Blog

What the U.S.-China Board of Trade Could Mean for American Agriculture

In September 2026, the United States and China established the U.S.-China Board of Trade, creating a framework through which government officials can discuss trade issues and oversee trade initiatives between the two countries. Announced during the recent state visit by President Xi Jinping, the Board is intended to provide a regular forum for addressing trade concerns and exploring areas of mutual commercial interest (The White House, 2026). Unlike traditional trade agreements, which typically involve comprehensive negotiations and formal legislative approval, the Board functions as an executive-level arrangement through which officials can meet, exchange proposals, and consider targeted trade initiatives.

The Board’s first major initiative is the 30-for-30 Framework, announced on September 27, 2026. Under this arrangement, officials from both countries identified reciprocal lists of products representing approximately $30 billion in annual bilateral trade value on each side, with a view toward providing more favorable tariff and regulatory treatment. In simple terms, the framework seeks to expand trade in selected products rather than negotiate a broad trade agreement covering entire sectors of the economy. Whether the initiative ultimately leads to substantial increases in bilateral trade remains uncertain, but it establishes a process through which products may be considered for reduced trade barriers (Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 2026).

How will agriculture fare under the 30-for-30 Framework? China has historically been one of the most important foreign markets for U.S. agricultural products, yet trade was significantly disrupted by the tariffs and trade tensions that emerged in recent years. U.S. agricultural exports to China approached $40 billion in 2022 but declined to approximately $8 billion by 2025 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2026). Given this decline, the inclusion of agricultural commodities among the products identified for possible tariff relief has attracted considerable attention.

At this stage, any assessment of the framework’s implications for agriculture is necessarily speculative. The arrangement remains a work in progress, and future tariff reductions, product coverage, and implementation details will continue to be shaped by ongoing discussions between the two countries. As a result, it is too early to determine how the framework may ultimately affect agricultural trade. Nevertheless, the product list proposed by the Chinese government may provide some initial insight into the sectors viewed as potential areas for expanded trade.

Table 1 provides a broad overview of the products included in China’s proposed import list under the 30-for-30 Framework. Based on the more than 1,600 tariff lines identified in the translated schedule (Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 2026), the list appears to be heavily concentrated in food and agricultural products, which account for an estimated 83% of all tariff lines. Forestry products represent approximately 10%, while medical equipment, fibers, and other industrial products comprise relatively small shares. Among individual chapters, live animals, processed fruits and vegetables, wood products, oilseeds and seeds, vegetables, fish and seafood, fruits and nuts, and meats account for the largest number of tariff lines. These estimates should be interpreted with caution because the final product coverage may change. Even so, the composition of the proposed list suggests that agriculture and related sectors are likely to play a central role in any future expansion of U.S.-China trade under the framework.

Table 1. Composition of China’s Proposed 30-for-30 Import List by Broad Sector

Sector	Tariff lines	Share of tariff lines (%)
All Products (total tariff lines)	1,619	100.0
Food and Agriculture (HS 01 to 24)	1,341	82.8
Forestry (HS 44 to 46)	162	10.0
Fibers (HS 50 to 53)	40	2.5
Medical Equipment (HS 90+)	48	3.0
Other Industrial Products	28	1.7

Note: Food and Agriculture is defined according to the World Trade Organization. HS is the Harmonized System Chapters. Estimates are based on the translated product list provided by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Source: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 2026

References

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. 2026. Ambassador Greer Issues a Statement on Announcement of Recommendations from the U.S.-China Board of Trade. Press Releases (September 27, 2026). https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2026/september/ambassador-greer-issues-statement-announcement-recommendations-us-china-board-trade

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2026. Global Agricultural Trade System. Foreign Agricultural Service. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/Default.aspx.

The White House. 2026. U.S.-China Board of Trade. Releases (September 27, 2026). https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/09/u-s-china-board-of-trade/

Muhammad, Andrew. “What the U.S.-China Board of Trade Could Mean for American Agriculture.“ Southern Ag Today 6(41.4). October 8, 2026. Permalink

October 8, 2026

Corn and Soybeans: Is There a Best Month to Price New Crop?

Authors: Julio Bellodi Cortarelli and Grant Gardner

Every year, producers face the same question: when should I price the new crop? Price too early and a summer weather rally can leave you watching prices climb with regret. Wait, and the rally may never come. So, when during the year do good pre-harvest pricing opportunities tend to show up?

In this article, we analyze daily settlement prices (CME Group) for December corn futures across 35 contract years (1990-2024) and November soybean futures across 32 (1993-2024), tracking each contract through the final year of its life, from the day the prior year’s contract expired (the roll) to the day it expired itself. The soybean series starts later because 1993 is the first year in our data with a complete contract of daily prices. We define a good marketing day as any day the price closed in the top quarter of that contract year’s prices. The hit rate is the percentage of each month’s trading days that were good marketing days, adjusted for the differing number of trading days in a month. If good days were spread evenly across the year, every month would sit near 25%.

On average, corn shows a clear pattern (Figure 1). Every month from the December roll through June averages a hit rate at or above 28%, and then the rate falls away: 21% in July, 13% in August, and 12% in September. Soybeans are flatter: every month averages between 20% and 31%, and no month stands out. In both crops, however, the vertical lines matter more than the bars. Every month’s range reaches zero, so even the best months deliver almost nothing in some years, and most months have also topped 80% of their days in their best years. Corn’s late summer is the exception on the upside: even its strongest years rarely pushed August above 40%.

Figure 1 may not line up with intuition. Most producers can remember a year when the best prices showed up in a summer weather rally, and seasonal price averages back that memory up (Maples and Gardner, 2023). Rally years happen, but most years are not rally years, and the average reflects that. What separates one kind of year from another is the balance sheet. When we cut the data into three groups by the marketing year’s final stocks-to-use ratio (ending stocks divided by total use, USDA Economic Research Service), the good marketing days land in a different part of the year for each group (Figure 2).

In tight-stocks years, both crops behave the same way: the good days come at harvest and after. Corn’s harvest window runs a 38% hit rate and soybeans 43%, well above the 25% benchmark, while the winter months in both crops fall well below it.

In average years, the crops part ways. Corn’s opportunities shift to the winter window while its harvest hit rate collapses to 7%. Soybeans instead concentrate in the growing season, the classic weather-market year.

In comfortable years, the good days come earliest. Corn’s good days sit in winter, with a second window during the growing season, and soybeans move almost entirely to winter. Harvest offers little in either crop: a 1% hit rate in corn and 12% in soybeans.

For corn, the lesson is a threshold: waiting for harvest paid off only when stocks were tight. For soybeans, it is a slide: as supplies build, the good days move from harvest to the growing season to winter. In these years, tight meant ending stocks near 9% of annual use for corn and 6% for soybeans; comfortable meant roughly double that. Producers never see the final number in advance, but USDA publishes a running projection each month in the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report; the September WASDE puts 2026/27 near 10% for corn and 7% for soybeans.

These patterns matter now because the balance sheet is tightening. After running above its recent norm from 2023 through 2025, stocks-to-use projections for 2026/27 are just below normal for both crops, which puts the year in our average group. In average years the opportunities have come early: corn’s good days concentrated in the winter window and soybeans’ in the growing season. For the 2027 crop, that pattern points to the months just ahead: December through March for corn and the spring and summer months for soybeans, so long as the balance sheet stays near its current range. If supplies tighten further, history says the harvest window comes back into play.

Still, no single month can be counted on. The range lines in Figure 1 show the same month delivering almost no good days in one year and nearly all of them in another. Stocks shift the odds, but they do not remove the risk. These windows tell producers when to pay attention; production costs, expected yield, and insurance coverage tell them when to act.

Figure 1. Average good marketing day hit rate by contract month, December corn and November soybean futures. Bars show the percentage of each month’s own trading days that closed at or above the contract year’s 75th percentile price, averaged across contract years. The dashed line marks the 25% benchmark expected if the calendar did not matter; vertical lines show the 10th–90th percentile range across years. Months marked * and + are the partial months just after the roll and just before expiration, about 10 trading days each. Source: CME December Corn and November Soybean Futures.

Figure 2. Average good marketing day hit rate by marketing window and stocks-to-use category. Contract years are sorted into thirds by ending stocks-to-use relative to its own 11-year median. Windows for corn: winter (Dec–Mar), growing season (Apr–Jul), harvest (Aug–Dec); for soybeans: winter (Nov–Mar), growing season (Apr–Aug), harvest (Sep–Nov). The dashed line marks the 25% benchmark. Source: CME futures; USDA ERS Feed Grains and Oil Crops Yearbooks.

REFERENCES

CME Group. December Corn Futures (1990–2024) and November Soybean Futures (1993–2024), daily settlement prices.

Maples, W.E., and G. Gardner. “Using Historical Price Movements to Inform Marketing Decisions.” Southern Ag Today 3(51.1), December 18, 2023. https://southernagtoday.org/2023/12/18/using-historical-price-movements-to-inform-marketing-decisions/

USDA Economic Research Service. Feed Grains Yearbook and Oil Crops Yearbook (ending stocks-to-use).

Recommended citation format: Cortarelli, Julio Bellodi, and Grant Gardner. ” Corn and Soybeans: Is There a Best Month to Price New Crop?” Southern Ag Today 6(41.3). October 7, 2026. Permalink

October 7, 2026
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

October 6, 2026
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

October 5, 2026
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

October 2, 2026