Author: William E. Maples

The latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report was released on August 12. As discussed in last month’s article (Gardner, 2026), the August WASDE marks an important point in USDA’s crop forecasting process. Beginning in August, USDA replaces the trend-line yields used earlier in the growing season with its first survey-based yield forecasts. These estimates incorporate considerably more information than was available earlier in the summer, including producer surveys, field observations, and satellite imagery. As a result, August often brings some of the more notable yield revisions of the growing season. The same information is also used to refine planted and harvested acreage estimates, and this month’s acreage revisions added another element of surprise to the report.

Corn planted acreage was revised 1.4 million acres higher in the August WASDE, bringing the national estimate to 96.7 million acres. The additional acreage more than offset a reduction in the U.S. corn yield forecast to 180.7 bushels per acre. As a result, estimated corn production actually increased by 13 million bushels from the July estimate. However, lower beginning stocks and stronger projected exports more than offset the increase in production, pulling 2026 ending stocks down to 1.65 billion bushels. That would be 292 million bushels below the previous marketing year. With a somewhat tighter and more price-supportive supply-and-demand outlook, USDA raised the season-average farm price to $4.50 per bushel.

Soybean planted acreage was also revised upward by 1.4 million acres, bringing the national estimate to 86.8 million acres. The U.S. soybean yield forecast was lowered slightly to 52.7 bushels per acre, compared with 53.0 bushels per acre last month. As with corn, the increase in acreage more than offset the lower yield estimate, raising projected production to 4.52 billion bushels. USDA also increased projected crush by 30 million bushels, reflecting strong crush margins and demand for soybean products, but ending stocks still increased by 10 million bushels to 320 million bushels. The season-average farm price was unchanged at $11.40 per bushel.

Following the same general pattern as corn and soybeans, cotton planted acreage was revised higher while the yield forecast was lowered. Cotton planted acreage increased by 620,000 acres to 10.47 million acres, while the U.S. yield forecast was reduced to 798 pounds per acre, down from 872 pounds per acre last month. Unlike corn and soybeans, however, the lower yield more than offset the increase in acreage, reducing projected production by about 90,000 bales to 13.61 million bales. With no changes to the demand side of the balance sheet, projected ending stocks declined to 4.0 million bales, down from 4.2 million bales last year. USDA also raised the season-average farm price to 75 cents per pound.

While the August yield forecasts incorporate considerably more information than estimates made earlier in the growing season, history shows that they can still change substantially before the final estimate. The chart below shows the difference between the final U.S. yield and USDA’s August forecast from 2010 through 2025. Over that period, the final corn yield differed from the August forecast by an average of 3.8 bushels per acre in absolute terms, while soybean yields differed by an average of 1.5 bushels per acre. Cotton experienced much larger revisions, averaging nearly 48 pounds per acre. The revisions have also occurred in both directions. Since 2010, final corn yields have averaged 1.5 bushels per acre below the August forecast, while soybean and cotton yields have averaged slightly above their August forecasts. This variability provides useful perspective for the 2026 estimates: the August forecasts represent USDA’s best assessment of current crop conditions, but there is still room for meaningful changes in yields, production, and ending stocks as the growing season progresses.

---

Recommended citation format: Maples, William E. “August WASDE Brings New Acreage and Yield Estimates.” Southern Ag Today 6(34.3). August 19, 2026. Permalink

Authors: William E. Maples and Adam Rabinowitz

When choosing where and when to deliver grain, producers often first focus on the posted price. However, the highest posted price may not always result in the highest net return. Grain moisture, buyer discounts, delivery distance, fuel costs, labor, and wait times can all affect the final value of a load. Here we discuss the impact of delivery decisions on the final price of grains. 

Grain Moisture

Most corn and soybean buyers use a standard moisture level when purchasing grain. Corn is commonly priced at 15 percent moisture, while soybeans are typically priced at 13 percent moisture. Grain delivered above the standard moisture level is generally subject to a discount because wetter grain contains more water and less marketable dry matter. However, delivering grain below the standard moisture level can also reduce producer returns because the additional dry matter is typically sold without receiving a premium or an adjustment in the number of bushels delivered.

Figure 1 illustrates the effect of corn moisture on revenue using an assumed moisture discount schedule and a base price of $4.50 per bushel. At 16 percent moisture, the producer would receive a moisture discount of approximately 9 cents per bushel, reducing the effective price to $4.41 per bushel. As moisture increases, the discount becomes larger. At 18 percent moisture, the estimated discount increases to approximately 29 cents per bushel, reducing the effective price to $4.21 per bushel.

Moisture levels below 15 percent also affect revenue, although the loss does not appear as a direct discount for the producer. In this example, delivering corn at 14 percent moisture instead of 15 percent results in a loss of approximately 5 cents per bushel. The lower-moisture corn contains more dry matter per delivered bushel, but the producer is still paid based on the same standard bushel weight. Therefore, the additional dry matter is delivered without additional compensation.

Distance and Wait Times

Delivery distance and elevator wait time can also affect which grain buyer provides the highest net return. Table 1 compares several delivery scenarios that differ by distance and unloading time. As expected, total delivery cost increases as distance increases. In this example, Buyer 1 is located 10 miles away, while Buyer 4 is 25 miles away. Delivering to Buyer 4 costs approximately 10 cents more per bushel than delivering to Buyer 1.

Although Buyer 1 has a longer wait time of 30 minutes compared with 10 minutes for Buyer 4, the added waiting cost is smaller than the transportation cost associated with the additional distance. This suggests that distance is the primary driver of delivery cost in the example. However, wait time still matters, especially during harvest when delays can reduce the number of loads moved in a day and can increase the potential for weather related losses. Producers should consider total delivery time, including both travel and unloading, rather than focusing on either factor alone.

Alternative Delivery Times

An alternative to delivery at harvest involves the storage of grain, but this isn’t always the best answer either.  Previous Southern Ag Today articles have discussed both the flexibility that storage can provide, as well as the additional costs for extra drying, shrinkage, quality deterioration, and additional handling (Duncan and Smith 2022; Maples 2022).  However, on-farm storage is generally limited in the southern region (Pittman and Rabinowitz 2025). Producers can then consider delayed pricing contracts, commercial storage, and re-ownership positions (Smith 2022). Thus, several options can exist to delay delivery for an expected better price, but these also must be carefully evaluated.

The combination of moisture, delivery costs, and delivery timing can make a difference for producers when comparing prices of delivered grains. The bottom line is to look past the posted price and make sure to consider the other options and associated costs when deciding where and when to market the grain.

Table 1. Estimated transportation costs and net price across four grain buyers

Buyer	One-way distance (miles)	Wait & unload time (minutes)	Fuel cost (¢/bu)	Truck overhead (¢/bu)	Labor cost (¢/bu)	Total delivery cost (¢/bu)	Posted price ($/bu)	Price less delivery cost (4/bu)
Buyer 1	10	30	1.40	4.80	1.24	7.45	$4.50	$4.43
Buyer 2	15	10	2.11	7.20	1.10	10.40	$4.50	$4.40
Buyer 3	20	5	2.81	9.60	1.28	13.69	$4.50	$4.36
Buyer 4	25	10	3.51	12.00	1.68	17.19	$4.50	$4.33

References:

Duncan, Hence, and S. Aaron Smith. “Estimating the Cost of a Grain Bagging System“. Southern Ag Today 2(31.3). July 27, 2022.
https://southernagtoday.org/2022/07/estimating-the-cost-of-a-grain-bagging-system/

Maples, William E. “On-Farm Grain Storage in Southern States“. Southern Ag Today 2(38.1). September 12, 2022. https://southernagtoday.org/2022/09/on-farm-grain-storage-in-southern-states/

Pittman, Wilton, and Adam Rabinowitz. “Marketing Challenges from Storage Capacity and Excess Supply.” Southern Ag Today 5(36.3). September 3, 2025. https://southernagtoday.org/2025/09/03/marketing-challenges-from-storage-capacity-and-excess-supply/

Smith, S. Aaron. “Marketing Strategies if Producers Do Not Have Access to On-Farm Storage.” Southern Ag Today 2(40.1). September 26, 2022. https://southernagtoday.org/2022/09/26/marketing-strategies-if-producers-do-not-have-access-to-on-farm-storage/

---

Recommended citation format: Maples, William E., and Adam Rabinowitz. “Considerations When Making Grain Delivery Decisions.” Southern Ag Today 6(31.3). July 29, 2026. Permalink

USDA’s July World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report, released July 10, projects U.S. rice production at one of its lowest levels in nearly four decades. Total rice production is estimated at 153.3 million hundredweight, which would be the smallest crop since 1987. Long-grain rice, the predominant type grown in the Mid-South, is projected at 104.1 million hundredweight, its lowest level since 1993. The total rice production estimate was lowered by nearly 13 percent from the June 2026 WASDE following the reduction in planted acreage reported in USDA’s June Acreage report.

Total U.S. rice planted acreage is estimated at 2.02 million acres in 2026, its lowest level since 1972 (Table 1). Acreage is projected to decline in every major rice-producing state, with several states reaching historically low levels. Arkansas is estimated to plant 851,000 acres, its lowest acreage since 1977. Mississippi acreage is projected at only 45,000 acres, the lowest level since 1961. Texas rice acreage is estimated at 113,000 acres, its lowest level since USDA began reporting state rice acreage in 1929.

Reduced acreage and production have substantially tightened the U.S. rice supply outlook. Long-grain rice ending stocks are projected at 17.7 million hundredweight for the 2026 marketing year, down 52 percent from last year. In response to tighter supplies, USDA raised its projected season-average farm price for long-grain rice to $13.50 per hundredweight, compared with $10.40 last year. Although reduced acreage has improved the price outlook, profitability remains a concern for many producers because prices are still unlikely to offset high production costs. 

In the Mississippi Delta, the nation’s largest rice-producing region, producers are projected to experience a sixth consecutive year of negative returns (Figure 1). Recent USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates place the total cost of producing an acre of rice in the region at $1,411. Production costs are up more than 12 percent from the previous year, driven largely by higher fertilizer and fuel expenses. Based on the assumed 2026 price ($13.50/cwt) and yield (80 cwt), producers would face an estimated loss of $331 per acre. Although these estimates will not reflect the circumstances of every operation, they indicate that many U.S. rice producers will continue to face a difficult profitability environment in 2026.

Table 1. Rice Planted Acreage by State, 2025–2026, and Historical Low Comparison
	2025	2026		Lowest Acres Since
		March	June
Arkansas	1,284,000	1,001,000	851,000	1977
California	524,000	508,000	455,000	2022
Louisiana	482,000	430,000	400,000	2017
Mississippi	164,000	80,000	45,000	1961
Missouri	213,000	175,000	153,000	2011
Texas	145,000	125,000	113,000	1929
Total	2,812,000	2,319,000	2,017,000	1972

Source: USDA WASDE July 2026, NASS Quickstats

Figure 1. Rice Production Costs and Returns for the Mississippi Delta Region

---

Recommended citation format:

In recent years, producers have faced repeated shocks to fertilizer markets because of events such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and, more recently, the conflict involving Iran. These events have disrupted key markets affecting fertilizer and energy supplies, impacting trade routes and contributing to increased price volatility and supply uncertainty. However, the idea of discussing “fertilizer markets” means more than focusing on a single product with a single supply chain. Nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium (potash) are three major nutrients used for plant growth that each have a different production process, geographic concentration, and trade pattern. Nitrogen fertilizers are closely tied to natural gas and energy markets, while phosphate and potash are mined products concentrated in a relatively small number of countries. As a result, geopolitical disruptions can affect each nutrient differently and create unique risks for global fertilizer markets.

Nitrogen is the first essential plant nutrient that is commercially recovered from the atmosphere as ammonia, which is produced by combining atmospheric nitrogen with hydrogen derived from natural gas. Ammonia can then be converted into other nitrogen fertilizers such as urea, ammonium nitrate, and ammonium sulfate. Among the major fertilizer nutrients, nitrogen is the most closely tied to energy markets because natural gas is a key input in the production process.

Globally, China is the largest producer of nitrogen fertilizer (in the form of ammonia), accounting for 31% of global production in 2025 (Figure 1). India, Russia, and the United States (U.S.) are also major producers, each accounting for approximately 9% of production. Persian Gulf countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, are another significant production region, collectively accounting for roughly 9% of global ammonia production. These countries also account for a substantial share of global nitrogen fertilizer exports, especially to India. As a result, the Strait of Hormuz serves as a critical shipping route for global fertilizer trade. Any disruption to traffic through the Strait has the potential to significantly impact global nitrogen markets, increase transportation costs, and contribute to nitrogen price volatility worldwide.

While the U.S. relies on some nitrogen imports, domestic production has accounted for an average of 95% of U.S. nitrogen consumption over the last five years (Figure 2). Over the past decade, the U.S. has increased nitrogen production and reduced its reliance on imports. From 2021 through 2024, Canada accounted for 49% of U.S. nitrogen imports, while Trinidad and Tobago accounted for 47%. Ammonia production in Trinidad and Tobago has seen declines though over the past decade, primarily due to issues with the supply of natural gas. In October 2025, Nutrien announced a controlled shutdown of its nitrogen operations at the Point Lisas Industrial Estate, one of the country’s major ammonia production facilities that accounted for approximately 31% of the nation’s production (EnergyNow, 2025). Because Trinidad and Tobago is a key supplier of nitrogen fertilizer to the U.S., prolonged disruptions could tighten available supplies and increase U.S. reliance on alternative import sources.

Phosphorus is the second essential nutrient for plant growth, with a primary commercial source of phosphate rock. Thus, phosphate production depends on geographically concentrated mineral deposits and more limited global reserves. In 2025, China accounted for the largest share of global phosphate rock production at 44%, followed by Morocco, the U.S., and Russia. Although China is the leading producer, Morocco holds the world’s largest phosphate rock reserves, accounting for an estimated 68% of global reserves. This concentration of reserves gives Morocco an important role in long-term global phosphate supply.

In the U.S., phosphate rock is mined by five companies operating ten mines located in Florida, Idaho, North Carolina, and Utah (USGS, 2026). The U.S. produces most of the phosphate it consumes, although it still imports some phosphate materials, particularly from Peru.

Potassium is the third major nutrient essential for plant growth and is primarily supplied through potash fertilizers. Potash production is concentrated in a relatively small number of countries with economically recoverable deposits. Canada, Russia, and Belarus collectively account for approximately 63% of global potash production, making the global potash market particularly vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions and trade restrictions. Sanctions and trade disruptions involving Belarus and Russia have contributed to recent volatility in global potash prices and fertilizer availability.

The U.S. has limited domestic potash production and relies heavily on imports to meet domestic demand, with more than 90% of annual consumption supplied by imports. Canada accounts for the vast majority of these imports because of its large production capacity and geographic proximity to U.S. markets. The U.S. has also historically imported potash from Russia, although those trade flows have become more uncertain in recent years because of geopolitical tensions and sanctions.

Overall, fertilizer markets remain highly dependent on a relatively small number of producing regions and key global trade routes. Because nitrogen, phosphate, and potash each rely on different raw materials and supply chains, geopolitical disruptions can affect fertilizer availability and prices in different ways. While the U.S. produces much of its nitrogen and phosphate domestically, it remains heavily dependent on imports for potash and still relies on global trade for portions of all its fertilizer needs. As a result, uncertainty from global conflicts, trade disruptions, and energy market volatility will continue to play an important role in fertilizer markets and producer input costs. As part of a broader marketing plan, producers should consider how to best determine crop pricing strategies to insulate their operation from unexpected changes in key input markets.

Figure 1. Top Producing Countries of Plant Nutrients in 2025

Figure 2. U.S. Nitrogen (Ammonia) Production, Consumption, and Imports

Sources

EnergyNow. (2025). Ammonia production and export in T&T face significant challenges.https://energynow.tt/blog/ammonia-production-and-export-in-tampt-face-significant-challenges. Accessed 28 May 2026.

U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026. Nitrogen (Fixed)—Ammonia, Phosphate Rock, and Potash chapters. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 2026. 

---

Maples, William E. “Understanding Global Fertilizer Markets.” Southern Ag Today 6(23.3). June 3, 2026. Permalink

Authors: Will Maples, Mississippi State University, and Wendiam Sawadgo, Auburn University

Many articles published by Southern Ag Today reference the futures market. Given its importance, it is worth taking a step back to review what a futures market is and why it matters for agriculture. Futures markets are one of the most important tools available to row crop producers for managing price risk. At their core, futures markets allow buyers and sellers to agree today on a price for a commodity that will be delivered at a future date. This differs from the cash (or spot) market, where commodities are bought and sold for immediate delivery.

While futures markets have existed in various forms throughout history, the modern agricultural futures market began in Chicago in the late 1800s. It developed to address a core challenge in agriculture: sharp seasonal price swings. At harvest, abundant supplies pushed prices lower, while tighter supplies later in the marketing year drove prices higher. This made planning difficult for both producers and buyers. Early forward contracts helped, but still carried risk, as they were customized and depended on both parties honoring the agreement. Standardized futures contracts, traded on exchanges such as the Chicago Board of Trade, created a more reliable system with greater certainty of performance.

In simple terms, a futures contract is a standardized agreement to buy or sell a specific quantity of a commodity at a set future date. Each contract defines the delivery time, quantity, and quality of the commodity. For example, a December corn futures contract represents 5,000 bushels of #2 Yellow corn for delivery in mid-December. The only element not specified is price, which is determined through trading on the exchange.

Because price is determined through trading, futures markets play a central role in price discovery. Prices in these markets reflect the collective expectations of buyers and sellers for future supply and demand conditions. New information, such as changes in weather, yield expectations, exports, or policy, are quickly incorporated into futures prices. As a result, futures markets provide a transparent and forward-looking estimate of commodity values. For producers, these prices serve as a key reference point when making marketing decisions and evaluating potential profitability.

One important point is that trading a futures contract does not involve the exchange of the physical commodity. Instead, what is being traded is the obligation to deliver or receive the commodity at a future date. These obligations can be offset prior to delivery. For example, a producer who sells a futures contract is guaranteeing delivery at a future date. The producer can then offset that position by later buying that same futures contract. Because positions can be offset, most futures trades do not result in physical delivery. This structure also allows individuals without direct access to the commodity to participate in the market. These participants, known as speculators, play an important role by providing liquidity and taking on the price risk of hedgers.

Hedgers are individuals who buy or sell the underlying commodity and use futures markets to manage price risk. Row-crop producers fall into this category, as they produce the commodities underlying these contracts. For them, the futures market is a risk management tool rather than a speculation tool.

Consider a soybean producer in May who plans to sell at harvest. That producer faces the risk of prices falling before October. By selling a November soybean futures contract in May, the producer can establish a price level. At harvest, the producer sells soybeans in the cash market and buys back the futures contract. Gains or losses in the futures position offset changes in the cash price, helping stabilize revenue. While the details of hedging are beyond the scope of this article, many Extension resources across the Southern Region provide additional guidance for using futures markets to manage price risk.

For producers, the key is understanding how futures prices relate to local cash prices and how those signals can be used in a marketing plan. While no strategy guarantees the best price, using futures alongside tools such as forward contracts, crop insurance, and storage can help reduce downside risk and create more consistency in revenues. Taking time to understand how these markets work can put producers in a stronger position to make informed marketing decisions throughout the year.

---

Maples, William E., and Wendiam Sawadgo. “What Producers Need to Know About Futures Markets.” Southern Ag Today 6(15.3). April 8, 2026. Permalink