Author: Natalie Graff

Along with most Southern cattle producers, Southern Ag Today has been tracking the movement of the New World Screwworm (NWS).  An article last November (linked here) provided a history of NWS and discussed implications of import restrictions on feeder cattle from Mexico.  A second article (linked here) continued the discussion as the U.S. closed and re-opened the border to Mexican cattle throughout the spring and summer. 

Earlier this week, an NWS case was detected 70 miles south of the Texas border in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, approximately 370 miles closer than the previous northernmost case detected in Veracruz, Mexico in July.  As the threat of NWS reaching the U.S. grows, the need for eradication efforts and producer preparedness grow more urgent.  Last year, the USDA estimated an NWS outbreak would result in a $732.6 million loss to Texas producers and a $1.8 billion loss to the Texas economy (APHIS, 2024).  Losses for producers would come from animal deaths, decreased production, additional labor and vehicle costs for animal inspection and treatment, and additional medication and insecticide costs.  Additionally, an NWS outbreak may prompt producers to make production practice changes to minimize NWS infestations.  Recall, NWS cause harm by burrowing into open wounds of live animals.  To minimize open wounds, producers may need to skip standard practices like dehorning, castrating, branding, and ear-tagging.  They may also alter calving season to avoid calving during warm months when the NWS is more prevalent.  The effects on marketing calves under these conditions is unknown. 

The best and highly supported path forward is eradication. To that end, in June USDA laid out a 5-pronged plan to address NWS (USDA, 2025a).  In summary, the plan included:

1. Prevention of NWS spreading in Mexico through enhancements to sterile fly production in Mexico; improvements of Mexico’s NWS surveillance; an audit of Mexico’s animal health controls; and limitations on movement of animals. 
2. Protecting the U.S. border by collaborating with border personnel to gather strays, intercept illegally introduced livestock, and monitor wildlife; preparing laboratories to test for NWS; and continuing live animal inspections at ports of entry. 
3. Preparing for an outbreak through emergency management plans; training of federal and state responders; and stockpiles of treatment supplies. 
4. Moving eradication efforts forward by:
   • Building an $8.5 million sterile insect dispersal facility at Moore Air Base in South Texas – to be completed by the end of 2025. 
   • Exploring the possibility of a domestic sterile fly production facility.
   • Investing $21 million in the renovation of Mexico’s sterile insect facility – to be completed in 18 months. 
5. Planning for the future by exploring new treatments and preventatives; improving sterile insect production and technology; and strengthening partnerships with states and land grant universities.  

In August, Secretary Rollins announced that USDA would be building on the 5-prong plan, in part, by investing $100 million to identify new innovations for tackling NWS and that USDA will construct a sterile fly production facility in Edinburg, TX, at Moore Air Force Base (USDA, 2025b).

---

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 2024. New World Screwworm, Ready Reference Guide – Historical Economic Impact. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/nws-historical-economic-impact.pdf

USDA. 2025a. New World Screwworm Domestic Readiness and Response Policy Initiative. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nws-visit-policy-brief.pdf

USDA. 2025b. USDA Announces Sweeping Plans to Protect the United States from New World Screwworm.https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/08/15/usda-announces-sweeping-plans-protect-united-states-new-world-screwworm

---

Graff, Natalie. “Threat Looms and Urgency Grows as New World Screwworm Inches Closer to the Texas-Mexico Border.” Southern Ag Today 5(39.4). September 25, 2025. Permalink

A transition plan outlines the process of transferring an agricultural operation from one generation to the next and includes details regarding transfer of both management (succession plan) and assets (estate plan).  Surveys and anecdotal evidence report low success rates for farm transitions and argue inadequate transfer plans or lack of a transfer plan explain the low success rates of agricultural operation survival, despite most producers’ desire to keep their farm or ranch in one piece and in the family.  Transition planning is difficult for many reasons, both logistical (requires time and resources such as accounting and/or legal help) and psychological (brings up thoughts of mortality and often involves tough decisions and conversations); therefore, producers tend to delay planning altogether.  

We surveyed U.S. ranchers regarding plans to transition their ranch to the next generation and received a total of 148 responses, mostly from Texas (66.9%) producers.  Survey participants shared information about their operational structure, family dynamics, and details of their ranch transition plans or roadblocks preventing them from developing a plan.  Less than 40% of survey participants have a transition plan in place.  

Chi-square tests for independence revealed relationships between some characteristics and the presence of a transition plan.  Results indicate a positive relationship between operational structure and succession planning, i.e., producers who have put in time and effort to organize their operation beyond a sole proprietorship are more likely to have a succession plan.  Results also indicate age and net worth each have a positive relationship with succession planning – we observed an increasing percent of respondents with a succession plan as net worth increased, until net worth reached $15,000,000.  

Survey participants answered open-ended questions regarding their transition plans and roadblocks to planning – responses are summarized in Table 1.  Operational longevity in agriculture depends on the ability of farms and ranches to survive from one generation to the next.  Since evidence shows this process has proven difficult for producers, is there a role for the government to play in incentivizing the generational transfer of agricultural operations? 

Table 1. Survey Results – Transition Planning Themes and Roadblocks

Transition Planning Themes	Roadblocks to Transition Planning
Utilizing a trust to protect and transfer control of assets	Resistance from senior generation
Plans to transfer ranch assets and management to on-farm heirs and personal assets of off-farm heirs	Lack of time or making time to plan
Utilizing an LLC, corporation, or partnership to facilitate lifetime transfer of operation	Lack of knowledge/education in transition planning
Utilizing an LLC, corporation, or partnership to create membership agreements and set restrictions	Finding professional legal/accounting help
Lifetime, or inter vivos, transfer of shares (or interest) in the operation to heirs, whether purchased or gifted to the upcoming generation	Legal fees
	Equitably dividing assets between on-farm and off-farm heirs
	Lack of a successor
	Difficulty managing lots of owners
	Difficult family dynamics/communication
	Difficult land or asset structure
	Estate tax considerations

Graff, Natalie. “Is there a role for the government in incentivizing the generational transfer of agricultural operations?” Southern Ag Today 4(25.4). June 20, 2024. Permalink

The farm program election deadline for 2022 is March 15^th, and producers have the option to enroll commodities in Price Loss Coverage (PLC) or Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC).  PLC protects against declines in prices, and ARC protects against revenue losses at the county level (ARC-CO) or individual farm level (ARC-IC).  Among Southern producers, ARC-IC has not been popular in previous program elections, accounting for less than 1 percent of farm signups.  However, for the 2022 crop year, producers are making their farm program decisions at a time with relatively high commodity prices.  In this situation, it is unlikely that PLC will provide much support, and only alternatives that include yield losses will likely trigger support (ARC-CO and ARC-IC).  This begs the question of whether producers should consider ARC-IC for 2022.  ARC-IC differs from ARC-CO in the following ways: 

1. The ARC-IC benchmark revenue is determined by a producer’s individual farm yields rather than county average yields. 
2. ARC-IC election is made by Farm Service Number (FSN) rather than by commodity, i.e., if ARC-IC is selected for a FSN, then all commodities on that FSN are enrolled in ARC-IC.  If multiple FSNs are enrolled in ARC-IC, they will be treated as one “ARC-IC Farm.” 
3. An ARC-IC payment is made on 65% of base acres rather than 85% for ARC-CO.
4. Coverage applies to commodities with planted acres rather than base acres, i.e., if a producer has seed cotton base but plants corn in 2022, the ARC-IC benchmark revenue will be determined by corn prices and yields. 

In addition to the ARC-CO/PLC decision tool, Texas A&M University offers a spreadsheet calculator for producers considering ARC-IC available at www.afpc.tamu.edu.  For the ARC-IC calculator, producers will need the information in Table 1.  Producers can utilize the calculator to compare potential ARC-IC payments with different combinations of FSNs and different price and yield expectations. 

Table 1. ARC-IC Calculator Inputs

Graff, Natalie, and Joe Outlaw. “ARC-IC Considerations for 2022 Farm Program Elections“. Southern Ag Today 2(4.4). January 20, 2022. Permalink