Category: Policy

We think we can all agree on one thing: we’re all sick of talking about the state of the farm economy. After 8 years of ad hoc disaster assistance propping up the farm economy, most producers we know are desperate for market prices to return to levels that will at least cover their costs of production which have exploded over the last several years. They want to move on from ad hoc assistance, in part, because there are growing concerns that much of that assistance is simply finding its way into even higher land values (or higher cash rents) or higher input costs. Further, while the One Big Beautiful Billmade a significant down payment on improving the standing farm safety net beginning with the 2025 crop year, most of that assistance will not arrive until October 2026. Even then, once that assistance arrives, it will still fall far short of the losses currently facing producers. The trade discussion has injected even more uncertainty into the markets, although the recent agreement with China has provided somewhat of a reprieve (even if it’s not yet clear how and when China will fulfill the commitments they’ve made).

While all of these issues were reaching a fever pitch earlier this fall, the government shutdown over the past 2 months sucked most of the oxygen from the room. Congress recently reached an agreement to open the government, including passing a few of the appropriations bills, but that deal did not address impending losses for the 2025 crop year or uncertainty going into the 2026 crop year. 

We are growing increasingly concerned that too little attention is being paid to the challenges growers continue to face. Yes, there is some talk about trade aid, but that is just one element of the challenges facing growers. Last year, Congress provided $30.78 billion for economic ($10 billion) and natural disaster ($20.78 billion) losses. As noted in Figure 1, the losses facing producers (on prices and costs of production alone) in 2025 eclipse those from 2024—yet Washington has been eerily quiet on the topic, having committed $0 at this point for 2025 losses. 

In examining Figure 1, soybeans is the only crop to see an improvement in projected losses from 2024 to 2025, owing largely to the announced agreement with China and the projected $0.50 per bushel rebound in prices in USDA’s latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. Even then, soybean producers are still projected to lose in excess of $100 per acre this year. In fact, all of the major commodities for which USDA reports costs of production are expected to face losses in excess of $100 per acre, with some crops like rice seeing losses double the amount of last year. And, Figure 1 is only covering losses for those crops for which USDA tracks cost of production. Other crops—for example, sugar—are also facing enormous losses. In virtually all cases, chronically low commodity prices—exacerbated by trade uncertainty—coupled with stubbornly high costs of production are the main culprits.

With news of thawing tensions on trade, the hope is that policymakers in Washington will be able to turn their attention to the huge issues facing row crop producers as they work to wrap up 2025 and prepare for the 2026 crop year. And, while growers may be growing wary of ad hoc assistance, we see little alternative in the short run. Ideally, efforts to craft a Farm Bill 2.0 will eventually make additional needed improvements to the farm safety net so we can close this nearly decade-long chapter on ad hoc assistance.

---

Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “Disaster Assistance for 2025: Is it Coming or Not?” Southern Ag Today 5(47.4). November 20, 2025. Permalink

Over the past few months, we have been asked by producers on multiple occasions…since the ARC and PLC programs aren’t going to help very much why don’t we just forget it and use the money on crop insurance that does help?  This article contains the answer we typically give to that question. 

First, remember that the producer safety net is made of three parts: ARC and PLC, marketing assistance loans, and crop insurance.  Over the past few years, ARC and PLC have not kept up in trying to offset producer losses that have occurred because of low commodity prices and extremely high costs of production.  The marketing assistance loan program provides a harvest time loan to producers who need the cash flow but do not want to sell at harvest, which is typically the lowest prices of the year.  Not all producers utilize the marketing assistance loan program; however, in the South, cotton producers have routinely used this program.  At the same time, producers have reported that crop insurance programs (especially revenue insurance) have been a very useful safety net for their operations and that crop insurance was the most important part of the safety net.  We cannot disagree with this assertation. 

However, going forward, the One Big Beautiful Bill significantly increased reference prices used in both ARC and PLC while changes were made to the ARC program that will trigger payments sooner while covering bigger potential losses.  These changes will help increase the value of ARC and PLC to producers.  At the same time, in the current low-price environment, crop insurance will become relatively less helpful as insurance prices—which are based on a month of futures market daily closing values—are likely to be significantly lower than producers’ costs of production.  Losses will still be covered; however, producers will be indemnified at levels far below recent years because the futures market prices are low.   

The good news in all of this is when market prices eventually rise, insurance prices will rise with them.  With higher prices, the ARC and PLC program will be less likely to trigger assistance.  The marketing assistance loan program will still be useful to offer storage loans to allow producers to pay their bills while waiting for prices to increase.  In this situation, what we see is that each of the three parts of the producer safety net are important and are designed to complement one another, but there will be times when each are relatively more important.

---

Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. “A Reminder That All Three Parts of the Producer Safety Net Matter.” Southern Ag Today 5(45.4). November 6, 2025. Permalink

We often use Farm Policy Thursdays at Southern Ag Today to address questions we’ve been hearing, either from producers or from the general public. Today is no exception. With all the talk about low crop prices and high input costs, we increasingly are getting questions like these: “If farmers are projected to lose money this year, then why plant anything?  And, isn’t the market telling them there’s too much supply and they should plant less?”  

On the surface, those are pretty simple and relatable questions.  But, as with most things in agriculture, the answer is much more complex.

• If a farmer has sufficient cash on which to live and no debt to service, that might work.  But, unless that applies to you or you have a job off the farm that provides supplemental income, shutting down would be guaranteeing no income for the farm/family for the year.

• U.S. farmers must also contend with the fact that they operate in a global market. If U.S. farmers were to simply sit out this growing season, how would the rest of the world respond? Would they also idle their operations, allowing prices to rise so that everyone could enjoy higher prices together? Of course not. While we could fill pages on this topic, the bottom line is that prices would certainly rise, but other countries would likely ratchet up their production to take advantage of those prices at the expense of U.S. farmers. 

• Perhaps the most important factor is that farmers are eternal optimists. After all, they are putting a seed in the ground in hopes that sufficient rain will fall for the seed to germinate. They then spend months tending to plants to ensure that weeds and insects don’t choke the plant out. Many spend the rest of the time praying that hail, floods, snow, and hurricanes—you name the disaster—won’t leave the crop in tatters. With that same spirit, they also plant that crop in hopes that the market will turn around by harvest time so they can make enough money to pay off the banker and have enough left over to feed their families and start over again next year.

• Most farmers we know and work with have chosen that profession—in spite of all the risks and historically low returns—because they want to help their fellow man. Farming isn’t a job…it’s part of who they are. Simply sitting out a crop isn’t really in their DNA.

We suspect those answers would be followed by this question: “Okay, I understand they can’t totally idle their farm, but can’t they just shift from one crop to another that makes more economic sense?”

• We would argue that farmers are always considering that option, but that generally only works if those opportunities exist.  At this point, most crops are facing negative returns, and it’s not remotely clear that one crop would be preferred over any other, especially after accounting for all of the things farmers can’t control. 

• Most farmers that grow multiple crops have a carefully crafted, multi-year rotation that they want to maintain for a variety of reasons (e.g., controlling weeds, maintaining fertility and soil health, controlling erosion, etc). 

• Often equipment and supporting infrastructure is crop specific, limiting the ability for farmers to substitute crops (or at least serving as a consideration). For example, the only thing you will accomplish by running a cotton picker through a corn field is creating a giant mess.

In summary, simply not planting a crop is just not a viable option for most farmers, and shifting the crop mix—while always under consideration by farmers—comes with its own set of considerations and challenges. It’s for these reasons, in part, that each Congress and successive Administrations have repeatedly supported farmers when things do not turn out as they planned or hoped.

Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “If Crop Returns are so Bad, Why Do Farmers Keep Planting?” Southern Ag Today 5(43.4). October 23, 2025. Permalink

Introduction

Wildlife damage to crops has become a growing concern for U.S. agriculture. Crop insurance records show that payments for wildlife-related losses increased from about $15 million in 2012 to nearly $39 million in 2022. Among the different threats, feral swine stand out as one of the most destructive, causing an estimated $800 million in damages each year to crops, livestock, property, and even natural resources such as water quality and wildlife habitat.

Feral swine have spread quickly—moving from fewer than 20 states in the early 1980s to more than 30 states today. Because animals often cross property lines, private control efforts, such as hunting and trapping, have been costly and only partly effective. This has created demand for coordinated public programs that can reduce hog populations and restore damaged farmland.

In response, the 2018 Farm Bill created the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program (FSCP) with $75 million in funding to remove feral hogs and restore land. The program began in 2020 in 20 selected counties across 11 southern states and expanded in 2021. These counties were selected based on feral swine presence and notable increases in damages (Figure 1). This article summarizes findings from our recent study (Duncan et al., 2025) that evaluated the impact of the FSCP on crop insurance damages.

Findings

Our analysis of USDA Risk Management Agency data from 2013 to 2022 indicates that the FSCP has had an impact, but the benefits are not spread evenly across all crops. The clearest effect was seen in corn. Counties participating in FSCP showed fewer corn acres receiving wildlife-related insurance payments than similar counties without the program. This pattern is consistent with what producers in the field have reported—that corn losses to feral hogs were noticeably lower in areas where FSCP activities were underway.

For other crops, the story is more mixed. For soybeans, wheat, and peanuts, however, the data looked much the same—whether or not counties participated in FSCP. Cotton did show some reduction in losses in certain years, but the effect was smaller and less consistent than what we observed for corn. These results suggest that while FSCP is helping to address hog damage, especially for corn, it may take more time and continued investment before its benefits can be clearly seen for other crops.

Implications

The finding that corn producers benefited the most from FSCP is not surprising. Corn is one of the crops most heavily targeted by feral hogs, and the program’s design, focused on removal and land restoration, appears to be reducing this pressure. For producers, this means that FSCP can serve as a valuable complement to private control efforts that have often proven costly and only partly effective. The lack of clear effects for other crops should not be taken to mean that the program has no value beyond corn. Rather, it may reflect the fact that FSCP is still in its early stages. The program roll out coincided with COVID-19 disruptions which potentially slowed participation and adoption. It is possible that as the program continues and expands, measurable benefits for soybeans, peanuts, and wheat could become more apparent. Also, we should note that a limitation of this study is that only crop damages that were severe enough to trigger crop insurance payments were included. The crop insurance data does not determine the species causing crop damage. We exclude damages that were not severe enough to trigger a crop insurance payment, as well as benefits to livestock health, property, and the environment.

For policymakers, these results suggest that targeting resources towards corn-producing regions could deliver the greatest near-term return on investment. Continued funding and expansion could strengthen these results and help ensure that the success of the corn program translates more widely throughout US agriculture in the coming years.

Figure 1. Wildlife-related indemnified crop acres by crop, 2013–2022. Soybeans and corn account for the majority of reported losses.

---

Duncan, H., Boyer, C. N., Park, E., & Smith, S. A. (2025). “Evaluating Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program Impact on Crop Indemnities.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.70016

---

Park, Eunchun, Hence Duncan, Christopher Boyer, and Aaron Smith. “Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program and Crop Insurance Indemnities.” Southern Ag Today 5(41.4). October 9, 2025. Permalink

Along with most Southern cattle producers, Southern Ag Today has been tracking the movement of the New World Screwworm (NWS).  An article last November (linked here) provided a history of NWS and discussed implications of import restrictions on feeder cattle from Mexico.  A second article (linked here) continued the discussion as the U.S. closed and re-opened the border to Mexican cattle throughout the spring and summer. 

Earlier this week, an NWS case was detected 70 miles south of the Texas border in Nuevo Leon, Mexico, approximately 370 miles closer than the previous northernmost case detected in Veracruz, Mexico in July.  As the threat of NWS reaching the U.S. grows, the need for eradication efforts and producer preparedness grow more urgent.  Last year, the USDA estimated an NWS outbreak would result in a $732.6 million loss to Texas producers and a $1.8 billion loss to the Texas economy (APHIS, 2024).  Losses for producers would come from animal deaths, decreased production, additional labor and vehicle costs for animal inspection and treatment, and additional medication and insecticide costs.  Additionally, an NWS outbreak may prompt producers to make production practice changes to minimize NWS infestations.  Recall, NWS cause harm by burrowing into open wounds of live animals.  To minimize open wounds, producers may need to skip standard practices like dehorning, castrating, branding, and ear-tagging.  They may also alter calving season to avoid calving during warm months when the NWS is more prevalent.  The effects on marketing calves under these conditions is unknown. 

The best and highly supported path forward is eradication. To that end, in June USDA laid out a 5-pronged plan to address NWS (USDA, 2025a).  In summary, the plan included:

1. Prevention of NWS spreading in Mexico through enhancements to sterile fly production in Mexico; improvements of Mexico’s NWS surveillance; an audit of Mexico’s animal health controls; and limitations on movement of animals. 
2. Protecting the U.S. border by collaborating with border personnel to gather strays, intercept illegally introduced livestock, and monitor wildlife; preparing laboratories to test for NWS; and continuing live animal inspections at ports of entry. 
3. Preparing for an outbreak through emergency management plans; training of federal and state responders; and stockpiles of treatment supplies. 
4. Moving eradication efforts forward by:
   • Building an $8.5 million sterile insect dispersal facility at Moore Air Base in South Texas – to be completed by the end of 2025. 
   • Exploring the possibility of a domestic sterile fly production facility.
   • Investing $21 million in the renovation of Mexico’s sterile insect facility – to be completed in 18 months. 
5. Planning for the future by exploring new treatments and preventatives; improving sterile insect production and technology; and strengthening partnerships with states and land grant universities.  

In August, Secretary Rollins announced that USDA would be building on the 5-prong plan, in part, by investing $100 million to identify new innovations for tackling NWS and that USDA will construct a sterile fly production facility in Edinburg, TX, at Moore Air Force Base (USDA, 2025b).

---

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 2024. New World Screwworm, Ready Reference Guide – Historical Economic Impact. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/nws-historical-economic-impact.pdf

USDA. 2025a. New World Screwworm Domestic Readiness and Response Policy Initiative. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nws-visit-policy-brief.pdf

USDA. 2025b. USDA Announces Sweeping Plans to Protect the United States from New World Screwworm.https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/08/15/usda-announces-sweeping-plans-protect-united-states-new-world-screwworm

---

Graff, Natalie. “Threat Looms and Urgency Grows as New World Screwworm Inches Closer to the Texas-Mexico Border.” Southern Ag Today 5(39.4). September 25, 2025. Permalink