Category: Farm Management

Timber Market Update

The average south-wide stumpage prices for most major timber products remained relatively unchanged in Q1 2025, staying flat or trending slightly downward. Pine sawtimber averaged around $25/ton, slightly below the price a year ago and about 10% lower than its recent high in Q1 2022 (TimberMart-South, 2025). Pine chip-n-saw prices continued to decline, averaging around $17-18/ton, down about 10% year-over-year and 18% below their 2022 peak. Over the past two years, the average pine and hardwood pulpwood prices have stabilized around $7–8/ton, falling from early 2022 highs. One exception is hardwood sawtimber. Its price held better than other timber products, reaching a record high ($35/ton) in Q4 2024 before a modest retreat in Q1 2025. 

While overall changes in south-wide averages are minimal, stumpage prices across the region vary greatly by state and subregion, largely depending on local weather conditions, local mill demand, and post-disaster salvage activities. Compared to a year ago, pine sawtimber prices fell sharply in Florida (-25%), declined moderately in South Georgia (-11%) and Louisiana (-8%), but remained stable in Alabama, Arkansas, North Georgia, and Mississippi. 

A Closer Look at the Southern Timber Markets

Generally, weak pine sawtimber prices are mainly due to the sluggish housing market. Over 70% of the U.S. softwood lumber and structural panels are used in residential construction, especially in single-family homes, and home improvement activities (Alderman, 2022). Although newly built single-family houses now make up a significantly larger share of for-sale inventory than before the pandemic, their overall supply remains limited. Contributing factors include rising construction material costs, labor shortages, higher financing costs, restrictive zoning regulation, an increase in existing homes for sale (the highest in five years), and declining housing affordability. Uncertainty around tariffs and immigration policy further discourages expansion for homebuilders. In April, single-family housing starts fell to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 927,000, down 12% from the previous year and the lowest level since July 2024. A slowdown in remodeling and repair activity has also contributed to softer demand for lumber and timber products (JCHS, 2025).

Despite weak demand, southern softwood lumber mill capacity continues to grow, exceeding 28.4 billion board feet in 2024— a 35% increase from 2017 (Figure 1)—with an additional 753 million board feet by 2026 (Forisk, 2025). Much of this expansion is driven by Canadian lumber companies facing reduced log availability in Western Canada and ongoing U.S. tariffs. The combination of this increased capacity, while current production aligns with weak demand, means lower capacity utilization. Utilization rates of southern softwood lumber mills have declined from 85% in 2021 (Forisk, 2023) to 75% in 2024 due to softer lumber demand (Forisk, 2025; SFPA, 2025).

The decline in softwood and hardwood pulpwood prices reflects the continued closure and conversion of wood pulping mills in the South. In 2024, wood-using pulping capacity in the South continued to shrink, driven by product shifts in the paper and paperboard industries and the increased use of recycled fiber in pulp production (Figure 2). These structural changes are expected to keep pulpwood prices suppressed, especially in areas impacted by Hurricane Helene and recent paper mill closures.

Figure 1. U.S. South Softwood Lumber Mill Capacity, 2013-2024

Figure 2. U.S. South Wood-using Pulping Capacity, 2013-2024

Figure 3. Added Softwood Lumber Mill Capacity by State, 2017-2025

Looking Ahead

As a leading indicator, single-family housing permits declined by 5.1% in April to an annualized rate of 922,000 units, 6.2% lower than the same time last year. Housing starts are expected to remain weak through the remainder of 2025. This downward pressure, combined with a lingering oversupply of sawtimber from a decade of underbuilding, is expected to weigh on southern timber markets. 

The tariff on softwood lumber imports from Canada currently remains at 14.5% but is expected to increase in fall 2025 (NAHB, 2025). Higher tariffs may reduce Canadian lumber imports and promote U.S. domestic production over the long term. However, they could drive up construction costs in the short term, exacerbating already low housing affordability. 

Areas that have a recent expansion in mill capacity may see localized increases in sawtimber prices (Figure 3). Counties devastated by Hurricane Helene (e.g., South Georgia) may face tighter timber supply and rising sawtimber prices due to local inventory shortages, particularly in areas with low growth-to-drain ratios (USDA Forest Service, 2024).

References

Alderman, D. 2022. U.S. forest products annual market review and prospects, 2015-2021. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-289. Madison, WI: USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.

Forisk. 2023. Regional forest product mill utilization. Athens, GA: Forisk.

Forisk. 2025. Forisk North American forest industry capacity database. Athens, GA: Forisk.

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (JCHS). 2025. Leading Indicator of Remodeling Activity (LIRA). Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.

National Association of Home builders (NAHB). 2025. In win for NAHB, Canadian lumber exempt from Trump’s global reciprocal tariffs. 

The Southern Forest Products Association (SFPA). 2025. Lumber shorts. Metairie, LA: SFPA.

TimberMart-South. 2025. Market news quarterly. Athens, GA: TMS.

USDA Forest Service. 2024. Forest Inventory Analysis Program Forest Inventory EVALIDator web-application. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

---

Li, Yanshu. “Timber Market Remains Sluggish Amid Weakened Housing Starts.“ Southern Ag Today 5(27.1). June 30, 2025. Permalink

Planting rice in a suitable timeframe is critical for profitable rice production. Planting rice too early or too late can result in significant losses in grain yield and milling quality. The timing of rice planting is strongly impacted by weather, particularly excessive precipitation. Too much precipitation can delay rice planting and can also trigger rice replanting and levee repairs in rice fields. In extreme instances, excessive and persistent precipitation can lead to prevented planted rice acres. For example, prevented planted rice acres in Arkansas reached a record high of 512 thousand acres in 2019 due to flooding and excessive precipitation occurring throughout the growing season (Watkins and Gautam, 2021). The initiation and completion of rice planting in a growing season also varies by geographic location. 

This article evaluates historic and current rice planting progress for the southern United States (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas) using weekly crop progress data from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA, NASS 2025). Historical and current weekly rice planting progress curves are presented for each southern rice-producing state in the accompanying figures. Historic rice planting progress is defined as the 10-year average percent of rice area planted by week for the period 2015 – 2024, while current rice planting progress is defined as the percent rice area planted by week for the 2025 growing season. The early and late planting timelines are based on how much land is usually planted each week, adjusted to show either earlier-than-normal or later-than-normal planting by using a typical range of variation. Dates in the figures represent the ending dates for each week evaluated. For example, 20-Apr represents the week of 14-Apr through 20-Apr.

A few things stand out when looking at the charts of the five states. First, rice plantings begin and end earlier for the more southerly states (Louisiana, Texas) relative to the more northerly states (Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri), as would be expected. Second, rice planting progress becomes more variable moving south to north. The gaps between early and delayed rice planting curves are wider for Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri than for Louisiana and Texas, implying weather variability has a stronger impact on rice plantings in the more northerly states. Third, the timing of variability in rice planting progress is different when moving south to north. The gaps between early and delayed planting curves for Louisiana and Texas are widest during the beginning of rice planting and become narrower thereafter, implying weather variability is more of a factor for both states when rice planting begins. In contrast, gaps between early and late planting curves in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri expand after rice planting starts and are widest during the second week of April through the second to third week of May. Thus, mid-spring weather can greatly accelerate or greatly delay rice plantings in the northern states.Rice plantings in 2025 have concluded or are very close to completion for all five southern rice states as of this writing. How did rice plantings in 2025 compare with historic 10-year averages? The answer of course varies by state. Arkansas and Mississippi experienced intermittent precipitation throughout the 2025 planting season, leading to rice plantings tracking early and behind the 10-year average for both states at different times in the season. Heavy rain events occurred in both states, resulting in planting delays, flooded fields, washed-out levees, and the need for replanting. In Missouri, rain events slowed rice planting during the first three weeks of April, but planting eventually accelerated thereafter to track closely with the 10-year average. Louisiana and Texas rice plantings were at or ahead of the 10-year average during much of the 2025 planting season. 

References and Resources

USDA-NASS (2025). United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Crop Progress. https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/8336h188j

Watkins, K.B., and T.K. Gautam (2021). An Overview of Rice Prevented Planting Acres in Arkansas, 2011 to 2020. In: J. Hardke, X. Sha, and N. Bateman (eds.) B.R. Wells Arkansas Rice Research Studies 2020. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Series 676:317-321. Fayetteville. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/aaesser/200/

---

Watkins, Brad. “Historic and Current Rice Planting Progress in the Southern United States.” Southern Ag Today 5(26.1). June 23, 2025. Permalink

For upland cotton producers, missing critical dates for their federal crop insurance can limit the effectiveness of their risk protection and reduce potential benefits. Our previous article in Southern Ag Today (Chong, Liu, and Biram, 2023) discussed the crop insurance policies available for upland cotton. This article focuses on the essential dates that upland cotton producers must track to effectively manage their coverage and protect their investments. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Risk Management Agency (USDA RMA) provides key crop insurance dates and definitions for upland cotton. Figure 1 below outlines the timeline related to upland cotton crop insurance. If a listed crop insurance deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, the actual due date shifts to the next business day. 

Key crop insurance dates for upland cotton include the Projected Price and Harvest Price Discovery Periods, Sales Closing and Cancellation Dates, Final Planting Date, and the End of the Late Planting Period (See references below for definition and dates from previous SAT articles). 

The remaining key crop insurance dates and their definition are discussed below. 

Acreage Reporting Date. Producers must annually report the number of acres planted, insurable and uninsurable, to the insurance provider on or before this date or within three days if they abandon their intentions to plant.  If crops are planted after the final planting date, producers must report the number of acres planted each day. Additionally, all acres of an insurable crop must be reported. Other required information includes: producer’s share in the crop, acreage location, farming practices used, types or varieties planted, planting dates (if after the final planting date), and any acres unable to be planted. Failure to file the acreage report by the applicable crop acreage reporting date may result in the denial of coverage by the insurance provider. The acreage reporting date for upland cotton is July 15.

Premium Billing date. Although premiums are payable as soon as the crop is planted, producers will not receive a bill until this date. Interest charges begin to accrue on unpaid balances 30 days after the premium billing date at a rate of 1.25% per month. If an indemnity is issued, any outstanding premiums will be deducted from the payment. For upland cotton, the premium billing date is August 15. 

Contract Change Date: The RMA may adjust the insurance program from year to year. If any modifications occur, the changes will be available on the RMA website no later than the contract change date.  The insurance provider is required to inform the policyholder in writing about updates to the policy, actuarial documents, or Special Provisions of Insurance not later than 30 days prior to the cancellation date. The policyholder has the option to review these updates and choose to maintain coverage for the next crop year, modify the policy by the sales closing date, or cancel the insurance by the cancellation date. For upland cotton, the annual contract change date is November 30.

End of Insurance Date. Following the End of Insurance Date, the farmer no longer has any production or revenue guarantee on the crop. This date is the earliest of the following: the date the crop is harvested, abandoned, or destroyed; the date the final adjustment on losses is made; or a specified calendar date for each crop determined by the RMA. For upland cotton, the end of insurance dates vary by region are (1) September 30 in Val Verde, Edwards, Kerr, Kendall, Bexar, Wilson, Karnes, Goliad, Victoria, and Jackson Counties, Texas, and all Texas counties lying south thereof; (2) January 31 in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and all other Texas counties; and (3) December 31 in all other states.

Termination Date. If premiums remain unpaid by this date, insurance coverage for the following crop year will be terminated. If a crop insurance policy is going to be terminated, the insurance provider will provide written notice to the producer at least 30 days before the termination date. The termination date varies by region but falls on the same date as the sales closing date and the cancellation date of the next year. 

Production Reporting Date. Producers must submit their most recent crop production records by this date to recalculate their Actual Production History (APH) yield. This deadline is typically 45 days after the termination date or sales closing and cancellation dates for the following year. 

Final Yield Release Date: For area policies, like STAX and SCO, RMA typically determines final county yields and revenues by mid-July following the crop year. Specifically, for upland cotton, these figures are finalized before August 1. 

Indemnity Payment Date: For area policies, like STAX and SCO, any indemnity payments due to policyholders are issued no later than 30 days after the release of the final area yield or revenues.  All other indemnities for the underlying cotton policy are paid at least 30 days after the claim has been finalized.By staying informed about key crop insurance deadlines, upland cotton producers can ensure they maximize their risk protection. Tracking these important dates and seeking guidance from crop insurance agents can help safeguard investments and maintain effective coverage. 

Figure 1. Key Dates Producers Need to Know for Cotton Crop Insurance Plan

References: 

Chong, Fayu, Yangxuan Liu, and Hunter Biram. “Exploring Diverse Crop Insurance Options for Cotton Producers.” Southern Ag Today 3(51.3). December 20, 2023.

Liu, Yangxuan, Hunter Biram, and Fayu Chong. “Cotton Crop Insurance: Regional Differences in Sales Closing Dates and Cancellation Dates.” Southern Ag Today 4(3.3). January 17, 2024. 

Liu, Yangxuan, Fayu Chong, and Hunter Biram. “Cotton Crop Insurance: Unveiling Regional Differences in Projected and Harvest Prices.” Southern Ag Today 4(4.3). January 24, 2024.

Liu, Yangxaun, Hunter Biram, and Fayu Chong. “Cotton Crop Insurance: Navigating Planting Dates Deadline Variations Across Regions.” Southern Ag Today 5(13.1). March 24, 2025.

Alexis Stevens and William Edwards.  “Important Crop Insurance Dates.” Ag Decision Maker. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. File A1-50. January, 2025 https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/html/a1-50.html. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency. Insurance Cycle. Accessed on May 8, 2025. https://www.rma.usda.gov/about-crop-insurance/managing-your-farm-risk/insurance-cycle

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Summary of Changes for the Cotton Crop Provisions (17-0021), November 2016. https://legacy.rma.usda.gov/policies/2017/17-0021.pdf

---

Liu, Yangxuan, Fayu Chong, and Hunter Biram. “Cotton Crop Insurance: Key Dates Producers Need to Know.” Southern Ag Today 5(25.1). June 16, 2025. Permalink

The US poultry industry generates roughly 13.9 million tons of broiler litter (BL) annually. Broiler litter is a mixture of chicken feces, urine, bedding material (such as pine shavings, peanut hulls, or sawdust), spilled feed, and feathers. Most BL is applied on agricultural lands such as pastures and row crops as a soil amendment to improve the soil organic matter. 

Broiler litter typically contains 11 essential plant nutrients – nitrogen (N), phosphate (P₂O₅), potash (K₂O), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and boron (B).  It is a valuable organic fertilizer for sustaining soil fertility and supporting plant growth. However, nutrient concentrations in BL are highly variable and depend on several factors such as bird age, type of ration fed, number of flocks between cleanouts, age of litter, amount and type of bedding materials, compositing method, litter pH, and moisture content. The nutrient content of litter may also vary from one poultry operation to another. A survey analyzing the nutrient content of BL samples collected from poultry houses across Alabama revealed significant variability in nutrient composition. This is consistent with the BL analysis from Kentucky in a previous Southern Ag Today article (here). Table 1 provides the range of nutrient concentrations in BL collected from seven different poultry farms supported by three different integrators (Pilgrim’s Pride, Tyson, and Ingram). The analysis revealed that N content in litter can be as high as 66 lb/ton and as low as 34 lb/ton, with a median value of 58 lb/ton. Similarly, the P₂O₅ content was found to vary between lows of 38 to highs of 59, with a median value of 42 lb/ton. K₂O was found to vary between 46 to 73 lb/ton with a median value of 52 lb/ton. Interestingly, the total carbon content of BL ranged from 260 to 609 lb/ton. Each ton of BL applied contributes a median of 528 lb of carbon to the soil. While the median values suggest a typical nutrient composition of broiler litter as 60-40-50, relying solely on these estimates can be costly for row crop growers purchasing litter as a substitute for commercial fertilizer—especially during periods of high fertilizer prices. To ensure accurate nutrient value and cost-effectiveness, it is strongly recommended that growers collect a representative sample of the litter and have it analyzed by a certified laboratory specializing in manure testing. This ensures they are getting the nutrient value they are paying for.

Growers using BL as fertilizer should be aware of the potential environmental risks associated with its application. For instance, applying litter annually for more than five consecutive years can lead to phosphorus accumulation in the soil, which may negatively impact water quality. Growers should watch for extreme phosphorus buildup by routinely testing their soils. Additionally, applying litter to fallow fields during the winter months should be avoided, as rainfall can cause nutrients to dissolve and either wash away or leach into the soil, reducing effectiveness, increasing environmental risk, and lowering the economic value of BL. The ideal time to apply litter is 10 days before spring green-up in the case of pasture and 10 days before planting a row crop. The nutrients in litter are available as both fast-release and slow-release. The fast-release components provide nutrients within a matter of 10 days, whereas the slow-release nutrients become available over months or even years. Most farmers should take advantage of the fast-release nutrients by synchronizing the litter application timing close to the timing of spring green-up.

Determining the value of BL compared to commercial fertilizer isn’t always easy. If you have values of N, P₂O₅, and K₂O, the calculation is straightforward. However, the availability of fertilizer materials may include products such as DAP (18-46-0).  In this case, use the value of N from a material that is N only (Urea) and subtract that value from the price of DAP. The remaining value is the price of P₂O₅ in DAP. Recent fertilizer prices in Alabama averaged $655/ton for Urea, $884/ton for DAP, and $509 for Potash (0-0-60). These prices give us a per unit value of N $0.71, P₂O₅ $0.68 and K₂O $0.42.  Using the median value of nutrient values in Table 1, the value of a ton of BL is $91.58. (N $41.18, P $28.56, K $21.84). If BL can be purchased, delivered, and spread for less than $91.58 per ton, it should be considered as a possible substitute for commercial fertilizer. Consider the micronutrients and carbon as a bonus towards soil fertility.

Table 1. Range of nutrient concentrations in broiler litter 

		As sampled or wet basis (lb/ton)
Sample #	moisture content (%)	N	P2O5	K2O	C	Ca	Mg	Al	B	Cu	Fe	Mn	S	Zn
1	29	34	39	46	260	42	10	5.0	0.1	1.1	6.4	0.7	52.3	0.7
2	18	53	59	73	527	46	12	0.3	0.1	1.4	0.3	0.9	12.2	0.9
3	20	66	40	52	609	23	8	0.2	0.3	0.3	0.2	0.8	9.3	0.6
4	18	58	42	60	540	40	10	0.3	0.1	0.3	0.2	1.0	23.4	0.8
5	20	65	38	54	528	46	10	0.4	0.1	0.3	0.2	0.9	24.4	0.8
6	27	54	47	48	521	34	9	0.4	1.4	0.5	0.4	1.0	12.9	0.7
7	25	60	43	50	570	27	8	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.8	9.3	0.6
Mean	23	56	44	55	508	37	9	1	0.3	1	1	1	21	1
Minimum	18	34	38	46	260	23	8	0	0.1	0.3	0.1	1	9	1
Maximum	29	66	59	73	609	46	12	5	1	1	6	1	52	1
Median	20	58	42	52	528	40	10	0.33	0.10	0.38	0.25	0.89	12.92	0.74

---

Prasad, Rishi, Kent Standford, and Max Runge. “Broiler Litter as a Nutrient Source for Crop Production.” Southern Ag Today 5(24.1). June 9, 2025. Permalink

A decade ago, our friends & colleagues, Extension Economists across the Southern region, developed a comprehensive collection of articles in Surviving the Farm Economy Downturn.  Well… what is old is new again.  The issues addressed in that publication are all too relevant today.  With stagnant crop prices and elevated costs of production, the resulting thin margins in crop production make for a challenging economic environment, to say the least. Side note: it was this early collaboration that also marked the beginning of Southern Ag Today.

Back in February, we highlighted 5 key farm management strategies from the collection (see  Managing Through Tough Times).  Today, we’re focusing on one particular article discussing the borrower/lender relationship.  While most annual operating loan renewals are in place for the crop year, it’s a good time to emphasize the idea that the borrower/lender relationship should be ongoing throughout the year.  Key takeaways from Working With Your Ag Lender in Good Times and Bad:

Partnership

The dynamics of the borrower/lender relationship are unique. Much more than a simple customer transaction, both parties are dependent and literally invested in the business of the other.  As such, both should consider it a partnership and expect to work together.

Full Disclosure/Trust

A good partnership needs to be built on trust.  Both parties should be open about their business as it affects the other.  Borrowers should disclose any changes to original plans and/or other transactions that affect repayment capacity.  Lenders should fully disclose their processes, standards, credit decisions, and timing, which could affect the borrower’s access to capital and business operations.  

Communication

Communication should be continual.  Don’t leave your credit discussion to that once a year loan renewal process.  Both sides should be willing to have ongoing discussions about progress, ideas, successes, and challenges.  Importantly, don’t just engage in communication because you have something to say.  Start a conversation for the sake of what you need to hear.  

Know your business

One of the things that makes a borrower a good partner is that they know and can explain their own business very well.  A manager who is on top of their game builds confidence in the lender.  The same is true for making a lender a good partner.  Borrowers want lenders who are well-versed in the operations of their credit institution.

Know your partner’s business.

We all remember a Grandmother telling us, “Mind your own business.”  At some point, she probably also told you to “put yourself in the other person’s shoes.”  In this case, it is the business of both partners to put themselves in the other’s shoes.  Each should take the time to understand how the other operates, their incentives, their profit structure, and how they make decisions.  Listen and learn from each other, and… always listen to your Grandmother.

Check out the full article (pg. 38), as well as the other articles in Surviving the Farm Economy Downturn.  

---

Klose, Steven, and Jordan Shockley. “Working With Your Ag Lender.” Southern Ag Today 5(23.1). June 2, 2025. Permalink