Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • A Shipload of Beef? Examining the First Tranche of Imports

    A Shipload of Beef? Examining the First Tranche of Imports

    Last month, President Trump announced a plan to allow 300,000 metric tons of beef to enter the United States over a 90-day period without being subject to out-of-quota tariffs. The plan was part of a broader effort to lower beef prices for consumers. We are now more than a month into the 90-day window and have enough data to examine how much beef has actually been imported under the plan.

    The import plan is divided into three monthly tranches, with a new 100,000 metric ton tariff-rate quota (TRQ) available each month. Importantly, this new quota does not apply to beef coming from countries that already have their own treatment under the existing U.S. beef import system. Canada and Mexico are not subject to the beef TRQ, while Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, and Uruguay have country-specific quotas.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection reports weekly imports entered under the “Affordable Beef” quota. As of September 8, 15,370 metric tons had entered under the first 100,000 metric ton tranche. That total increased to 22,156 metric tons by September 14, 31,129 metric tons by September 21, and 37,486 metric tons by September 28. Thus, 37.5% of the first tranche had been filled by the end of September, leaving approximately 62,514 metric tons of the initial 100,000 metric ton allocation unused.

    Beyond the obvious observation that the first tranche was well below its allocated quantity, the more important question is how much of the beef imported under the new quota represents beef that would not have otherwise entered the United States. In other words, how much of it is actually “new beef”? As we discussed when the plan was first announced, some beef entering under the Affordable Beef quota may have already been expected to enter the U.S. market but can now do so under the expanded quota rather than being subject to the out-of-quota tariff. Separating those imports from truly additional imports is important for understanding how much the policy has actually increased U.S. beef supplies.

    The first graph in this article shows annual U.S. beef and veal imports, along with USDA’s 2026 forecasts from the July WASDE, before the plan was announced, and the September WASDE, after the plan was announced. Between July and September, USDA increased its 2026 beef import forecast by 64,455 metric tons on a product-weight basis. That increase is equivalent to about 21% of the 300,000 metric tons included in the Affordable Beef plan. If we apply that same 21% to the 37,486 metric tons imported under the Affordable Beef quota through September 28, approximately 8,054 metric tons would represent beef that was not already expected to enter the United States this year.

    Another way to estimate the amount of new beef is to compare September imports with what the countries eligible to use the Affordable Beef quota have historically shipped to the United States. The second graph shows monthly beef imports from Brazil, Nicaragua, and a group we refer to as “Other Countries.” From 2022 through 2025, September imports from these countries averaged 15,550 metric tons. Through September 28 of this year, 37,486 metric tons had entered under the Affordable Beef quota, or 21,936 metric tons more than the previous four-year September average. This means the amount of “new beef” was considerably larger than the estimate based on the change in USDA’s annual import forecast, but still well below the 100,000 metric tons available under the first tranche of the policy.

    There is not a great way to determine exactly how much additional beef this plan from the Trump administration will bring into the United States. The two approaches we used estimate that between 8,054 and 21,936 metric tons were imported in September that would not have otherwise been imported. Of course, both estimates rely on a set of assumptions and use data from the Commodity Status Report, which is subject to change before USDA-ERS publishes its monthly beef trade data.

    The main point is that 100,000 metric tons of new beef imports did not materialize in September, and there was no noticeable change in retail beef prices. Even imported beef still has to undergo further processing and move through the marketing system before it is sold to consumers. Increasing the amount of beef that can enter the United States does not mean that the full amount will be imported, nor does it mean that any increase in imports will immediately translate into lower retail beef prices.

    Source: USDA WAOB
    Source: USDA-ERS.

    Recommended citation format: Mitchell, James. “A Shipload of Beef? Examining the First Tranche of Imports.” Southern Ag Today 6(41.2). October 6, 2026. Permalink

  • Irrigation Footprints Across the Southern Region

    Irrigation Footprints Across the Southern Region

    Authors: Falin Sun, Ph. D Student, Auburn University and Sunjae Won, Assistant professor, University of Arkansas.

    Irrigation plays very different roles across the Southern region. According to the 2022 Census of Agriculture, Arkansas, Texas, and Mississippi account for the largest shares of irrigated farmland, while Virginia, Kentucky, and Alabama irrigate comparatively little. These differences reflect the region’s diverse production systems and water resources, making irrigation an important farm-management issue across the South.

    Figure 1 compares irrigated farms and irrigated acreage across Southern states. States with the largest irrigated acreage do not necessarily have the greatest number of irrigated farms. For example, Mississippi’s irrigated land is concentrated on relatively few, larger farms, whereas Georgia has irrigation distributed across many more operations. This contrast illustrates how farm size, crop mix, and production systems influence irrigation adoption beyond acreage alone.

    Figure 2 highlights where irrigated acreage changed between 1997 and 2022. Declines in West Texas and parts of Oklahoma are consistent with long-term pressure on the Ogallala Aquifer and declining groundwater availability (Hornbeck and Keskin, 2014). In the Rio Grande Valley, unreliable surface-water supplies, increasing municipal water demand, and urban expansion have reduced irrigation opportunities, while improvements in irrigation efficiency do not necessarily reduce total agricultural water use (Ward and Pulido-Velazquez, 2008). Florida experienced substantial declines following the widespread impacts of citrus greening, which has significantly reduced citrus production since the mid-2000s (Bové, 2006). In contrast, counties across the Mississippi Delta and South Georgia recorded notable increases in irrigated acreage, reflecting the availability of relatively shallow groundwater and growing use of irrigation to reduce production risks associated with variable rainfall and periodic drought (USDA ERS, 2022).

    These regional areas of transition highlight the difficult farm-management and risk-management decisions of shifting to, or away from, irrigated production. The contrasting trends shown in Figure 2 suggest that producers adapt irrigation decisions to local water availability, production systems, and economic conditions. In water-constrained areas, improving irrigation efficiency and adjusting crop choices may provide greater benefits than expanding irrigated acreage. In regions where irrigation continues to grow, producers should carefully evaluate whether additional investments will remain profitable under changing rainfall patterns, rising pumping costs, and future water availability. Extension programs can further support these decisions by providing region-specific recommendations on irrigation scheduling, technology adoption, and long-term water management.

    Figure 1. Irrigated farms and irrigated acreage in Southern states, 2022.

    Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022 Census of Agriculture.

    Figure 2. Change in irrigated agricultural land by county, 1997-2022.

    Source: USDA Economic Research Service using USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997 and 2022 Census of Agriculture data.

    References

    U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2022. 2022 Census of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/

    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2022. Trends in Irrigated Agriculture Reveal Sector’s Ability To Adapt to Evolving Climatic, Resource, and Market Conditions. Amber Waves. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2022/january/trends-in-irrigated-agriculture-reveal-sector-s-ability-to-adapt-to-evolving-climatic-resource-and-market-conditions

    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2026. Irrigation & Water Use. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/irrigation-water-use/

    Bové, J. M. 2006. Huanglongbing: A destructive, newly-emerging, century-old disease of citrus. Journal of Plant Pathology 88(1): 7-37.

    Hornbeck, Richard, and Pinar Keskin. 2014. The Historically Evolving Impact of the Ogallala Aquifer: Agricultural Adaptation to Groundwater and Drought. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 6(1): 190-219.

    Ward, Frank A., and Manuel Pulido-Velazquez. 2008. Water Conservation in Irrigation Can Increase Water Use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(47): 18215-18220.

    Recommended citation format: Sun, Falin. “Irrigation Footprints Across the Southern Region.” Southern Ag Today 6(41.1). October 5, 2026. Permalink

  • Update for National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard

    Update for National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard

    Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Natural Grocers v. Rollins that portions of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (Standard) be set aside and sent back to a lower court. After being directed by the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law, USDA established the Standard in a 2018 Final Rule for the purpose of regulating the disclosure and labeling of Bioengineered (BE) foods. Specifically, the Standard required that food manufacturers, importers, retailers, and other food labeling entities disclose if a product included a BE food or ingredient. In 2020, a group of food and agricultural organizations challenged three aspects of the Standard – 1) the exclusion of highly refined foods from the BE foods definition, 2) the requirement to use the term BE, and 3) the allowance of QR codes or text-messaging to accomplish the required disclosures (electronic disclosures).

    In a 2022 ruling, the District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with plaintiff’s claims on electronic disclosure regulations but rejected the other two. Though the electronic disclosure regulations were invalided by the lower court, they were remanded without vacatur to USDA for further consideration. This means that the regulations, though found unlawful, could still be enforced while the agency made the changes mandated by the court. However, in the fall of 2025 the plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

    In an October 2025 decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the challengers that claims 1 and 3 should be set aside. However, the Ninth Circuit did not reject claim 2 and found that the use of term “BE” was appropriate for disclosure. Regarding claim 1, the court rejected the Standard’s position on highly refined food by finding that highly refined foods which have modified genetic material “as a component or constituent part” are considered BE even if the genetically modified material is not detectible. Thus, the court determined that those foods would be required to comply with disclosure rules. With this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit determined that USDA’s interpretation was incorrect and that the agency should reconsider the regulations.

    As for claim 3, the Ninth Circuit looked to the Standard’s electronic disclosure regulations. Specifically, the court considered whether the lower court’s decision to send the regulations back to the agency without vacatur was improper. Here, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower court’s decision was improper and remanded the regulations back to the district court.  It instructed the lower court to gather input from the parties to help the agency overturn portions of the regulations as needed.

    At the District Court 2026

    After instructing both parties to file briefs in response to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, on August 3, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California published an order establishing January 1, 2028 as the effective vacatur date for those regulations. This means that there is now a deadline for when the current regulations will expire. Thus, food manufactures may comply with the current BE disclosure rules until January 1, 2028. However, they should be on the lookout for related agency rulemaking. In its 2026 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, USDA indicated its intentions to propose rules that would revise the Standard “based on the Ninth Circuit [ . . .] decision.”

    For more information on the Ninth Circuit decision, click here for NALC article “Ninth Circuit addresses ‘Natural Grocers v. Rollins.”

    Recommended citation format: Stone, Emily. “Update for National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.” Southern Ag Today 6(40.5). October 2, 2026. Permalink

  • HIP-WI Basics and Trends

    HIP-WI Basics and Trends

    Hurricanes and tropical storms can damage crops through strong winds and excessive rainfall. Yield Protection and Revenue Protection may pay indemnities when covered causes of loss reduce yield or revenue below the policy guarantee, but producers retain a deductible based on their selected coverage level. Hurricane Insurance Protection–Wind Index (HIP-WI) is an optional endorsement covering part of that deductible for an additional premium. For example, producers with a 75% underlying coverage level and no other coverage for the deductible can insure up to 20% of expected crop value—the difference between 75% and 95%. The dollar amount of HIP-WI coverage is called the Hurricane Protection Amount. The 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act increased HIP-WI’s premium subsidy from 65% to 80%, reducing the standard producer-paid share of the premium from 35% to 20%.

    This additional protection works differently from the underlying policy: HIP-WI payments depend on county-level weather conditions rather than farm-level losses. For hurricane coverage, USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) uses official wind data to determine whether the insured county or an adjacent county intersects a named hurricane’s designated wind area, defined by sustained winds of at least 64 knots (74 mph). Producers with eligible HIP-WI coverage can receive a payment if this occurs during the coverage period. This means that producers may receive payments with little farm damage or suffer losses without a HIP-WI payment. This potential mismatch is called basis risk.

    Producers can add the Tropical Storm Option to HIP-WI for an additional premium. The option pays half the Hurricane Protection Amount when RMA identifies a qualifying tropical-storm event in the insured county or an adjacent county. To qualify, that county must meet the 34-knot (39 mph) sustained-wind criterion and receive at least 5.9 inches of county-average rainfall during the specified storm window, as determined by RMA using official National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data. Combined hurricane and tropical-storm payments cannot exceed the applicable Hurricane Protection Amount. 

    Participation has grown, but indemnity payments have fluctuated. RMA’s Summary of Business shows that the number of policies earning premium roughly doubled from 2020 to 2025, while total premium more than quadrupled from about $107 million to $451 million (Figure 1). The national loss ratio—indemnities divided by total premium—varied across years: it was 1.77 in 2020 and 1.98 in 2024 and remained below 1.0 in the other four years.  

    These six crop years provide only a short history. RMA’s historical workbooks offer a longer perspective by applying its trigger methodology to archived weather data. Figure 2 shows the number of years in which each county would have met the trigger criteria during 1991–2024. Hurricane triggers were most frequent near the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, while tropical-storm triggers extended farther into the lower Mississippi Valley and Southeast. Producers can compare the historical records for their county with storms that caused losses on their farms. Considering this history alongside HIP-WI’s premium and protection amount can help producers assess whether the coverage fits their insurance needs.

    Figure 1. HIP-WI premiums and indemnities, crop years 2020–2025

    Source: USDA RMA Summary of Business.

    Figure 2. Retrospective county trigger indications in Southern Ag Today states, 1991–2024

    Sources: USDA RMA historical trigger data.

    Recommended citation format: Lee, Seunghyun. “HIP-WI Basics and Trends.” Southern Ag Today 6(40.4). October 1, 2026. Permalink

  • The Market Outlook for New Crop Cotton

    The Market Outlook for New Crop Cotton

    The market outlook for cotton is similar to other commodities in that it is influenced by expectations of supply and demand. Cotton’s “new crop” outlook specifically refers to the 2027/28 marketing year, when the 2027 crop will be produced, processed, stored, and sold.  A major supply-related question is how much 2027 acreage will be planted to cotton.  The price of competing crops, relative to cotton prices, is an important consideration to the level of planted cotton acreage. Figure 1 shows a fairly strong relationship between the level of U.S. upland and pima cotton planted (as measured on June 30) and the ratio of December CBOT corn futures and ICE cotton futures during the first quarter of the year.  The higher the ratio, the less cotton is planted. 

    Of course, there are other important competing crops as well, e.g., sorghum, soybeans, and peanuts.  There are various other influences, including how dry it is in Texas, the insurance base price, fixed cost influences, and the psychological influence of the preceding growing season.  But the price ratio of corn to cotton appears to capture a lot of these other influences in explaining variations in cotton plantings.

    What does Figure 1 imply for 2027?  As of September 21, the Dec’27 CBOT corn/Dec’27 ICE cotton price ratio was 6.77 (i.e., $5.37 corn divided by 79-cent cotton). Assuming this ratio prevails during Q1 of 2027, it is historically associated with between 10.0 and 11.0 million acres of all cotton.  A simple univariate regression, based on the data underlying Figure 1 and the prices as of September 21, projects a point estimate of 10.3 million acres planted.

    Under what conditions will the 2027 crop be planted? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center forecasts a 90% chance of strengthening El Niño conditions during the fall and winter. The latter is associated with wetter weather patterns in some of the drier portions of the Cotton Belt. This increases the possibility of harvesting more planted acreage, particularly dryland acreage in the southern plains region. This has implications for the 2027 production and supply.

    Assuming 10.3 million planted acres of all cotton in 2027, and further assuming modestly below average abandonment (14%) and yield per harvested acre (800 lbs), the result is a healthy crop of 14.76 million bales (Table 1). This combines with NASS’s September 11, 2026, projection of 3.60 million bales of carry-in for an 18.37 million bale supply. Matching this supply against a possible 14.5 million bales of total use, which assumes a modest increase in exports simply from having more exportable surpluses, results in 3.87 million bales of ending stocks of U.S. cotton in 2027/28. That outcome is neutral for prices as it represents static year-over-year ending stocks. 

    Caveats.  Obviously, the analysis above depends on price ratios which may change between now and early 2027.  Furthermore, the price ratio approach to forecasting planted acreage will be replaced by grower survey results, beginning at the Beltwide Conference (January 6) and continuing with the National Cotton Council’s survey release (February 8) and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Prospective Plantings report (March 31) and Acreage report (June 30).

    The other major caveat is the outcome for abandonment.  The 2007 and 2010 crops are examples of unexpectedly low abandonment (e.g., 5%) following El Niño winters. This poses a risk of greater supply and perhaps weaker prices.

    Figure 1. Ratio of Dec Corn:Dec Cotton Futures, 1st Quarter average, vs, June30 Reported Acreage of All Cotton with Linear Trend Line

    Table 1. U.S. All Cotton Balance Sheets for 2025/26, 2026/27, and 2027/28 Marketing Years.

    2025/262026/272027/28
    Area Million Acres
    Planted9.2810.4510.30
    Harvested7.838.168.86
    Pounds
    Yield/Harvested Acre852776800
    Million 480 Pound Bales
    Beginning Stocks4.004.153.60
    Production13.9013.2014.76
    Imports0.000.010.01
         Supply, Total17.9017.3618.37
    Domestic Use1.501.501.50
    Exports, Total12.3012.3013.00
         Use, Total13.8013.8014.50
    Unaccounted-0.05-0.040.00
    Ending Stocks4.153.603.87
    Stocks-to-Use29.4%26.1%26.7%
    Sources: USDA OCE for 2025/26 and 2026/27; 
    Author’s Forecast of 2027/28.

    Recommended citation format: Robinson, John. “The Market Outlook for New Crop Cotton.” Southern Ag Today 6(40.3). September 30, 2026. Permalink