Author: Natalie Stewart

The Senate Agriculture Committee is slated to markup The Agricultural Act of 2026 today (August 6, 2026), bringing Congress one step closer to long-anticipated passage of a new farm bill. During the markup, committee members propose, debate, and vote on amendments to legislation before sending it to the full Senate for consideration. The House passed its version of the farm bill, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, on April 30th. Once the Senate passes its version, the two chambers can establish a conference committee to resolve the differences between the two bills. Then, the conferenced bill will go back to the House and Senate for votes, and, if passed, will go to the President to be signed into law.

Although there are several steps to go before a new farm bill is enacted, the Senate Agriculture Committee markup is an important step in the right direction. While some farm bill programs are permanently authorized and would continue without new legislation, authorization of other programs expires and must be reauthorized to continue either in a new farm bill or an extension of the existing farm bill. The most recent farm bill, passed in 2018, has already been extended three times – this is the closest Congress has been to getting a new farm bill across the finish line since the expiration of the 2018 Farm Bill on September 30, 2023.

Table 1 highlights some of the farm bill changes proposed by the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and major policy differences between the two chambers’ farm bill text. Significant updates to farm safety net provisions were included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer; therefore, most changes in current legislation focus on other farm bill titles.

Table 1. Comparison of House-Passed and Senate-Proposed Farm Bill Provisions

Title	Provision	Current Law	House-Passed Bill	Senate-Proposed Bill
I – Commodities	Farm storage facility loans	USDA has authority to provide loans to producers of certain storable commodities to construct or upgrade storage and handling facilities.	Adds authority for USDA to provide loans for producers to construct or upgrade storage facilities for propane that is primarily used for agricultural production.	Adds the authority for USDA to provide loans for producers to construct or upgrade storage facilities for both propane and fertilizer that are primarily used for agricultural production.
I – Commodities	Livestock eligibility for USDA’s natural disaster assistance programs	Defines livestock eligible for USDA’s natural disaster assistance programs.	No comparable provision.	Expands the definition of livestock to include unweaned livestock for agricultural disaster assistance.
II – Conservation	Feral Swine Eradication and Control Program	The 2018 Farm Bill established the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program.	Codifies the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot as a program and increases funding for FY2025-FY2031 to $150 million. Requires NRCS and APHIS to contract with one or more land grant universities to assist with the program.	Codifies the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot as a program with the same funding increase as the House bill. Does not include the requirement to contract with land-grant universities.
III – Trade	Trade promotion program funding	Includes funding for trade promotion programs such as the Market Facilitation Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development Program (FMD).	Increases mandatory funding from $255 million to $500 million (FY2027), then $533 million annually (FY2028-FY2031).	Increases mandatory funding to $515 million (FY2027), then $533 million annually (FY2028-FY2031).
IV – Nutrition	Timing of state cost share for SNAP	Beginning FY2028, states must pay a share of SNAP benefit costs if their payment error rates are 6% or higher.	No change from current law.	Delays state cost share start to FY2029. Increases cost share rate for states whose error rate is still 10% or higher beginning FY2031.
V – Energy	Year-round sale of E15	Sale of E15 (a fuel blend of 15% ethanol and 85% gasoline) generally not permitted during summer months (June 1 to September 15).	No comparable provision. (In May, the House passed H.R. 1346 which would allow for the sale of E15 year-round)	Makes nationwide summer E15 sales permanently legal by amending the Reid vapor pressure requirements in the Clean Air Act.
XII – Miscellaneous	Standards for movement of livestock-derived products in interstate commerce (such as California’s Proposition 12)	No comparable provision.	Prohibits states from enacting or enforcing a production standard as a condition for sale or consumption on livestock-derived products not produced in that state.	No comparable provision.

It will be interesting to see whether the Senate Agriculture Committee votes to report the bill to the full Senate today. Will the recent additions to the Senate text (inclusion of year-round E15 and delays to state cost sharing for SNAP) gain enough Democrat support to pass the bill out of committee? Or will we see another extension of the 2018 Farm Bill as its expiration approaches at the end of September?

References:

Congressional Research Services. (2026, July 29). The 2026 Farm Bill: Comparison of the House and Senate Bills with Current Law. (CRS Report No. R48918) https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48918

Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, H.R. 7567, 119^th Congress (2026) https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7567

The Agricultural Act of 2026, S. ___, 119^th Congress. (2026) https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/agricultural-act-of-2026-farm-bill-20

To amend the Clean Air Act with respect to the ethanol waiver for Reid Vapor Pressure under that Act, and for other purposes, H.R. 1346, 119^th Congress. (2026) https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1346

---

Recommended citation format: Stewart, Natalie. “Comparison of House and Senate Farm Bill Provisions Ahead of Today’s Senate Farm Bill Markup.” Southern Ag Today 6(32.4). August 6, 2026. Permalink

The Livestock Risk Protection Plan (LRP) provides protection against price declines for feeder cattle, fed cattle, and swine. A Southern Ag Today article from August 2025 (USDA’s Livestock Risk Protection Program Use Keeps Increasing) outlined LRP participation among cattle producers.  The previous article highlighted increased LRP participation following USDA changes to LRP and improvement in market prices for feeder and live cattle.  In terms of number of head of cattle, LRP participation increased 25% from 2023 to 2024 and 21% from 2024 to 2025.  

LRP policies run on a fiscal year starting July 1 and ending June 30. With less than 3 months to go in the fiscal year 2026, this article serves as an update on LRP participation considering the expectation of sustained (and rising) cattle prices in 2026.  The projected strong price forecast for cattle is driven by historically low cattle inventories and the anticipation of a slow herd rebuilding process, reduced supply of fed cattle for slaughter, and sustained beef demand. 

The expectation of sustained or higher cattle prices begs the question: do producers continue to utilize (and pay premiums for) LRP to protect against price declines when a price decline seems unlikely?  So far in FY2026, there are 5.93 million head covered by LRP policies compared to 6.03 million at this time in FY2025 – 1.65% fewer head.  It seems cattle producers are on track to utilize LRP for roughly the same number of head as last year, showing producers are willing to spend money on an LRP policy to reduce downside risk and establish a price floor despite the well-supported expectation 2026 will see sustained, and even higher, cattle prices. 

---

Stewart, Natalie. “2026 LRP Participation Given the Expectation of Sustained Cattle Prices.” Southern Ag Today 6(16.4). April 16, 2026. Permalink

Authors Natalie Graff and Henry Nelson

Program decisions for the 2026 crop year are fast approaching. This article considers the risk management options for cotton producers in light of current price projections and relevant changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) signed into law on July 4, 2025.  Given the commodity program and crop insurance changes in OBBBA, producers likely will want to re-evaluate their Title I program and crop insurance decisions for 2026 and beyond. 

OBBBA strengthened the Title I programs Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) by raising reference prices and increasing the coverage ARC provides, along with other changes. The Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) is an area-wide crop insurance policy exclusively for upland cotton producers, and cotton acres with a STAX policy are not eligible to sign up for ARC or PLC on the upland cotton base acres. In light of the recent improvements to ARC and PLC (and the prohibition on combining coverage with STAX), cotton producers should evaluate potential ARC/PLC payments before making their decision about STAX.

The Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) is another area-wide supplemental crop insurance policy available for cotton and other major commodities.  OBBBA improved SCO in two significant ways.

1) The premium subsidy increased from 65% to 80%, now equal to the STAX premium subsidy. 

2) The restriction on ARC and SCO was removed. Prior to OBBBA, producers could combine SCO and PLC, but not SCO and ARC.  

Cotton producers, especially those that utilized STAX in the past, may wish to consider SCO for 2026 instead (note that producers cannot have both STAX and SCO for the same crop on the same acres).  SCO provides supplemental area-wide coverage – operating similarly to STAX – without causing producers to forgo potential ARC or PLC payments. 

As a result, one strategy to consider involves (1) enrolling cotton base in ARC or PLC, (2) purchasing an individual crop insurance policy like Revenue Protection (RP) on your cotton acres, and (3) supplementing the RP policy with an area-wide endorsement like SCO. Producers may also wish to add a supplemental Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO) endorsement as well. 

---

Graff, Natalie, and Henry Nelson. “Producer Decisions for 2026 – STAX or SCO in light of OBBBA Changes.” Southern Ag Today 6(2.4). January 8, 2026. Permalink

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