Author: Bart Fischer

We think we can all agree on one thing: we’re all sick of talking about the state of the farm economy. After 8 years of ad hoc disaster assistance propping up the farm economy, most producers we know are desperate for market prices to return to levels that will at least cover their costs of production which have exploded over the last several years. They want to move on from ad hoc assistance, in part, because there are growing concerns that much of that assistance is simply finding its way into even higher land values (or higher cash rents) or higher input costs. Further, while the One Big Beautiful Billmade a significant down payment on improving the standing farm safety net beginning with the 2025 crop year, most of that assistance will not arrive until October 2026. Even then, once that assistance arrives, it will still fall far short of the losses currently facing producers. The trade discussion has injected even more uncertainty into the markets, although the recent agreement with China has provided somewhat of a reprieve (even if it’s not yet clear how and when China will fulfill the commitments they’ve made).

While all of these issues were reaching a fever pitch earlier this fall, the government shutdown over the past 2 months sucked most of the oxygen from the room. Congress recently reached an agreement to open the government, including passing a few of the appropriations bills, but that deal did not address impending losses for the 2025 crop year or uncertainty going into the 2026 crop year. 

We are growing increasingly concerned that too little attention is being paid to the challenges growers continue to face. Yes, there is some talk about trade aid, but that is just one element of the challenges facing growers. Last year, Congress provided $30.78 billion for economic ($10 billion) and natural disaster ($20.78 billion) losses. As noted in Figure 1, the losses facing producers (on prices and costs of production alone) in 2025 eclipse those from 2024—yet Washington has been eerily quiet on the topic, having committed $0 at this point for 2025 losses. 

In examining Figure 1, soybeans is the only crop to see an improvement in projected losses from 2024 to 2025, owing largely to the announced agreement with China and the projected $0.50 per bushel rebound in prices in USDA’s latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. Even then, soybean producers are still projected to lose in excess of $100 per acre this year. In fact, all of the major commodities for which USDA reports costs of production are expected to face losses in excess of $100 per acre, with some crops like rice seeing losses double the amount of last year. And, Figure 1 is only covering losses for those crops for which USDA tracks cost of production. Other crops—for example, sugar—are also facing enormous losses. In virtually all cases, chronically low commodity prices—exacerbated by trade uncertainty—coupled with stubbornly high costs of production are the main culprits.

With news of thawing tensions on trade, the hope is that policymakers in Washington will be able to turn their attention to the huge issues facing row crop producers as they work to wrap up 2025 and prepare for the 2026 crop year. And, while growers may be growing wary of ad hoc assistance, we see little alternative in the short run. Ideally, efforts to craft a Farm Bill 2.0 will eventually make additional needed improvements to the farm safety net so we can close this nearly decade-long chapter on ad hoc assistance.

---

Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “Disaster Assistance for 2025: Is it Coming or Not?” Southern Ag Today 5(47.4). November 20, 2025. Permalink

We often use Farm Policy Thursdays at Southern Ag Today to address questions we’ve been hearing, either from producers or from the general public. Today is no exception. With all the talk about low crop prices and high input costs, we increasingly are getting questions like these: “If farmers are projected to lose money this year, then why plant anything?  And, isn’t the market telling them there’s too much supply and they should plant less?”  

On the surface, those are pretty simple and relatable questions.  But, as with most things in agriculture, the answer is much more complex.

• If a farmer has sufficient cash on which to live and no debt to service, that might work.  But, unless that applies to you or you have a job off the farm that provides supplemental income, shutting down would be guaranteeing no income for the farm/family for the year.

• U.S. farmers must also contend with the fact that they operate in a global market. If U.S. farmers were to simply sit out this growing season, how would the rest of the world respond? Would they also idle their operations, allowing prices to rise so that everyone could enjoy higher prices together? Of course not. While we could fill pages on this topic, the bottom line is that prices would certainly rise, but other countries would likely ratchet up their production to take advantage of those prices at the expense of U.S. farmers. 

• Perhaps the most important factor is that farmers are eternal optimists. After all, they are putting a seed in the ground in hopes that sufficient rain will fall for the seed to germinate. They then spend months tending to plants to ensure that weeds and insects don’t choke the plant out. Many spend the rest of the time praying that hail, floods, snow, and hurricanes—you name the disaster—won’t leave the crop in tatters. With that same spirit, they also plant that crop in hopes that the market will turn around by harvest time so they can make enough money to pay off the banker and have enough left over to feed their families and start over again next year.

• Most farmers we know and work with have chosen that profession—in spite of all the risks and historically low returns—because they want to help their fellow man. Farming isn’t a job…it’s part of who they are. Simply sitting out a crop isn’t really in their DNA.

We suspect those answers would be followed by this question: “Okay, I understand they can’t totally idle their farm, but can’t they just shift from one crop to another that makes more economic sense?”

• We would argue that farmers are always considering that option, but that generally only works if those opportunities exist.  At this point, most crops are facing negative returns, and it’s not remotely clear that one crop would be preferred over any other, especially after accounting for all of the things farmers can’t control. 

• Most farmers that grow multiple crops have a carefully crafted, multi-year rotation that they want to maintain for a variety of reasons (e.g., controlling weeds, maintaining fertility and soil health, controlling erosion, etc). 

• Often equipment and supporting infrastructure is crop specific, limiting the ability for farmers to substitute crops (or at least serving as a consideration). For example, the only thing you will accomplish by running a cotton picker through a corn field is creating a giant mess.

In summary, simply not planting a crop is just not a viable option for most farmers, and shifting the crop mix—while always under consideration by farmers—comes with its own set of considerations and challenges. It’s for these reasons, in part, that each Congress and successive Administrations have repeatedly supported farmers when things do not turn out as they planned or hoped.

Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “If Crop Returns are so Bad, Why Do Farmers Keep Planting?” Southern Ag Today 5(43.4). October 23, 2025. Permalink

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