Category: Crop Marketing

It is not news that Brazil is a powerhouse in agricultural production, especially in soybeans and corn. What may be news for some is that these two crops are strongly linked in Brazil through double cropping. About 80% of Brazil’s corn production happens as a second season corn crop, known as safrinha, immediately after the first crop (usually soybeans) is harvested. However, corn being planted as a second crop is more exposed to weather risk in the most sensitive growth stages of the plant (flowering and grain filling), so it is crucial that it is planted within the low-risk window, and that the first crop is harvested on time. With a record El Niño forming, the question for 2027 is whether the safrinha will be planted on time.

In Mato Grosso (Brazil’s largest corn-producing state), soybeans are planted mostly from mid-September through October and harvested mostly in January and February. However, the low-risk window to plant safrinha, defined by Brazil’s official agricultural climate risk zoning (ZARC), ends between early February and mid-March, depending on the region and the soil. 

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there is a 75% chance that the current El Niño will be the strongest recorded since 1950 for the October through December period, which coincides with Brazil’s soybean planting. If the consistency of rainfall is affected by this phenomenon, it can delay soybean planting, especially because most of the soybean area in Brazil is rainfed. If soybean planting is delayed, it may push safrinha corn planting to later dates, which could be after the low-risk window closes. Figure 1 shows the share of safrinha area planted after the low-risk window and the yields compared with the trend for each season in Mato Grosso.

In a typical season, about 3 in 10 hectares of safrinha in Mato Grosso are planted after the low-risk window (Figure 1). In the 2015/16 season, the last very strong El Niño, almost half of the safrinha area was planted after the window. Planting was also heavily delayed in 2020/21, a La Niña year: almost 55% of the area was planted after the low-risk window. In both years, we had a significant decrease in yields compared with the trend: a 29% reduction in 2015/16, and almost 13% in 2020/21. In the other nine seasons, yields stayed near the trend. In 2015/16, El Niño also affected the growing season, which may have compounded the effect of delayed planting: rains that usually last until late May stopped in April, when most of the corn in Mato Grosso was flowering and filling grain (Agrolink, 2016a, 2016b).

However, El Niño does not always delay the safrinha. In 2018/19 and 2023/24, weaker El Niño seasons, only 18% and 23% of the area, respectively, were planted after the window, and yields were at or above the trend. What matters is whether the rains start late, which El Niño makes more likely, but does not guarantee.

Figure 1. Share of Safrinha Corn Area Planted after the Low-Risk Window (Upper Panel) and Yield Deviation from the 2005/06–2024/25 Linear Trend (Lower Panel), Mato Grosso, 2015/16–2025/26

If the 2026/27 El Niño affects the soybean planting and harvesting time, pushing safrinha to be planted after the low-risk window, Brazil may have lower yields again. This can impact global prices and quantities as most of Brazil’s corn exports come from the safrinha, which competes directly with U.S. corn in the second half of the year. If the El Niño effects last for more than just the soybean season, reaching the safrinha growing season, the effect may be even larger. It is still too early to say what the effects of this El Niño will be, but three numbers are worth watching: soybean planting in Mato Grosso by October 31 (in 2015/16 and 2020/21, it was below 60%), the soybean harvest by February 20, and rainfall in April, when the safrinha is flowering.

REFERENCES

Agrolink. (2016a, April). MT/milho: Corte de chuvas vai se confirmando [MT/corn: Rain cutoff is being confirmed]. https://www.agrolink.com.br/noticias/mt-milho–corte-de-chuvas-vai-se-confirmando_349436.html

Agrolink. (2016b, May 29). Milho/MT: Plantio tardio, colheita “precoce” [Corn/MT: Late planting, “early” harvest]. Reprinted from Diário de Cuiabá. https://www.agrolink.com.br/noticias/milho-mt–plantio-tardio–colheita–precoce-_355851.html

Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (Conab). (2026a, August 13). Acompanhamento da safra brasileira de grãos: Safra 2025/26, 11º levantamento [Brazilian grain crop monitoring: 2025/26 season, 11th survey]. https://www.gov.br/conab/pt-br/atuacao/informacoes-agropecuarias/safras/safra-de-graos/boletim-da-safra-de-graos/11o-levantamento-safra-2025-26/e-book_boletim-de-safras-11o-levantamento_2026.pdf

Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (Conab). (2026b). Séries históricas das safras: Milho 2ª safra [Historical crop series: Second-crop corn] [Data set]. Retrieved September 28, 2026, from https://www.gov.br/conab/pt-br/atuacao/informacoes-agropecuarias/safras/series-historicas/graos/milho/milho2aseriehist.xls/view

Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). (2026). Produção Agrícola Municipal, Tabela 839: Área plantada de milho 2ª safra [Municipal Agricultural Production, Table 839: Second-crop corn planted area] [Data set]. SIDRA. Retrieved September 28, 2026, from https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/839

Instituto Mato-Grossense de Economia Agropecuária (Imea). (2026). Boletins semanais e estimativas de safra de milho, safras 2015/16 a 2025/26 [Weekly corn bulletins and crop estimates, 2015/16 to 2025/26 seasons]. 

Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária (MAPA). (2026). Zoneamento Agrícola de Risco Climático (ZARC): Milho 2ª safra, Mato Grosso, safra 2026/27 [Agricultural climate risk zoning: Second-crop corn, Mato Grosso, 2026/27 season]. Retrieved September 28, 2026, from https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/riscos-seguro/programa-nacional-de-zoneamento-agricola-de-risco-climatico/portarias/safra-vigente/mato-grosso

NOAA Climate Prediction Center. (2026a, September 10). ENSO diagnostic discussion.https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml

NOAA Climate Prediction Center. (2026b). Relative Oceanic Niño Index (RONI) [Data set]. Retrieved September 29, 2026, from https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/RONI.ascii.txt

---

Recommended citation format: Pinto, Bruno. “El Niño and Brazil’s Second-Season Corn: Should We Be Concerned?” Southern Ag Today 6(42.3). October 14, 2026. Permalink

Authors: Julio Bellodi Cortarelli and Grant Gardner

Every year, producers face the same question: when should I price the new crop? Price too early and a summer weather rally can leave you watching prices climb with regret. Wait, and the rally may never come. So, when during the year do good pre-harvest pricing opportunities tend to show up?

In this article, we analyze daily settlement prices (CME Group) for December corn futures across 35 contract years (1990-2024) and November soybean futures across 32 (1993-2024), tracking each contract through the final year of its life, from the day the prior year’s contract expired (the roll) to the day it expired itself. The soybean series starts later because 1993 is the first year in our data with a complete contract of daily prices. We define a good marketing day as any day the price closed in the top quarter of that contract year’s prices. The hit rate is the percentage of each month’s trading days that were good marketing days, adjusted for the differing number of trading days in a month. If good days were spread evenly across the year, every month would sit near 25%.

On average, corn shows a clear pattern (Figure 1). Every month from the December roll through June averages a hit rate at or above 28%, and then the rate falls away: 21% in July, 13% in August, and 12% in September. Soybeans are flatter: every month averages between 20% and 31%, and no month stands out. In both crops, however, the vertical lines matter more than the bars.  Every month’s range reaches zero, so even the best months deliver almost nothing in some years, and most months have also topped 80% of their days in their best years. Corn’s late summer is the exception on the upside: even its strongest years rarely pushed August above 40%.

Figure 1 may not line up with intuition. Most producers can remember a year when the best prices showed up in a summer weather rally, and seasonal price averages back that memory up (Maples and Gardner, 2023). Rally years happen, but most years are not rally years, and the average reflects that. What separates one kind of year from another is the balance sheet.  When we cut the data into three groups by the marketing year’s final stocks-to-use ratio (ending stocks divided by total use, USDA Economic Research Service), the good marketing days land in a different part of the year for each group (Figure 2).

In tight-stocks years, both crops behave the same way: the good days come at harvest and after. Corn’s harvest window runs a 38% hit rate and soybeans 43%, well above the 25% benchmark, while the winter months in both crops fall well below it.

In average years, the crops part ways. Corn’s opportunities shift to the winter window while its harvest hit rate collapses to 7%. Soybeans instead concentrate in the growing season, the classic weather-market year.

In comfortable years, the good days come earliest. Corn’s good days sit in winter, with a second window during the growing season, and soybeans move almost entirely to winter. Harvest offers little in either crop: a 1% hit rate in corn and 12% in soybeans.

For corn, the lesson is a threshold: waiting for harvest paid off only when stocks were tight. For soybeans, it is a slide: as supplies build, the good days move from harvest to the growing season to winter. In these years, tight meant ending stocks near 9% of annual use for corn and 6% for soybeans; comfortable meant roughly double that. Producers never see the final number in advance, but USDA publishes a running projection each month in the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report; the September WASDE puts 2026/27 near 10% for corn and 7% for soybeans.

These patterns matter now because the balance sheet is tightening. After running above its recent norm from 2023 through 2025, stocks-to-use projections for 2026/27 are just below normal for both crops, which puts the year in our average group. In average years the opportunities have come early: corn’s good days concentrated in the winter window and soybeans’ in the growing season. For the 2027 crop, that pattern points to the months just ahead: December through March for corn and the spring and summer months for soybeans, so long as the balance sheet stays near its current range. If supplies tighten further, history says the harvest window comes back into play.

Still, no single month can be counted on. The range lines in Figure 1 show the same month delivering almost no good days in one year and nearly all of them in another. Stocks shift the odds, but they do not remove the risk. These windows tell producers when to pay attention; production costs, expected yield, and insurance coverage tell them when to act.

Figure 1. Average good marketing day hit rate by contract month, December corn and November soybean futures. Bars show the percentage of each month’s own trading days that closed at or above the contract year’s 75th percentile price, averaged across contract years. The dashed line marks the 25% benchmark expected if the calendar did not matter; vertical lines show the 10th–90th percentile range across years. Months marked * and + are the partial months just after the roll and just before expiration, about 10 trading days each. Source: CME December Corn and November Soybean Futures.

Figure 2. Average good marketing day hit rate by marketing window and stocks-to-use category. Contract years are sorted into thirds by ending stocks-to-use relative to its own 11-year median. Windows for corn: winter (Dec–Mar), growing season (Apr–Jul), harvest (Aug–Dec); for soybeans: winter (Nov–Mar), growing season (Apr–Aug), harvest (Sep–Nov). The dashed line marks the 25% benchmark. Source: CME futures; USDA ERS Feed Grains and Oil Crops Yearbooks.

---

REFERENCES

CME Group. December Corn Futures (1990–2024) and November Soybean Futures (1993–2024), daily settlement prices.

Maples, W.E., and G. Gardner. “Using Historical Price Movements to Inform Marketing Decisions.” Southern Ag Today 3(51.1), December 18, 2023. https://southernagtoday.org/2023/12/18/using-historical-price-movements-to-inform-marketing-decisions/

USDA Economic Research Service. Feed Grains Yearbook and Oil Crops Yearbook (ending stocks-to-use).

---

Recommended citation format: Cortarelli, Julio Bellodi, and Grant Gardner. ” Corn and Soybeans: Is There a Best Month to Price New Crop?” Southern Ag Today 6(41.3). October 7, 2026. Permalink

The market outlook for cotton is similar to other commodities in that it is influenced by expectations of supply and demand. Cotton’s “new crop” outlook specifically refers to the 2027/28 marketing year, when the 2027 crop will be produced, processed, stored, and sold.  A major supply-related question is how much 2027 acreage will be planted to cotton.  The price of competing crops, relative to cotton prices, is an important consideration to the level of planted cotton acreage. Figure 1 shows a fairly strong relationship between the level of U.S. upland and pima cotton planted (as measured on June 30) and the ratio of December CBOT corn futures and ICE cotton futures during the first quarter of the year.  The higher the ratio, the less cotton is planted. 

Of course, there are other important competing crops as well, e.g., sorghum, soybeans, and peanuts.  There are various other influences, including how dry it is in Texas, the insurance base price, fixed cost influences, and the psychological influence of the preceding growing season.  But the price ratio of corn to cotton appears to capture a lot of these other influences in explaining variations in cotton plantings.

What does Figure 1 imply for 2027?  As of September 21, the Dec’27 CBOT corn/Dec’27 ICE cotton price ratio was 6.77 (i.e., $5.37 corn divided by 79-cent cotton). Assuming this ratio prevails during Q1 of 2027, it is historically associated with between 10.0 and 11.0 million acres of all cotton.  A simple univariate regression, based on the data underlying Figure 1 and the prices as of September 21, projects a point estimate of 10.3 million acres planted.

Under what conditions will the 2027 crop be planted? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center forecasts a 90% chance of strengthening El Niño conditions during the fall and winter. The latter is associated with wetter weather patterns in some of the drier portions of the Cotton Belt. This increases the possibility of harvesting more planted acreage, particularly dryland acreage in the southern plains region. This has implications for the 2027 production and supply.

Assuming 10.3 million planted acres of all cotton in 2027, and further assuming modestly below average abandonment (14%) and yield per harvested acre (800 lbs), the result is a healthy crop of 14.76 million bales (Table 1). This combines with NASS’s September 11, 2026, projection of 3.60 million bales of carry-in for an 18.37 million bale supply. Matching this supply against a possible 14.5 million bales of total use, which assumes a modest increase in exports simply from having more exportable surpluses, results in 3.87 million bales of ending stocks of U.S. cotton in 2027/28. That outcome is neutral for prices as it represents static year-over-year ending stocks. 

Caveats.  Obviously, the analysis above depends on price ratios which may change between now and early 2027.  Furthermore, the price ratio approach to forecasting planted acreage will be replaced by grower survey results, beginning at the Beltwide Conference (January 6) and continuing with the National Cotton Council’s survey release (February 8) and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Prospective Plantings report (March 31) and Acreage report (June 30).

The other major caveat is the outcome for abandonment.  The 2007 and 2010 crops are examples of unexpectedly low abandonment (e.g., 5%) following El Niño winters. This poses a risk of greater supply and perhaps weaker prices.

Figure 1. Ratio of Dec Corn:Dec Cotton Futures, 1st Quarter average, vs, June30 Reported Acreage of All Cotton with Linear Trend Line

Table 1. U.S. All Cotton Balance Sheets for 2025/26, 2026/27, and 2027/28 Marketing Years.

	2025/26	2026/27	2027/28
	Area Million Acres
Planted	9.28	10.45	10.30
Harvested	7.83	8.16	8.86
	Pounds
Yield/Harvested Acre	852	776	800
	Million 480 Pound Bales
Beginning Stocks	4.00	4.15	3.60
Production	13.90	13.20	14.76
Imports	0.00	0.01	0.01
Supply, Total	17.90	17.36	18.37
Domestic Use	1.50	1.50	1.50
Exports, Total	12.30	12.30	13.00
Use, Total	13.80	13.80	14.50
Unaccounted	-0.05	-0.04	0.00
Ending Stocks	4.15	3.60	3.87
Stocks-to-Use	29.4%	26.1%	26.7%

---

Recommended citation format: Robinson, John. “The Market Outlook for New Crop Cotton.” Southern Ag Today 6(40.3). September 30, 2026. Permalink

Authors: Michael Deliberto, Associate Professor and Louisiana Farm Bureau Endowed Professor in Agricultural Policy, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University Ag Center. Karen L. DeLong, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Introduction

Industry experts are projecting supply uncertainty for the beet and cane sugar crops for fiscal year (FY) 2026/27. The primary contributing factors to this uncertainty include drought-related reductions in sugarbeet planted acreage, relatively low sugar prices, high input costs, and uncertainty about sugar demand, potentially stemming from the growing popularity of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. While the lower beet sugar production was anticipated because of reduced planted acreage, increased cane sugar production from expanded sugarcane acreage may only partially offset the decline because of a new infestation of pasture mealybug that is affecting the southern U.S. sugarcane crop (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Planted Acres Reported to the USDA Farm Service Agency for U.S. Sugarbeets and Sugarcane, 2009-2026. Source: USDA Farm Service Agency (2026a).

Sugarbeet and Sugarcane Production

According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) August 2026 Crop Production report, the 2026 harvested sugarbeet area is projected at 1.008 million acres, the third lowest in 45 years. The projected sugarbeet harvested area was reduced for five of the 10 sugarbeet-producing states, with the largest declines being in Idaho and North Dakota (USDA NASS, 2026). According to the USDA Farm Service Agency (2026a), prevented-planted sugarbeet acreage totals 30,560 acres and failed acreage is projected at 2,861 acres for a combined total of 33,421 acres (3.33% of total sugarbeet planted area), which is the largest amount on record (Figure 2).[1] The majority of the prevented-planted acreage was located in Nebraska (13,042 acres), Idaho (6,890 acres), Colorado (5,503 acres), and Wyoming (4,444 acres). In many of those regions, reduced snowfall depleted irrigation supplies that would normally be used to irrigate sugarbeets (Nebraska Public Media, 2026). In addition to the poor spring planting conditions, the August U.S. Agriculture in Drought report states that 59% of sugarbeet production is in areas experiencing drought, compared with 55% the previous week and 32% during the same period last year (USDA, 2026).

Figure 2. Prevented and Failed U.S. Sugarbeet Acreage Reported to the USDA Farm Service Agency, 2009-2026. Source: USDA Farm Service Agency (2026a).

USDA’s September World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) (2026) projects U.S. FY 2026/27 beet sugar production at 4.769 million short tons raw value (STRV), reflecting two consecutive years of decline (down 307,000 STRV year-over-year) and the lowest beet sugar output since FY 2019/20. U.S. cane sugar output is projected at 4.071 million STRV, 3% lower than the record FY 2025/26 sugarcane crop.

Sugarcane processors in Florida have indicated negative impacts on the sugarcane crop from pasture mealybug infestation. In addition, all of Florida’s sugarcane production is in areas experiencing drought, according to the August U.S. Agriculture in Drought report (USDA, 2026). Much of the crop was also affected by a historic freeze in February, which may have affected the rootstock (Hudson, 2026). While none of Louisiana’s sugarcane-producing areas are currently experiencing drought, mealybug infestation is present, and potential impacts are still being assessed. Louisiana FY 2026/27 cane sugar production is now projected at a new record high of 2.266 million STRV, marking the fifth year that Louisiana has surpassed Florida’s production and its seventh consecutive year of growth.

Given the challenges associated both with drought and pasture mealybug, USDA revised its projections for the FY 2026/27 U.S. cane sugar production downward by 0.6% in the August 2026 WASDE, to 4.159 million STRV.

Sugar Imports

For FY 2026/27, U.S. sugar imports are projected at 3.582 million STRV, about 740,000 STRV or 26% higher than the revised FY 2025/26 estimate (Figure 3) (USDA WASDE, 2026). The increase largely reflects a sharp adjustment to imports of Mexican sugar, which are projected at 1.346 million short tons, unchanged from July but more than 500% higher than the 220,000 short tons forecast for the current year. However, the levels of over-quota (Tier-2) sugar imports are still expected to increase the total U.S. sugar supply.

The U.S. produced a record volume of sugar in FY 2024/25, and projections call for record cane sugar production for FY 2025/26 and near-record cane sugar output in FY 2026/27. At the same time, historically large volumes of Tier-2 (over-quota) sugar have entered the U.S. market as low global sugar prices make it profitable for traders (even with applicable duties) to import and sell sugar competitively in the U.S. market. Annual Tier-2 sugar imports generally remained below 100,000 STRV for nearly two decades before exceeding 200,000 STRV in FY 2019/20 and surging to approximately 1.2 million STRV in FY 2023/24, as reported in our previous Southern Ag Today article (https://southernagtoday.org/2026/04/23/how-to-ensure-a-domestic-sugar-industry-increase-the-tier-2-sugar-tariff/).

Figure 3. U.S. Sugar Imports, by Source, FY 2022/23-FY 2026/27.

Although Tier-2 sugar imports may decline this year, they remain historically elevated. With continued low world sugar prices, Tier-2 sugar imports are likely to continue to enter the U.S. at high levels, boosting overall U.S. sugar supplies. Those additional imports of low-priced world sugar will likely continue to limit domestic sugar price increases that would otherwise help domestic sugar farmers offset inflation-driven increases in input costs.

[1] The USDA Risk Management Agency (2026) defines prevented planting as “the failure to plant an insured crop with the proper equipment by the final planting date or late planting period, if applicable. To qualify, you must be prevented from planting by an insured cause of loss that is general to the surrounding area and that prevents other producers from planting acreage with similar characteristics.”  The USDA Farm Service Agency (2026b) definition of failed acreage is “acreage that was timely planted with the intent to harvest, but because of disaster related conditions, the crop failed before it could be brought to harvest.”

References

Hudson, L. 2026. “Florida’s February Freeze: The $3 Billion Cold Shock to the State’s Crops.” Retrieved from: https://www.wusf.org/weather/2026-03-06/floridas-february-freeze-the-3-billion-cold-shock-to-the-states-crops

Nebraska Public Media. 2026. Drought Could Reduce Nebraska Sugar Beet Crop by One-Third. Retrieved from: https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/en/news/news-articles/drought-could-reduce-nebraska-sugar-beet-crop-by-one-third/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

USDA. 2026. U.S. Drought Monitor. Retrieved from: www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/AgInDrought.pdf

USDA Farm Service Agency. 2026a. Crop Acreage Data. Retrieved from: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/freedom-information-act-foia/electronic-reading-room/frequently-requested/crop-acreage-data

USDA Farm Service Agency. 2026b. Acreage and Compliance Determinations. Retrieved from: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/2-cp.pdf

USDA NASS. 2026. August 12, 2026, Crop Production Report. Retrieved from: https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/crop-production

USDA Risk Management Agency. 2026. Prevented Planting Insurance Provisions-Drought. Retrieved from: https://www.rma.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/Prevented-Planting-Insurance-Provisions-Drought-Fact-Sheet.pdf

USDA WASDE. 2026. WASDE Report. Retrieved from: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/staff-offices/office-chief-economist/commodity-markets/wasde-report

---

Recommended citation format: Deliberto, Michael, and Karen L. DeLong. “An Update of the United States Sugarcane and Sugarbeet Crops.” Southern Ag Today 6(39.3). September 23, 2026. Permalink

The USDA released the latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) on September 11, 2026. These are the first updates to last month’s survey-based yield estimates and adjusted area estimates using data from the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) certified acres (Maples, 2026). This month’s WASDE report continues to refine those yield and acreage estimates. Overall, the September report forecasts increased prices for most crops, relative to the August forecast.

There was little change in projected harvested acres, compared to the August report. Sorghum forecast harvested acres decreased by 3.7% compared to the August projection, to 5.2 million acres. This change was driven by 50-thousand-acre declines in planted acres in both Kansas and Texas. Peanuts had a 0.9% decrease in projected harvested acres, due to small declines across a number of states. Corn, cotton, rice, and soybeans all had less than a 0.5% change in predicted harvested acres, relative to the August forecast.

Forecasted yields were down for the most part, relative to August. Upland cotton showed the largest decline at 2.8%, to 766 lb. per acre, which would mark a 9.0% decrease compared to last year. Texas – the largest cotton producing state – is forecasted to have a 15.8%-lower yield than last year, driving the decreased national yield. Drought across the Texas High Plains is the main cause of the lower forecast cotton yield, as 63% of US total cotton acres are in areas of drought. Sorghum yields were predicted to fall by 1.8% to 54.4 bu. per acre, also due to the drought across the Southern Plains. If realized, this would mark a 25.1% decrease in yield compared to 2025. Peanut yields are forecast 1.9% lower than August, due to decreases across most of the peanut-producing states. This is prior to any impacts that may occur from the closing of the Delta Peanut facility in Arkansas (Reneau, 2026). Lastly, corn yields are forecast down 1.2% nationwide, while rice and soybeans are up 0.6% and 0.2%, respectively.

These updated yield and acreage levels have led to decreased production estimates for most crops. Cotton and sorghum had the largest drop in production compared to the August forecast, at 3.0%. Peanuts are projected to have a 2.8% decrease in production, corn a 1.3% decrease, and rice a 0.1% decrease compared to August. In contrast, soybean production is up 0.4%.

Forecasted marketing-year prices increased for all crops except for rice (table 1). Sorghum had the largest rise (7.0%), followed by corn (6.7%), soybeans (5.3%), and upland cotton (4.0%). Despite an increase in estimated soybean production, soybean prices were buoyed by increased expected usage due to higher exports. While this month’s WASDE report provided more information about the size of this year’s crop, these values will continue to be refined throughout the rest of the year in subsequent reports.

Table 1: Past and Projected US Marketing-year Prices by Crop

Crop	Price
	2025/26E	2026/27F August	2026/27F September
Corn (bu.)	$4.15	$4.50	$4.80
Cotton (cwt.)	$62.00	$75.00	$78.00
Rice (cwt.)	$12.40	$14.90	$14.90
Sorghum (bu.)	$3.70	$4.30	$4.60
Soybeans (bu.)	$10.50	$11.40	$12.00

References

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

Reneau, A. “Arkansas Peanut Growers Face Uncertainty after Delta Peanut Loses Federal Warehouse Bond.” K8News. Available at: https://www.kait8.com/2026/09/12/arkansas-peanut-growers-face-uncertainty-after-delta-peanut-loses-federal-warehouse-bond/

USDA. US Agricultural Commodities in Drought. September 8, 2026. Available at: https://agindrought.unl.edu/Maps.aspx?1

USDA-NASS. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. September 11, 2026. Available at: https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/release-files/796054/wasde0926.pdf

USDA-NASS. Crop Production. September 11, 2026. Available at: https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/release-files/796056/crop0926.pdf  

---

Recommended citation format: Sawadgo, Wendiam. “September WASDE Forecasts Lower Production, Higher Prices for Most Crops.” Southern Ag Today 6(38.3). September 16, 2026. Permalink