on “2026 FSA ARC/PLC Expected Payments” (circled in red below).

    From that point, you can add as many farms (i.e., FSA Farm Serial Numbers, or FSNs) as needed by clicking on the blue “+ Create a Farm” button. 

    Once your farms have been added, simply click “+ Add a crop” to add the covered commodities associated with that farm.

    Once you’ve added the crops (i.e., covered commodities) on the farm, click “Analyze.”

    At this point, you will be prompted to add Base Acres for that covered commodity on the farm along with the 2026 PLC Payment Yield, the Historically Irrigated Percentage, and the Expected Price. Because the marketing year average price is far from known at this point, you are welcome to click on “View Suggested Prices” which will provide the most recent forecasted price for the marketing year from USDA.  You are also welcome to run the analysis as many times as you want using your own price estimates. Because this tool evaluates PLC versus ARC County (ARC-CO), if you have a very good sense of what the 2026 actual yield for the county will be, you may wish to override our forecasted yield.  You can do that by clicking on “Advanced Settings” and inputting your own county yield estimate.  Once you are finished, simply click “Calculate” and then scroll down for the results.

    Once you’ve clicked “Calculate,” the results will display below. As noted in the following figure, the results will include a table of summary statistics (i.e., mean and median expected payments and chance of payment) along with a chart that shows the likelihood of both ARC and PLC across a range of possible payments. Again, you are welcome to run the tool as many times as you want under as many different assumptions/scenarios as you want.

    While the decision tool discussed above is for PLC and ARC-CO, we know that some producers will be interested in exploring possible payments under ARC Individual (ARC-IC). We have developed a separate, Excel-based tool that you are welcome to download from the same website (2026 ARC-IC Decision Aid).

    Please note that USDA also announced that signup for the 2027 crop year will begin on November 2, 2026, and run through March 15, 2027. We will be providing an updated tool for the 2027 crop year as we get closer to November 2nd.

    Our FREE tools are available for producers nationwide. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to reach out at 979-845-5913 or 1(888)890-5663.

    Recommended citation format: Fischer Bart L., Joe L. Outlaw, Henry L. Bryant, Hank R. Nelson, Natalie Stewart, and J. Marc Raulston. “Making the ARC/PLC Election for the 2026 Crop Year.” Southern Ag Today 6(38.4). September 17, 2026. Permalink