Author: William E. Maples

  • What Determines a “Good” Price?

    What Determines a “Good” Price?

    A common question producers ask is, “What is a good price to sell at?” The best answer is that there is no single number that fits every farm. A “good price” is not defined solely by price. It is defined by individual cost structure, yield expectations, and financial goals. One producer with a lower production cost may lock in soybeans at $10.50 per bushel and achieve the same profit margin as another producer who needs $11.50 per bushel to cover higher expenses. The difference is the unique financial conditions facing the operation. Thus, producers must consider various factors when deciding on a “good” price for marketing. 

    When setting price goals, the cost of production should be the starting point, as it determines the breakeven price when combined with an expected yield. A breakeven price forms the foundation of any pricing decision. Previous Southern Ag Today articles have discussed how to use enterprise budgets to estimate costs and calculate breakeven prices, including Estimating Cost of Production and Breakeven Prices with Enterprise Budgets and Enterprise Budgeting. We encourage producers to revisit these resources to better understand their numbers before establishing price targets.

    Once breakeven prices are determined, they must be adjusted to meet the farm’s broader financial goals. An operation cannot remain viable if it only breaks even year after year. Starting with breakeven, producers should begin layering in profit targets that reflect debt obligations, capital replacement needs, working capital goals, and desired returns to management and equity. This stage provides an opportunity to align the marketing plan with the overall financial health and strategic direction of the farm business.

    The condition of the farm balance sheet also influences price targets. Producers focused on improving liquidity or reducing leverage may prioritize securing modest but reliable margins. Others in a stronger financial position, or those pursuing expansion, may be willing to target higher price levels before committing bushels. In either case, price targets should reflect the operation’s financial needs and risk tolerance rather than a single benchmark price.

    It is also important for producers to understand their local basis when determining price targets. While cash contracts can be used to manage price directly, any futures-based marketing strategy requires accounting for basis risk. Ignoring basis can lead to missed expectations, even if the futures market reaches the targeted level. 

    Seasonality can help structure tiered price targets. As shown in Figure 1, the 10 year average soybean futures price, using the November contract pre-harvest and a nearby series post-harvest, tends to rise through the growing season as weather uncertainty builds, soften ahead of harvest pressure, and often strengthen again after harvest as stored supplies are rationed. While this pattern is not guaranteed in any given year, it provides useful context for historically favorable pricing windows. Producers might consider setting an initial pre-harvest target in the spring or early summer when weather-driven volatility supports prices, with additional tiers near typical post-harvest seasonal highs. However, post-harvest targets must account for carrying costs, including storage, interest, shrink, and quality risk, since higher futures prices do not necessarily translate into higher net returns if those costs outweigh the seasonal gain.

    Ultimately, a good price is influenced by farm-specific factors unique to each operation. By grounding price targets in cost of production, financial goals, basis expectations, and seasonal tendencies, producers can move from asking “Is this a good price?” to confidently knowing when a price meets their operation’s needs.

    Figure 1. Ten-Year Average Soybean Futures Prices Across the Pre- and Post-Harvest Marketing Window

    Note: Pre-harvest prices reflect the November soybean futures contract. Post-harvest prices are based on a continuous nearby futures series.

    Maples, William. “What Determines a “Good” Price?Southern Ag Today 6(10.3). March 4, 2026. Permalink

  • Brazilian Crop Progress: What U.S. Producers Should Watch

    Brazilian Crop Progress: What U.S. Producers Should Watch

    With the continued growth of agricultural production in Brazil, it is increasingly important for U.S. row crop producers to monitor crop conditions there, as the two countries compete directly in global markets. With Brazil located in the Southern Hemisphere, its growing season runs opposite that of the United States, so soybean harvest in Brazil is just beginning, with corn, cotton, and other crops to follow later in the U.S. winter and spring. This article provides an update on current estimates and crop progress for the Brazilian production season based on the January WASDE report from USDA and other sources.

    In Brazil, soybean planting typically runs from September through December, with harvest of early-planted soybeans beginning in January. While some regions experienced early-season planting delays in 2025 due to irregular rainfall, planting progressed strongly later in the season and was largely completed on schedule. As of January 10, soybean harvest has begun in select areas, though progress remains below 1% nationally.

     The USDA is currently projecting Brazilian soybean production at 178 million metric tons, up from 171.5 million metric tons last year. If realized, this would represent another record level of production. Continued expansion of Brazil’s soybean sector is being driven by several factors, including the implementation of a new B15 biodiesel mandate and strong demand from China. Brazil is also expected to remain the world’s leading soybean exporter, with projected exports of 114 million metric tons, compared to 42.86 million metric tons for the United States. Brazil’s growing share of the Chinese import market will continue to pose a competitive challenge for U.S. soybean producers.

    Brazil, unlike the United States, can produce two corn crops per year. The first corn crop is planted from October through December, with harvest beginning in February, and it has historically accounted for the majority of Brazilian corn production. Over the past 15 years, however, growth in Brazil’s corn output has been driven primarily by expansion of the second corn crop (safrinha) (Figure 1). This second crop is planted following the harvest of early-season soybeans in January and February and is harvested from June through September.

    The 2024/25 crop year was a strong production year for Brazilian corn. However, the USDA currently projects 2025 corn production at 131 million metric tons, approximately 2 percent lower than last year. This outlook is driven primarily by expectations of lower yields associated with La Niña conditions. It is important to note that the second corn crop, which in recent years has accounted for approximately 79 percent of total Brazilian corn production, has not yet been planted this year, meaning production estimates could change significantly as the season progresses. In addition, early-season delays in soybean planting could delay harvest, which in turn may reduce the ability to plant the second-crop corn within the optimal planting window, increasing downside production risk.

    Finally, the Brazilian cotton crop is planted from December through February and harvested from May through September. The USDA projects Brazilian cotton production to increase to 18.75 million bales, up 10 percent from last year and 28 percent from 2023. For the first time in 2024, Brazil surpassed the United States as the world’s leading cotton exporter and is projected to maintain that position during the current crop year. Improvements in cotton quality have been a key driver of growing global demand for Brazilian cotton. In addition, ongoing uncertainty in global trade has further supported demand, as importing countries seek to diversify their supplier base. For U.S. cotton producers, Brazil will remain a major competitor, with higher production levels contributing to increased global cotton stocks.

    With Brazil remaining a major competitor to U.S. agricultural exports, it is important for producers to know where to find reliable information on Brazilian production. The USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE)report remains the primary source of supply and demand data for major commodities in the United States and globally. Brazil’s National Supply Company (CONAB) also publishes production estimates through its Agricultural Information Portal, which contains a wide range of useful data. Although the website is in Portuguese, most internet browsers offer built-in translation tools that allow producers to navigate the information easily. As always, your state Extension crop marketing specialist is an excellent source of timely analysis and interpretation of these data.

    Figure 1. Brazilian Corn Production by Corn Crop 

    Source: CONAB 

    Maples, William E. “Brazilian Crop Progress: What U.S. Producers Should Watch.Southern Ag Today 6(4.3). January 21, 2026. Permalink

  • A New Year, A Better Marketing Plan for the Farm

    A New Year, A Better Marketing Plan for the Farm

    Every January, there is talk of New Year’s resolutions—a time to commit to improvements and set new goals. While health and personal finance often top the list of resolutions, there is no reason not to think about the farm business and marketing commitments in the same way. Farm profitability depends on effective management across many areas. Producers devote significant time and effort to decisions that affect crop production, but just as important is having a marketing plan for how the crop will be sold. Marketing is a continuous process that can span multiple production years, but it should be revisited for possible updating. With a solid marketing plan, producers can approach selling their crop as a year-round process rather than a single decision at one point in the year. This article highlights key considerations for developing a successful marketing strategy. 

    First, it is important to understand what a marketing plan is not. It is not a one-time silver bullet that guarantees sales at the highest price. While some producers may ‘beat’ the market in certain years, few can do so consistently. Commodity prices reflect supply and demand fundamentals, but in the short run, they are influenced by unpredictable events and new information. Even long-term outlooks are subject to shocks such as trade wars or other geopolitical developments. Expecting a marketing plan to always capture the top of the market sets up unrealistic goals. Instead, the value of a marketing plan lies in its ability to manage risk through consistent, disciplined decisions.

    Every marketing plan should be anchored in the farm’s business goals. Those goals set the operation’s risk tolerance, cash-flow needs, and planning horizon. A producer nearing retirement may prioritize capital preservation, while a younger producer focused on growth may accept more price variability to preserve upside and liquidity. The plan should explicitly tie tactics to goals and assess which risks (price, basis, yield, liquidity, etc.) would most threaten those goals. In short, the marketing plan should serve the business plan, not the other way around.

    Cost of production is the foundation of any marketing plan. Without a current, credible breakeven, you can’t judge whether a sale protects margin. Prices are volatile and mostly outside the producer’s control, so the most reliable gains come from managing inputs and operating efficiently. A sound approach is to build price objectives directly from breakeven, setting a minimum price that locks in a base margin.  Additional targets can then be layered at predefined margin levels (for example, breakeven + $0.20 and + $0.40) based on the farm’s goals and cash-flow needs. 

    Marketing plans are most effective when they encourage proactive, rather than reactive, sales. Often, the worst sale is a forced sale, such as selling grain at harvest due to limited storage or pulling grain from the bin to meet a loan payment. Coordinating decision dates with price targets allows sales to be spread throughout the year. Crop markets frequently show seasonal strength in spring and early summer, making that window a natural fit for higher targets. Extending the marketing window, considering preharvest sales within the operation’s risk tolerance, and using crop insurance to backstop commitments can all help create more opportunities to lock in margin. Maintaining strong relationships with local buyers can also expand contract options and delivery flexibility.

    Finally, it is essential to document the reasoning behind every marketing decision. A simple decision log noting the trigger, target price, quantity, tool, and rationale can reinforce discipline when action is required. The biggest threats to good marketing decisions are emotion, fear of making a mistake, and the temptation to hold out for just a little more. If a sale aligns with business goals and protects margin above breakeven, it is a sound decision, even if prices later move higher. Long-term success comes from steady, margin-protecting progress, not perfection on every sale. Now is an excellent time to make a New Year’s resolution for the farm by committing to a clear, disciplined marketing strategy for 2026 and beyond.


    Maples, Will. “A New Year, A Better Marketing Plan for the Farm.Southern Ag Today 6(2.3). January 7, 2026. Permalink

  • Soybean Exports Continue to Lag

    Soybean Exports Continue to Lag

    Authors: Will Maples; Mississippi State University; Grant Gardner; University of Kentucky

    As the calendar year comes to a close, U.S. soybean exports remain one of the more disappointing components of the soybean balance sheet. USDA currently projects soybean exports at 1.635 billion bushels, down 13 percent from last year. This weakness has been evident throughout the marketing year, with export commitments consistently running below historical norms and showing little of the typical seasonal acceleration.

    Figure 1 shows that U.S. soybean export commitments for the 2025-2026 marketing year have consistently trailed historical benchmarks. Commitments remained near the bottom of the five-year range through the winter and spring, reflecting limited early-season booking activity. Although export sales began to improve in late summer and early fall, the pace remains well below both the five-year average and USDA pace targets. Historically, roughly 70 percent of total soybean export commitments are in place by this point in the marketing year. Based on the five-year average pace, the U.S. would need approximately 30.9 million metric tons of commitments to meet USDA’s export projection. Currently, commitments total just 21.8 million metric tons, highlighting the substantial gap that remains.

    The largest wildcard for U.S. soybean exports is China. Historically, China has been the single largest buyer of U.S. soybeans, accounting for 25% of U.S. soybean production (Gardner, 2025). However, Chinese purchases effectively halted last spring following the onset of the trade war. After the U.S. and China reached a trade agreement in October, China resumed soybean purchases. Under the agreement, China committed to purchase at least 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans in 2025, with an additional 25 million metric tons to be purchased in each of the following three years. Putting these numbers in perspective, 12 million metric tons account for 10% of U.S. soybean production this year.  

    Initially, the 2025 commitment was expected to be met by the end of the calendar year, though the timeline has since become less clear, with the administration later indicating the target could be reached by the end of February. Regardless of the exact deadline, progress to date suggests the original target will not be met by year-end. For the export report ending November 27, USDA reports China had purchased 3.0 million metric tons of soybeans. While recent announcements of additional sales to China suggest this figure is now higher than officially reported, purchases remain well short of trade deal commitments.

    Despite the Chinese trade agreement, questions remain about the economic feasibility of large-scale Chinese purchases of U.S. soybeans relative to Brazilian soybeans. China has already sourced a substantial volume of soybeans from South America, and overall import demand is likely to remain limited regardless of trade commitments. With USDA projecting another increase in Brazilian soybean production, U.S. soybeans will likely remain trading at a premium to Brazil.

    The lag in exports creates downside risk for producers with unpriced soybeans in storage if marketing decisions are based solely on the expectation of a late-season surge in Chinese purchases. Rather than relying on a potential export-driven price rally, producers should consider establishing price floors or incorporating other risk management strategies to protect against continued export weakness. As producers consider marketing old-crop soybeans for 2026 delivery, price recovery remains uncertain. Periodic sales at or above breakeven can help mitigate downside price risk, particularly if export demand continues to lag.

    Figure 1. U.S. Total Soybean Export Commitments for 2025-2026 Marketing Year Compared to Previous Five Years (2020-2024)

    Source: USDA-Foreign Agriculture Service

    Sources: 

    Gardner, Grant. “Major Players in US Trade and Grain Market Volatility.” Southern Ag Today 5(15.3). April 9, 2025. Permalink


    Maples, William E., and Grant Gardner. “Soybean Exports Continue to Lag.Southern Ag Today 5(52.3). December 24, 2025. Permalink

  • Sweet Potatoes: A Southern Crop for Thanksgiving

    Sweet Potatoes: A Southern Crop for Thanksgiving

    Thanksgiving is a time to slow down, gather with the people who matter most, and enjoy the dishes that feel like home. For many Southern families, no holiday table feels complete without one standout ingredient: the sweet potato. Whether baked, mashed, candied, or topped with toasted marshmallows, this humble crop has become a Thanksgiving staple across the country. Each year, the United States (U.S.) plants more than 150,000 acres of sweet potatoes, making it a major commercial crop, especially in states across the South.

    Sweet potato production is largely centered in three states: North Carolina, Mississippi, and California. North Carolina is the clear leader, planting 87,000 acres in 2024, which accounted for 58 percent of all U.S. sweet potato acreage (NASS). Mississippi ranked second with 32,000 acres, followed by California with 18,000. Together, North Carolina and Mississippi produced roughly 80 percent of the nation’s planted acres. In Mississippi, production is clustered in the north central region around Vardaman, often celebrated as “The Sweet Potato Capital of the World.” In North Carolina, Wilson, Nash, and Johnston counties anchor the state’s industry.

    Louisiana, while still an important producer, has experienced a significant decline over the past decade. In 2011, producers planted 13,000 acres, but by 2024 that number had fallen to just over 5,000 (LSU AgCenter). High production costs, persistent pest pressure from the sugarcane beetle, and an aging grower population have all contributed to this downward trend.

    Of all U.S. sweet potatoes produced, about 70 percent are made available for domestic consumption. In recent decades, however, U.S. sweet potatoes have also seen strong growth in export demand. In 2000, exports accounted for only 3 percent of total use, but by 2022 that share had increased to 21 percent. Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands are the top three destinations for U.S. sweet potatoes. While Canada has steadily increased its imports and remains the largest buyer, most of the export growth since 2000 has come from expanding markets in Europe. 

    Sweet potato producers face unique marketing challenges compared to traditional row crops. Not every sweet potato is the same, and roots are graded based on size. U.S. No. 1s are considered the premium grade, preferred for the fresh market, and command the highest price. U.S. No. 2s include smaller roots, known as canners, and larger roots, known as jumbos, which are typically used by the processing industry. However, jumbos and canners bring lower prices, and depending on market conditions, canners may not be economical to harvest. This season, Mississippi growers have faced particular challenges with a higher share of smaller roots, resulting in lower overall economic returns.

    Sweet potatoes remain a key crop in the Southeast, and producers continue to navigate significant challenges to deliver them to your Thanksgiving table. If you haven’t planned to include sweet potatoes in your meal tomorrow, there is still time. To make it easier, I am happy to share the best way to enjoy sweet potatoes for a Thanksgiving meal. This recipe comes straight from my wife’s Mimi, who grew up in the heart of Mississippi sweet potato country. Her sweet potato casserole has been a family staple for generations, and I hope your family enjoys it just as much as ours does. Happy Thanksgiving!

    Mimi's Sweet Potato casserole
4.5 lbs sweet potatoes
1 cup granulated sugar
.5 cup butter softened
.25 cup milk
2 large eggs
1 tsp salt 
1.5 cups mini marshmallows 
Preheat oven to 400 degrees. Bake sweet potatoes for 1 hour until cool to the touch. Peel and mash sweet potatoes. Reduce oven temperature to 350. 
Beat Mashed sweet potatoes  sugar and next 4 ingredients until smooth. Spoon mixture intogreaded 11x17 inch baking dish. 
Bake at 350 for 30 minutes. Remove from oven and let stand for 10 minutes. Sprinkle marshmallows all over the top of casserole; bake 10 minutes and let stand another 10 minutes before serving!

    References 

    LSU AgCenter. (n.d.). Research station profile: Sweet Potato Research Station. https://www.lsuagcenter.com/portals/our_offices/research_stations/sweetpotato/features/profile

    USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS). (2025). Quick Stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/


    Maples, Will. “Sweet Potatoes: A Southern Crop for Thanksgiving.” Southern Ag Today 5(48.3). November 26, 2025. Permalink