Author: Bart Fischer

A common question we’ve been fielding since passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill: “with all this money coming from the Federal government, why do farmers keep complaining?”  It’s generally followed by: “you just can’t make some people happy.”

There’s no question the Federal government has provided a robust level of assistance. For example, the American Relief Act in December 2024 provided $30.78 billion in relief—$10 billion for economic assistance and $20.78 billion for natural disaster assistance. The recently-passed One Big Beautiful Billprovided approximately $62 billion (10-year total) in improvements to the farm safety net.^[1] While these sound like big numbers—because they are—it’s important to put them in context.

First, for the $10 billion in economic relief from the American Relief Act—implemented by USDA as the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP)—Congress required USDA to calculate losses from the 2024 crop year and then limited the amount of assistance to 26% of the loss. In other words, for losses incurred by producers last year, they were required to shoulder 74% of that loss on their own. 

Second, for the $20.78 billion in relief for natural disasters in the American Relief Act—implemented by USDA as the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP)—Congress limited USDA to covering no more than 90% of losses incurred in 2023 and 2024. While that certainly sounds like a lot, once the total losses were estimated by USDA, they were only able to cover 35% of the losses based on the funding provided by Congress. So, SDRP effectively covers, at most, just under 32% of the loss (or 35% x 90%).  

Importantly, ARC and PLC also will help cover losses from the 2024 crop year once paid in October 2025, but that assistance is at the old levels last adjusted more than a decade ago in the 2014 Farm Bill. In other words, the relief provided by the American Relief Act was all retroactive for losses already incurred and only covered a portion of the losses.

What about the 2025 crop year?  While the One Big Beautiful Bill made several improvements to the farm safety net—from increasing reference prices from 10-20% to adding up to an additional 30 million base acres nationwide—most of the improvements kick in with the 2025 crop year. Congress stipulated (using the same schedule that has been in place since the 2008 Farm Bill) that payments cannot be made until October 1 of the year following the end of the marketing year for a crop.  Translation: the new assistance won’t go out the door until October 1, 2026. Yes, you read that right. Further, the magnitude of the projected losses to the 2025 crop are such that the assistance will, yet again, only cover a small portion of the loss. Consider the following example:

The estimated national average cost of production for soybeans in 2025 is $639.15/ac.^[2] Using USDA’s August 2025 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), the expected return for soybeans is $535.80/ac (or a planted-acre yield of 53.05 bu/ac x $10.10/bu), for an expected loss of $103.35/ac (or $1.95/bu).^[3] The question is how much of that loss will be covered by the new-and-improved ARC and PLC.  At present, PLC is projected to pay $0.61/bu and ARC—assuming average yields—would pay $0.85/bu.^[4]  Assuming the farm is fully based—where both ARC-CO and PLC use a payment factor of 85%—you effectively receive $0.7225/bu (or 85% of $0.85/bu).  In other words, while the One Big Beautiful Bill provided significant improvements, in the case of soybeans (and virtually every other row crop to varying degrees), it will cover just 37% (or $0.7225/$1.95) of the loss…when it arrives next year. Losses upon losses. Starting to see why folks are concerned?

To pull all of this together: yes, significant assistance has been provided to the countryside, but on average, it only covers a fraction of the past/projected losses.  That is why you are hearing a collective groaning in the countryside.  What to do about it?  Absent new trade deals that spur additional demand, a renewed focus on in-kind food aid, or commodity-specific demand levers (think ethanol for corn)—and perhaps in addition to all of those things—we suspect Congress will begin contemplating yet another round of disaster aid this fall and/or the Trump Administration will begin discussing intervening with trade aid. To those asking us the questions at the top of this article and for the record: we’ve never met a farmer who preferred getting their income from the government…and they can’t wait to break this cycle of praying to simply break even.

---

^[1] According to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates of outlays in Subtitles C (Commodities), D (Disaster Assistance), and E (Crop Insurance) in Title 1 of the One Big Beautiful Bill (https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-07/61570-pl119-21-2025Recon-CLB.xlsx).

^[2] https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/DataFiles/47913/cop_forecast.xlsx?v=30009

^[3] https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0825.pdf

^[4] PLC: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/documents/2025-plc-pdf; ARC: 90% of $12.17/bu (or $10.95/bu) less $10.10/bu.

---

Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “Why So Much Concern in the Countryside?” Southern Ag Today 5(35.4). August 28, 2025. Permalink

Last summer, we wrote about a novel new concept for adding base acres to farms that had been proposed in the House Ag Committee-passed version of the 2024 Farm Bill (Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024). While that farm bill never came to fruition, the concept ultimately was adopted in the One Big Beautiful Bill (H.R. 1) that was recently signed into law by President Trump.   The provision will allow up to 30 million additional base acres across the nation. Today’s article addresses some of the questions we’ve been asked, while providing an overview of the mechanics. 

• What will happen to my existing base acres?  Nothing. 

• If this doesn’t affect my existing base acres, then what does it do?  For those farms where recent plantings (described below) exceed the number of existing base acres on the farm, it allows the landowner to add additional base acres. 

• How does it work? There are essentially two simple components to the additional base provision that address acres planted to both covered and non-covered commodities:
  • Covered Commodities:  If the average number of acres of covered commodities planted (or that were prevented from being planted) on a farm from 2019 through 2023 exceeds the number of existing base acres on the farm, you are eligible to add the difference as additional base acres.
  • Non-Covered Commodities:  You can also add the number of acres of eligible non-covered commodities planted (or that were prevented from being planted) on a farm from 2019 through 2023 as additional base acres, so long as the total does not exceed 15% of the total acres on the farm.

• If I get additional base acres, what crops will they be assigned to?  They will be assigned in proportion to the covered commodities you planted from 2019 to 2023.

• If I have “unassigned crop base” from previous changes to U.S. cotton policy, is it eligible to be included in the allocation of additional base acres?  Yes.

• Will I get these new base acres in time for the 2025 crop year (i.e., the crop I harvest in 2025)? No. The OBBB clearly stipulates that the new base will be in effect for the 2026 crop year.

• What happens if USDA discovers there are more than 30 million acres of eligible new base?  If the total number of eligible acres across the country exceeds 30 million acres, the Secretary would be required to apply a pro-rata, across-the-board (i.e., no progressive factoring) reduction to all farms to reduce the number of eligible acres to equal 30 million. For example, if USDA determines there are 60 million acres of eligible new base, everyone would see their additional base acres factored by 50% (i.e., 30 million divided by 60 million). 

• I’ve read that this concept wasn’t vetted and that it was designed to only help one region of the country. Is that true?  No, that’s just political nonsense. Yes, the OBBB was a partisan process—reconciliation is notoriously partisan and has been repeatedly used by both political parties—but as we noted above, this provision went through a full committee mark-up last summer and has been thoroughly discussed/vetted over the last year. Finally, while this will certainly provide more benefit to areas like the Northern Plains where more covered commodities are being planted than in the past, we see no evidence that this was done to provide special benefit to any single region.  In fact, it seems obvious to us that it was designed to address repeated complaints from all corners of the country to help landowners who—for whatever reason—have land that is not fully based.

• Do I need to reach out to my county office?  No. Congress is requiring USDA to go through a notification process with landowners. Further, producers already report their plantings to USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA), so in theory, FSA already has the data it needs to automate this process. With that said, the bill also provides an opportunity for a landowner to opt out of receiving additional base acres if they wish. Also, for purposes of assigning the new base to crops, for acreage that has been planted to a subsequent crop (other than a covered commodity produced under an established practice of double cropping), the owner gets to elect the covered commodity (but not both) to be used for that crop year in determining the 5-year average. In other words, there will be cases where the process cannot be completely automated.

Bottom line: this is a significant change from previous law that can only help producers (i.e., there is no downside).  As always, the information above is provided for educational purposes only and is subject to change.  USDA is the final authority on how this provision will be implemented, so be on the lookout for details in the weeks and months ahead.

---

Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “Addressing Questions about Additional Base Acres in the One Big Beautiful Bill.” Southern Ag Today 5(31.4). July 31, 2025. Permalink

As we noted back in December 2024, the American Relief Act provided $30.78 billion in relief for agricultural producers—$10 billion for economic assistance and $20.78 billion for natural disaster relief. 

Signup for the economic assistance—known as the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP)—began on March 19, 2025, and runs through August 15, 2025. Initial ECAP payments were factored by 85% to ensure total program payments do not exceed available funding. If all goes as planned, FSA may issue a second payment in August.

USDA has also started rolling out the $20.78 billion in natural disaster assistance. For example, on May 29, 2025, USDA announced that approximately $1 billion in Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP) payments were being issued to affected producers. At this point, anticipation is building for sign-up to begin for the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP). SDRP is the successor to the Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program (WHIP) and the Emergency Relief Program (ERP) summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Recent History of Natural Disaster Relief for Agricultural Producers

Program	Crop Year	Authorizing Statute	Enactment Date
WHIP	2017	P.L. 115-123	2/9/18
WHIP+	2018 & 2019	P.L. 116-20	6/6/19
ERP	2020 & 2021	P.L. 117-43	9/30/21
ERP	2022	P.L. 117-328	12/29/22
SDRP	2023 & 2024	P.L. 118-158	12/21/24

SDRP will provide assistance to producers for necessary expenses related to losses of revenue, quality or production of crops (including milk, on-farm stored commodities, crops prevented from planting, and harvested adulterated wine grapes), trees, bushes, and vines, as a consequence of droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, derechos, excessive heat, tornadoes, winter storms, freeze, including a polar vortex, smoke exposure, and excessive moisture occurring in calendar years 2023 and 2024. While the details will be released by USDA once approved by OMB, following are a few key observations:

• Sign-up Date. USDA has announced a target date of July 7, 2025, for sign-up to begin. While that date may slip a bit as OMB finalizes its review, all indications are that a sign-up announcement is imminent. 

• Funding. While $20.78 billion was reserved for natural disaster assistance, Congress earmarked $2 billion for livestock (via ELRP), and block grants to states for hurricane relief must also be funded from that total. As a result, the amount available for SDRP will be significantly less than $20.78 billion.  

• Factoring. When compared against projected losses, there is virtually no question that USDA will have to implement a payment factor.  Recall, the Biden Administration noted that—had they implemented a flat payment factor for ERP 2022—it would have been 27%. Their solution at the time was to implement progressive factoring instead, an approach that U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has repeatedly rejected. So, while we know there will not be progressive factoring, we do not know what the flat factor will be. Regardless, we’d argue that you shouldn’t get too hung up on the payment factor. Why? USDA will simply estimate projected payments, compare it to available funding, and set the factor accordingly. In other words, if USDA’s approach with SDRP is generous in calculating payments, then it will require a more significant factor to make sure it doesn’t exceed available funding. The most important part to remember is that USDA will be allocating a historic amount of disaster funding in the months ahead…and any payment factor will be applied uniformly to all program applicants.

• Sequence.  USDA has noted that SDRP sign-up will focus first on those with indemnified losses. USDA is targeting September 15, 2025, to begin sign-up for those with uncovered losses (i.e., shallow losses) including producers without crop insurance, and quality losses.

We will provide additional details once SDRP is officially released.

---

Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “Sign-up for Natural Disaster Relief Beginning Soon.” Southern Ag Today 5(27.4). July 3, 2025. Permalink

While the farm bill debate in the U.S. Senate has tended to be rather bipartisan in nature, that has not been the case in the U.S. House of Representatives, at least not in recent memory. Invariably, at some point in the farm bill debate, the minority party in the House will accuse the majority party of “partisanship” that will “bring about the end of the bipartisan coalition needed to pass a farm bill.” In this article, we examine these claims in the context of voting history on the farm bill in the House over the last 40 years.

As noted in Figure 1, the 1985 and 1990 Farm Bills both had a significant share of minority (i.e., Republican) votes on the House version of the farm bill along with the conference agreement. With the Democrats in the minority for the 1996 Farm Bill – after having been in the majority in the House for 40 years – they accounted for just 20% of the “yes” votes on the House version of the farm bill but ultimately accounted for one-third of the “yes” votes on the conference report. The 2002 Farm Bill was very bipartisan in nature with the minority (i.e., Democrats) accounting for roughly half the “yes” votes on both the House version and conference report.

The significant departure came in the 2008 Farm Bill when Democrats regained control of the House.  For the 2008 Farm Bill, the minority (i.e., Republicans) accounted for just 8% of the “yes” votes on the House version of the farm bill. Despite the partisan nature of the House version of the farm bill, Republicans ultimately accounted for 32% of the “yes” votes on the conference agreement. That dynamic persisted (and became even more pronounced) in the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills, with the minority (i.e., Democrats) not voting for the House version of the bill in either case but accounting for 35% and 51% of the “yes” votes on the conference report, respectively. Notably, for the 2018 Farm Bill, more Democrats than Republican voted “yes” on the conference report, following the mid-term elections that resulted in Democrats retaking the House.

Bottom line: accusations of “partisanship” threatening to “end the bipartisan coalition needed to pass a farm bill” generally falls on deaf ears as partisanship around the House version of the farm bill has become standard operating procedure, largely starting with the 2008 Farm Bill. Despite the rocky process in the House, the final version of the farm bill reported out of the conference between the House and Senate continues to be widely bipartisan.

Figure 1.  Voting History on the Farm Bill, U.S. House of Representatives a/Passed by voice vote

Farm Bill	Minority Party in House	Minority Share of House Seats	Minority Share  of Yes Votes (House-Drafted Farm Bill)	Minority Share  of Yes Votes (Conference Report)
Food Security Act of 1985	Republican	42%	35%	40%
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990	Republican	40%	a/	37%
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996	Democrat	47%	20%	33%
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002	Democrat	49%	48%	49%
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008	Republican	46%	8%	32%
Agricultural Act of 2014	Democrat	46%	0%	35%
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018	Democrat	45%	0%	51%

---

Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “Just How Bipartisan are Farm Bills?” Southern Ag Today 5(23.4). June 5, 2025. Permalink

The farm safety net includes a number of risk management tools that help producers navigate the risks they face, ranging from the Federal Crop Insurance Program to Title 1 of the farm bill. With crop insurance, farmers purchase the coverage which typically protects against price and yield risk within the growing season. By contrast, Title 1 of the farm bill authorizes programs – Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) in particular – that are designed to complement crop insurance, protecting against risks not otherwise covered. 

Because some of the programs have features in common, Congress has chosen to limit the choices available to producers. For example, the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) is an area-wide crop insurance policy that protects against county-wide losses in prices and yields (depending on the underlying policy) within the deductible portion of a producer’s crop insurance policy (i.e., the portion not covered by the underlying individual policy). In addition, in the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress created ARC, an FSA-administered program that protects against shallow losses in county-wide revenue. Because of the similarities between SCO and ARC, Congress stipulated that a producer was not eligible to purchase SCO on a crop enrolled in ARC. By contrast, a producer that enrolls the base acres on their farm in PLC – which covers deeper declines in marketing-year average prices – is permitted to purchase SCO at their discretion.

What does this have to do with cotton?  In the 2014 Farm Bill, upland cotton was removed as a covered commodity and cotton producers were left with no access to ARC and PLC.  Instead, they were left with an area-wide crop insurance policy – very similar to SCO – that was known as the Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX). Several years later, when seed cotton was added to the farm bill in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, cotton producers once again had access to ARC and PLC (albeit on seed cotton rather than cotton lint). An effort was made to eliminate STAX as a result, but policymakers recognized that not all producers have seed cotton base acres, so a political compromise was reached: STAX would remain available, but cotton producers would have to choose between STAX and ARC/PLC. According to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, “[b]eginning with the 2019 crop year, a farm shall not be eligible for [STAX] for upland cotton for a crop year for which the farm is enrolled in coverage for seed cotton under [PLC] or [ARC].” Notice, the restriction did not simply prohibit a producer from having access two area-wide tools (i.e., STAX and ARC), it also prohibited producers from having access to STAX and PLC, despite the two options having little in common.

There is no prohibition on SCO and PLC, for good reason, as they cover different risks. We question the wisdom in deviating from that logic with respect to STAX and PLC. While we will explore the differences between STAX and PLC in detail in a future article, suffice it to say we would encourage policymakers to take another look at this requirement as they go about the process of reauthorizing the 2018 Farm Bill, especially in light of the current state of the farm economy.

---

Fischer, Bart L., and Hunter Biram. “STAX and PLC: Should Cotton Producers Have to Choose?” Southern Ag Today 5(15.4). April 10, 2025. Permalink