Category: Farm Management

Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage (PRF) insurance continues to be one of the most widely used federal crop insurance plans nationwide, with the most insured acres of any crop insurance plan in the US. While the program’s design has remained the same, the rainfall patterns that determine its performance have not (Davis et al. 2025). A new analysis comparing baseline loss ratios with recent changes in rainfall inconsistency highlights areas where producers may need to reconsider their insured intervals, and why those adjustments matter.

Figure 1 presents the baseline loss ratios of PRF from 2017 to 2024 across the south, demonstrating how the program would perform without interval choice affecting outcomes. This eliminates the human enrollment bias that happens when producers repeatedly select intervals that paid better in the past, do not follow a consistent enrollment strategy, or do not enroll consistently in general (Davis et al. 2025). Results show a mean loss ratio of 0.79 and a standard deviation of 0.20, indicating that, after controlling for enrollment behavior, most grids in the South maintain a relatively stable loss ratio that is below the national standard of 1.  Figure 1 demonstrates that baseline performance and protection received by producers varies by location.

Figure 1. Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage Baseline Loss Ratio Map Across the Southern United States for Policy Years (2017-2024)

Davis et al. 2025 demonstrate that changes in the trend and variance of rainfall over time can be incorporated into an interval selection strategy. With PRF’s Rainfall Index being based on outcomes back to 1948, changes in more recent years in rainfall are less and less impactful on the index. So the strategy is to use the declining impact of each year’s rainfall to identify a gap between the assumed and actual risks, as our research showed. Figure 2 shows the results of such a strategy. The mean loss ratios of these grids increased to 0.83 under this strategy, with a standard deviation of 0.33. There is an increase in the average loss ratio, though not massive, and, more interestingly, a big jump in the standard deviation. This tells us that in certain areas, such as grids where rainfall has been especially uncertain, looking at past Rainfall Index values can help you choose a policy aligned with the intervals that provide the most safety net protection for your situation. 

Regions with loss ratios of 1+ are presented as either white or red grid cells. Compared with Figure 1, there are significant visual changes. Except for Kentucky and Tennessee, most southern states show more grids performing at or above the standard loss ratio of 1, suggesting improved outcomes for producers when using this interval selection strategy. Grids that were performing well across all intervals (Figure 1) also seem to perform even better under this strategy.

Figure 2. Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage Loss Ratio Map with Enrollment Selected by Increasing Rainfall Uncertainty Across the Southern United States Averages for Each Policy Year (2017-2024)

Together, these two maps highlight how PRF interval selection is critically important to the insurance outcome and the protection provided to the producer. For producers, the baseline loss ratio map can act as a reference for the expected PRF performance in their grid. However, it is important to investigate the performance of select 2-month intervals and take a more strategic approach, like the example above, to improve the chances of getting dependable coverage. A great place to start is by looking at the PRF Rainfall Index values for your area. Watch for downward trends or times when the index has been more variable.  Of course, it is also important to consider interval selection based on the seasons when rainfall is most critical to your forage production cycle.  Together, take advantage of all the information available to choose the interval combinations that best add to your farm’s safety net.

References:

Davis, Walker, Lawson Connor, Hunter Biram, and Michael Popp. 2025. “Performance and Feasibility of Pasture Rangeland and Forage Insurance in the Delta Region.” M.S., University of Arkansas. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3255211943/abstract/752CC539274B4F6FPQ/1.

Davis, Walker, Lawson Connor, Michael Popp, and Shelby Ryder. 2025. “Is PRF Profitable in a Wetter State?” Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, 132–46.

---

Davis, Walker. Understanding Interval-Based Enrollment Risk in PRF: How Interval Selection Strategies Can Impact Protection Across the South. Southern Ag Today 5(46.1). November 10, 2025. Permalink

Row crop producers across the country are feeling the financial squeeze. High input costs and low commodity prices are tightening profit margins, and the outlook for 2026 offers little relief. With limited optimism for lower costs or stronger commodity prices, many row crop farmers are exploring new income streams to keep their operations profitable. One option gaining traction is contract grazing—custom growing cattle for someone else.

This arrangement allows farmers with available land and suitable forage to generate income without the expense of owning cattle. It’s a practical way to put available acreage to work, diversify income, and reduce risk in uncertain times.

Evaluating Resources

Before entering a contract grazing arrangement, it’s essential to evaluate your available resources. Key considerations include:

• Fencing – Assess the condition of existing fences, estimate the cost of repairs or new construction.
• Cattle-handling facilities – Adequate corrals, chutes, and working areas are necessary for safe and efficient receiving and shipping of cattle on your property.
• Feed and water systems – Ensure water quality and quantity meet livestock needs throughout the grazing season.
• Accessibility – Many stocker operations move truckload lots of cattle (typically 50,000 pounds), so all-weather access roads are important.

This list isn’t exhaustive but highlights key infrastructure requirements that can determine the feasibility of a grazing enterprise.

Integrating Grazing with Crop Land

For row crop producers, contract grazing can complement existing cropping systems rather than replace them. Fields used for row crops can often support grazing through cover crops, winter annual forages, or dedicated hay and grazing acres. Common options include small grains such as wheat, oats, or rye, as well as annual forages like ryegrass or haygrazer. These forages can fit naturally between summer cash crops, making use of otherwise idle land during the off-season.

Integrating livestock grazing into crop rotations offers several potential benefits, including improved soil health, enhanced nutrient cycling, and reduced weed and residue management costs. Grazing cover crops can also help capture and recycle nutrients while adding an additional income stream through a grazing contract.

However, shifting to a mixed crop-livestock system requires careful planning. Farmers must consider planting and termination dates, soil compaction risks, and the potential impact on subsequent crops. When managed properly, the combination of row crops and grazing livestock can strengthen overall system resilience and profitability.

Experience and Cattle Management

Experience with cattle is another critical factor. Owners are unlikely to place animals with someone lacking livestock management experience. It’s essential to understand the type of cattle involved (e.g., stockers, heifers, cows, or cow-calf pairs) and how to manage each group effectively.

The source and history of the cattle also matter. Animals from multiple origins may pose higher management challenges or disease risks, requiring more experience and attention to detail. If contract grazing becomes a long-term enterprise, building trust and credibility within the local cattle community is vital for success.

Forage, Feed, and Water Management

Grazing is typically the most cost-effective feeding strategy, but weather and seasonal changes can reduce forage availability. Successful contract growers plan ahead by maintaining supplemental feed supplies or developing alternative forage options.

Water management is equally important. Cattle spend more time grazing near water, so the placement of water sources directly influences pasture use. Strategically positioned water sources encourage more uniform grazing, support pasture health, and improve overall livestock performance.

Well-maintained infrastructure—including fences, water systems, and forage stands—not only keeps cattle secure but also enhances the efficiency and profitability of the operation.

The Importance of a Written Contract

A clear, written contract protects both the grower and the cattle owner, helping to ensure that expectations are understood from the start. Key elements to include are:

1. Parties involved – Names and contact details of both the grower and owner.
2. Property description – Location, acreage, and pasture details.
3. Contract duration – Start and end dates, or total grazing period.
4. Animal details – Type, number, and starting weights of cattle.
5. Responsibilities – Who provides veterinary care, feed, insurance, and transportation.
6. Death losses – Agreement on how death losses are handled.
7. Payment terms – Fee structure and schedule (daily rate, per-pound-of-gain, or revenue share).
8. Termination clause – Conditions under which the agreement can end.

Determining Payment and Cost Responsibilities

Payment structures vary depending on the type of cattle and management objectives. A daily rate is often used for breeding stock, while per-pound-of-gain agreements fit well for stocker cattle. Some operations also use a revenue-sharing model, dividing sale proceeds at the end of the grazing period.

Before agreeing on rates, both parties should have a clear understanding of their financial boundaries. Growers must calculate total costs—which include feed, labor, maintenance, and management—then add a fair return on investment. Cattle owners should estimate the expected value of gain to determine what they can afford to pay.

In addition to the key elements above, details are critical. Contracts should clearly define:

• Feed responsibilities – Who provides supplemental feed during droughts or shortages.
• Stocking rates – Number or weight of cattle per acre, with flexibility for weather-related events.
• Shared costs – How expenses like mineral supplements, fly control, and veterinary treatments will be handled.

A Flexible Tool for Changing Times

Contract grazing won’t solve every financial challenge, but it can be a smart, flexible strategy for producers looking to adapt. It spreads production risk, reduces capital requirements, and makes productive use of existing land and infrastructure.

In today’s uncertain agricultural economy, creativity and collaboration matter more than ever. For some operations, contract grazing may provide the bridge between tight margins and long-term financial resilience.

---

Adapted from “Contract Growing Cattle Considerations,” University of Tennessee Extension Publication W1337. Available at https://utbeef.tennessee.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/127/2025/10/W1337.pdf.

---

Runge, Max. “Contract Grazing: A Flexible Option for Row Crop Producers.” Southern Ag Today 5(45.1). November 3, 2025. Permalink

The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act, signed into law on July 4, 2025, introduces new opportunities for U.S. peanut producers to manage risk. This article explores the current crop insurance options available to peanut farmers and highlights how the new law expands these choices beginning crop year 2026. Under the OBBB, peanut producers continue to have access to traditional deep-loss and shallow-loss programs, while also gaining access to a new combination of income protection tools: the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) and Agriculture Risk Coverage – County (ARC-CO). These programs are designed to help farmers safeguard their income against unexpected losses. This article provides a detailed look at these options and how they can benefit peanut producers.

Deep Loss Programs protect against significant losses, including complete crop losses. The Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) for peanuts offers three farm-level insurance plans that fall into this category. These plans form the foundation of a peanut producer’s risk management strategy. They are also referred to as the underlying policy that peanut producers can purchase to protect against potential losses. (1) Yield Protection (YP) insures against losses when yield falls below a selected coverage level due to natural disasters or other covered events. (2) Revenue Protection (RP) safeguards revenue when it falls below the selected revenue coverage level, either due to low yields, declining prices, or both. (3) Revenue Protection with Harvest Price Exclusion (RP-HPE) functions similarly to RP but does not increase the revenue guarantee if harvest prices rise above the projected price. This typically results in lower premium costs for producers. 

Shallow Loss Programs provide additional coverage for smaller, more frequent losses that can impact a farmer’s income. For peanut producers, shallow loss insurance options include SCO and the Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO). These are add-ons, not standalone policies, and must be paired with an underlying policy, such as YP, RP, or RP-HPE. By layering SCO and/or ECO onto their base policy, producers can often achieve higher overall coverage at a lower combined premium than by raising the base policy’s coverage level alone. This layered approach, which combines shallow-loss and deep-loss tools, is explored here by Biram and Connor (2023), who demonstrate that strategic combinations can enhance overall risk protection. 

Unlike deep loss programs, which provide protection at the farm level, shallow loss programs do not cover complete crop failures. SCO and ECO are both area-based programs, triggered by county-level yield or revenue outcomes depending on the underlying policy. They help fill the “deductible gap”, covering losses that fall between the individual coverage level of the underlying policy and the higher coverage level selected for SCO or ECO. Biram (2024) discusses how ECO may provide meaningful protection in years when county yields are strong, but market prices decline, offering producers an effective tool to manage upside yield risk and downside price exposure.

Beginning crop year 2026, under the OBBB, producers can now purchase SCO regardless of whether their base acres are enrolled in ARC-CO, removing a major restriction from previous farm bills. This means that the same acres can now be enrolled in both the ARC-CO and SCO programs. Additionally, the maximum SCO coverage level was increased to 90%, and its premium subsidy rate was raised to 80% (Biram & Maples, 2025). RMA has issued guidance on implementing the legislative changes. Under this new guidance^[1], the 80% higher premium subsidy rate will also extend to the Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO) and the Hurricane Insurance Protection–Wind Index (HIP-WI).

Additional Program: In addition to the deep and shallow loss programs, peanut producers can also purchase Hurricane Insurance Protection – Wind Index (HIP-WI). This endorsement helps cover part of the deductible from the primary crop insurance policy when sustained hurricane-force winds impact the county or a neighboring one. HIP-WI can be combined with SCO and ECO, but only if the acreage is already insured under an underlying policy (YP, RP, or RP-HPE). HIP-WI has gained popularity, particularly in regions prone to hurricanes and tropical storms. 

Understanding these insurance options empowers farmers to develop customized risk management strategies. By combining standalone policies with supplemental options and endorsements, producers can strengthen their financial resilience against both major and minor losses. For more information, producers are encouraged to visit the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency website and use the Agent Locator Tool to connect with a certified crop insurance professional.

Table 1. Individual and Area Crop Insurance Products with Associated Indemnity Triggers and Standalone Status for Peanuts

---

Product	Type	Trigger	Standalone
Deep Loss Programs
Yield Protection (YP)	Individual	Farm Yield	Yes
Revenue Protection (RP)	Individual	Farm Revenue	Yes
Revenue Protection, Harvest Price Exclusion (RP-HPE)	Individual	Farm Revenue	Yes
Shallow Loss Programs
Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO)	Area	County Yield or County Revenue	No
Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO)	Area	County Yield or County Revenue	No
Additional Program
Hurricane Insurance Protection – Wind Index (HIP-WI)	Area	Hurricane or Tropical Storm	No

^[1] Starting in 2027, RMA will increase the maximum SCO coverage level from 86% to 90%. For 2026, producers can use ECO to cover that band instead and will receive the same 80% premium subsidy that applies to SCO. 

---

Reference:

Biram, Hunter. “Can Yield Upside Risk Eclipse Price Downside Risk Protection in ECO Crop Insurance?” Southern Ag Today 4(47.3). November 20, 2024. 

Biram, Hunter. D., and William E. Maples. “Stronger Farm Safety Net Included in the OBBB Act, ‘Skinny’ Farm Bill, and SDRP Disaster Payments.” Morning Coffee & Ag Markets, July 14, 2025.

H. Biram and L. Connor. (2023). “Types of Federal Crop Insurance: Individual and Area Products.” University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Fact Sheet, Publication No. FSA75.

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

Swanson, Patricia. “MGR-25-006: One Big Beautiful Bill Act Amendment.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency. August 20, 2025. 

---

Kalli, Susmitha, Yangxuan Liu, Hunter D. Biram, and Fayu Chong. “Peanut Crop Insurance: What’s Available and What’s New Under the OBBB Act.” Southern Ag Today 5(44.1). October 27, 2025. Permalink

As high-speed broadband reaches more rural communities, it is important to explore how farms are utilizing the internet and advanced technologies in their operations. Every two years since 1997, the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service has conducted a survey to get an overview of technology use on farms (USDA, 2025). The survey asks producers about what devices they own, whether or not they can access the internet (and if so, if their services are through fiber, cable, etc.), and how they use the internet for business-related purposes. The most recent survey’s findings were released in August 2025 and include comparisons, where applicable, to responses from the 2023 survey. 

Table 1 shows the 2025 response rates for the percentage of farms that purchase agricultural inputs over the internet, conduct agricultural marketing activities over the internet, and use precision agriculture to manage crops or livestock for states in the Southern Region. The values in parentheses are percentage changes in response rates between the 2023 and 2025 surveys. Looking at changes in the percentage of farms purchasing agricultural inputs over the internet, all southern states saw increased use of the internet to purchase inputs between 2023 and 2025. Notably, four states (Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas) saw over a 100% increase in the percentage of farms reporting that they buy inputs online. Given the farm financial situation over the last couple of years, farmers could be exploring non-traditional ways of buying inputs to find better deals. With 50% of respondents across the U.S. saying they used the internet to purchase inputs in 2025, it also shows the importance that reliable internet access has on agriculture. 

For the percentage of farms stating that they conduct agricultural marketing activities online, the average across southern states in 2025 was about 25% compared to an average of 29% across the entire United States. The majority of southern states had positive increases in the percentage of farms reporting that they engaged in agricultural marketing online from 2023 to 2025. Georgia (-23%) and Missouri (-8%) being the only exceptions.  However, the survey did not reveal the specific type of marketing activities they conduct online. It could be that most are simply getting crop/livestock price information.  Either way, it is an indication of the growing importance of online engagement.

The column to the far right in Table 1 is for the percentage of farms using precision agriculture. Between 2023 and 2025, the percentage of farms that use precision agriculture for their crops or livestock decreased in seven southern states, with the largest decreases occurring in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Alabama. The percentage of farms that use precision agriculture increased in the other seven southern states over the same time period. For the U.S. as a whole, the use of precision ag technologies decreased by 19% from 2023 to 2025. This finding could signal that precision ag technologies are not viewed as cost savers, and producers are cutting these technologies to save costs. 

Producers are finding different ways of using the internet to help with their businesses, including buying inputs and finding marketing information. These are relatively low-cost ways of gaining cost savings or information. Conversely, higher cost technologies, like precision agriculture, may see their use decreased in times of financial stress. Regardless, these results show that having reliable internet access is an essential tool for farmers.

State	Percentage of Farms that Purchase Agricultural Inputs over Internet	Percentage of Farms that Conduct Agricultural Marketing Activities over Internet	Percentage of Farms Using Precision Agriculture Practices to Manage Crops or Livestock
Alabama	44% (100%) *	19% (111%)	15% (-32%)
Arkansas	45% (55%)	28% (8%)	20% (-26%)
Florida	57% (84%)	24% (50%)	17% (42%)
Georgia	51% (11%)	23% (-23%)	18% (38%)
Kentucky	49% (69%)	27% (69%)	13% (18%)
Louisiana	53% (130%)	27% (125%)	22% (-29%)
Mississippi	48% (140%)	26% (271%)	19% (-5%)
Missouri	43% (59%)	24% (-8%)	22% (-4%)
North Carolina	58% (66%)	29% (-9%)	17% (-37%)
Oklahoma	51% (89%)	29% (45%)	22% (22%)
South Carolina	57% (159%)	25% (47%)	17% (21%)
Tennessee	47% (88%)	22% (22%)	12% (-61%)
Texas	51% (143%)	23% (130%)	14% (8%)
Virginia	48% (23%)	28% (87%)	14% (27%)
United States	50% (56%)	29% (26%)	22% (-19%)

Source: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2025. Technology Use (Farm Computer Usage and Ownership). Available at: https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/technology-use-farm-computer-usage-and-ownership. 

---

Mills, Devon, and Brian E. Mills. “Tracking Technology Adoption on Southern Farms.” Southern Ag Today 5(43.1). October 20, 2025. Permalink

As harvest progresses and crop prices stay at historical lows, it is difficult to consider risk management for 2026. The federal crop insurance program offers a tool that can currently provide a form of county-level revenue protection. Margin Protection (MP) crop insurance was made available for a variety of crops across the southeast region in 2024. MP is an area-level (i.e., county-level) crop insurance product designed to provide risk protection against the risk of thin margins using a combination of county yields, futures prices, and region-specific input usage. Coverage levels range from 70% to 95% and may be purchased with any individual insurance, such as Yield Protection (YP) or Revenue Protection (RP). It may not be purchased with Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) or Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO) (see Biram and Connor, 2023). Additionally, there is a new product offering similar to ECO and MP called Margin Coverage Option (MCO), which I will provide more details on below.

For certain crops/regions the sales closing date (SCD) for MP coverage is similar to other traditional products, However, in some cases there is an early SCD and price discovery window. This early window offers the opportunity to lock in prices sooner if you think that might be an advantage to the normal spring price discovery. Check here for MP SCD’s and price discovery windows. The earlier price discovery window offered by MP (August 15, 2025, to September 14, 2025), provides corn and soybean producers with the option to buy MP and lock in futures prices, if they think that might be an advantage over the normal price discovery window (January 15, 2026, through February 14, 2026). For example, the current USDA, Risk Management Agency (RMA) projected price for MP purchased for corn is $4.55/bushel, which implies a price guarantee of $4.32/bushel assuming county yields and costs remain constant.  The risk of cost of production portion of MP provides protection from price volatility for Urea, Diammonium Phosphate (DAP), Diesel, and the Interest Rate on a farmer’s production loan. These prices also face projected price discovery periods similar to crop futures prices but have different windows of harvest price discovery (see Chattha and Biram, 2024).

Another decision variable in the MP coverage decision is the Protection Factor (PF). The PF ranges from 80% to 120% and offers higher (lower) protection at a higher (lower) premium cost and largely functions as a farm-level production adjustment. That is, if a farmer perceives their yield to be higher than the county average, they may select a PF higher than 100% at an additional premium cost. Alternatively, if a farmer perceives their yield to be lower than the county average, they may select a PF less than 100% and pay a lower premium.

The University of Arkansas, Cooperative Extension Service offers a fully web-based Margin Protection decision aid. The decision aid allows the user to input information such as state, county, crop, and irrigation practice to determine Margin Losses (i.e., indemnities) net of producer paid premiums across all coverage levels. Additionally, the tool offers a feature that calculates a breakeven price, which is a harvest time crop futures price that results in a Zero Net Indemnity, or a Margin Loss equal to the producer paid premium. Breakeven prices vary by coverage level and harvest county yields input by the user. 

An example output showing net indemnities across different harvest crop futures prices, including a breakeven price of $4.13/bushel at the 95% coverage level, is provided in Figure 1 below. This figure suggests that Margin Losses at or above the producer paid premium are experienced if the 2026 December corn futures price has a 30-day average below $4.13/bushel at harvest (i.e., from August 15, 2026, through September 14, 2026). You may access the Margin Protection Payment Estimator (2026 Crop Year) at this link. Fact sheets which provide all of the details of MP, including counties eligible for enrollment, may be found at the following links: Margin Protection Crop Insurance and Determining Expected Cost and Premium Rates.

Figure 1. Example Breakeven Price Figure from Margin Protection Payment Estimator Tool 

This is an example of net indemnities across various harvest time crop futures prices for corn in Arkansas County, Arkansas assuming county yield remains unchanged. Intuitively, as the harvest price increases the net indemnity decreases.

Margin Coverage Option (MCO)

Like MP, MCO provides area-based coverage against an unexpected fall in operating margin. This could be driven by a fall in the county-level yield average, a fall in the harvest-time futures price, or an increase in the futures prices of select inputs or any combination of these perils. MCO faces the same projected and harvest price discovery periods for crop futures and input future prices as MP. MCO uses the same expected and final county-level yields as SCO and ECO and covers a band from 86% to either 90% or 95% of expected county-level revenue. Figure 2 provides a visual comparison of MP and MCO and their eligibility to be enrolled with other federal crop insurance products.  Currently, the subsidy rate for MCO is the same as the updated subsidy rates for SCO and ECO, which is 80% of the actuarially fair premium, meaning farmers will pay 20% of the total premium expense. For a full list of crops and MCO pilot areas, visit www.margincoverageoption.com. The Sales Closing Date (SCD) for the 2026 crop year for MCO on cotton and sorghum is September 30, 2025, while the SCD for MCO on Rice in Arkansas is February 28, 2026, like MP and other major crop insurance plans (e.g., YP, RP, SCO, and ECO). 

Figure 2. Comparing Coverage Bands of MP and MCO and Eligible with Other Federal Crop Insurance Products

---

MCO Resources

USDA, Risk Management Agency Frequently Asked Questions on ECO

USDA, Risk Management Agency Fact Sheet on MCO

Watts and Associates Website for MP

Watts and Associates Website for MCO

References

Biram, H.D. and Connor, L. (2023). Types of Federal Crop Insurance Products: Individual and Area Plans. University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet No. FSA75.

Biram, H.D. and Stiles, S. (2022). Margin Protection Crop Insurance: A Way to Manage the Risk of High Input Costs. University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet No. FSA66.Chattha, K.A. and Biram, H.D. (2024). Determining Expected Cost and Premium Rates in Margin Protection Crop Insurance. University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet No. FSA87.

---

Biram, Hunter D. “Margin Crop Insurance Available Across the Southern Region.” Southern Ag Today 5(42.1). October 13, 2025. Permalink