Southern Ag Today

Blog

A Steak by Any Other Name: How States Are Shaping the Future of Cultivated Meat
In the first quarter of 2025, state legislatures across the United States have proposed bills regulating cell-cultured meat, including both labeling requirements and sales restrictions. Cell-cultured meat, also known as “lab-grown meat” or even “fake meat”, is produced by cultivating animal cells in a controlled environment, offering a potential alternative to traditional livestock farming.

Federal Oversight and Labeling

At the federal level, the regulation of cell-cultured meat involves both the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA oversees the pre-harvest production phase, while the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) manages post-harvest processing, packaging, and labeling. In 2023, FSIS authorized the sale of cell-cultured chicken produced by two California startups, marking the first-ever approval by the federal agency. The products were sold in a limited capacity though a few restaurants shortly after that approval, but are not commercially available at this time.

Recent State-Level Legislative Actions
- Mississippi: In March, Mississippi became the third state to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or distribution of lab-grown meat. Violations of this law are classified as misdemeanors, carrying penalties of fines up to $500 and/or imprisonment for up to three months. Further, retail food establishments may lose their licenses if they sell or distribute the products. The Mississippi law will go into effect on July 1, 2025. This legislation aligns with similar bans enacted by Florida and Alabama in 2024. More information about the Florida and Alabama laws is available here.
- South Dakota: HB 1022 allows for the sale of cell cultured meat products, but requires additional language (either “cell-cultured” or “lab grown”) on the label. It was signed into law in February. HB 1118, also enacted in 2025, prohibits the use of any state funds in connection with the research, production, promotion, sale, or distribution of cell-cultured meat within the state, but does not apply to any institution under the control of the South Dakota Board of Regents.
- Utah: HB 138 is also a labeling law, requiring additional verbiage for “cultivated meat product[s]” or “plant or insect based meat substitute[s]” that are “reasonably certain to notify a consumer” that the food contains those ingredients. It was signed into law in March.
- Georgia: House Bill 201, like MS, FL, and AL, would prohibit the sale of cell cultured meat within the state. It is currently in committee. House Bill 163 would allow for the sale of both “cell cultured meat” and “plant based meat alternative” products, but would impose requirements on food service establishments that required additional disclosures that those products are not “conventional meat products.” It has made it through the House and is pending in the Senate.
- South Carolina: Senate Bill 103 would prohibit labeling of cell cultured products as “beef, poultry, fish, crustacean, or any other animal protein that the cell-cultivated food product may resemble. Additionally, the label must state that “[t]his product contains protein that was developed in a lab and grown from a biopsy of animal cells. The protein in this product is not naturally grown beef, poultry, fish, crustacean, or any other animal protein.” The bill is currently with the Agricultural Committee.
- Oklahoma: HB 2829 has passed the House and is currently pending in the Senate. It would make it unlawful to “manufacture, sell, hold or offer for sale, or distribute any cultivated meat product”. However, it would allow research on the development of those products to be conducted in the state. There are also two additional bills that originated in and are pending in the Oklahoma Senate, both of which would impact the labeling of cell cultured products. SB 96 would apply the labeling restrictions to both cell-cultured and “insect-protein food products”. While SB 22 focuses only on cell-cultured products, in addition to the labeling restrictions it would prohibit the manufacture of those products within the state.
- Other states, including Colorado, Illinois, Indiana and Wyoming, have also proposed bills on this topic this year.
While the products are not currently available to the United States consumer, legislative attention is certainly focused on how- and whether- they should be in the future. As the market continues to evolve, an ongoing dialogue among federal and state lawmakers, industry stakeholders, and consumer advocacy groups will be crucial to establishing a framework that balances all interests.

Rumley, Elizabeth. “A Steak by Any Other Name: How States Are Shaping the Future of Cultivated Meat.” Southern Ag Today 5(15.5). April 11, 2025. Permalink
April 11, 2025
STAX and PLC: Should Cotton Producers Have to Choose?

The farm safety net includes a number of risk management tools that help producers navigate the risks they face, ranging from the Federal Crop Insurance Program to Title 1 of the farm bill. With crop insurance, farmers purchase the coverage which typically protects against price and yield risk within the growing season. By contrast, Title 1 of the farm bill authorizes programs – Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) in particular – that are designed to complement crop insurance, protecting against risks not otherwise covered.

Because some of the programs have features in common, Congress has chosen to limit the choices available to producers. For example, the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) is an area-wide crop insurance policy that protects against county-wide losses in prices and yields (depending on the underlying policy) within the deductible portion of a producer’s crop insurance policy (i.e., the portion not covered by the underlying individual policy). In addition, in the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress created ARC, an FSA-administered program that protects against shallow losses in county-wide revenue. Because of the similarities between SCO and ARC, Congress stipulated that a producer was not eligible to purchase SCO on a crop enrolled in ARC. By contrast, a producer that enrolls the base acres on their farm in PLC – which covers deeper declines in marketing-year average prices – is permitted to purchase SCO at their discretion.

What does this have to do with cotton? In the 2014 Farm Bill, upland cotton was removed as a covered commodity and cotton producers were left with no access to ARC and PLC. Instead, they were left with an area-wide crop insurance policy – very similar to SCO – that was known as the Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX). Several years later, when seed cotton was added to the farm bill in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, cotton producers once again had access to ARC and PLC (albeit on seed cotton rather than cotton lint). An effort was made to eliminate STAX as a result, but policymakers recognized that not all producers have seed cotton base acres, so a political compromise was reached: STAX would remain available, but cotton producers would have to choose between STAX and ARC/PLC. According to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, “[b]eginning with the 2019 crop year, a farm shall not be eligible for [STAX] for upland cotton for a crop year for which the farm is enrolled in coverage for seed cotton under [PLC] or [ARC].” Notice, the restriction did not simply prohibit a producer from having access two area-wide tools (i.e., STAX and ARC), it also prohibited producers from having access to STAX and PLC, despite the two options having little in common.

There is no prohibition on SCO and PLC, for good reason, as they cover different risks. We question the wisdom in deviating from that logic with respect to STAX and PLC. While we will explore the differences between STAX and PLC in detail in a future article, suffice it to say we would encourage policymakers to take another look at this requirement as they go about the process of reauthorizing the 2018 Farm Bill, especially in light of the current state of the farm economy.

Fischer, Bart L., and Hunter Biram. “STAX and PLC: Should Cotton Producers Have to Choose?” Southern Ag Today 5(15.4). April 10, 2025. Permalink

April 10, 2025
Major Players in US Trade and Grain Market Volatility

Searching for “Trump” and “grain market volatility” on Google will yield numerous results. While much of a grain marketer’s attention is paid to weather, production forecasts, seasonal trends, and supply and demand fundamentals, the “on-again, off-again” nature of tariffs under the current administration has added to an already volatile price environment. Instead of analyzing how tariff announcements have affected grain price volatility, this article takes an alternative approach, highlighting the major US grain-buying countries to better prepare producers for market impacts as tariffs are implemented.

The danger that tariffs pose to US agricultural commodity prices is typically linked to retaliatory tariffs or those enacted in response to US tariffs. On April 2nd, the Trump Administration announced “reciprocal tariffs” affecting nearly 90 nations. New tariffs have been added to the existing tariffs on Canada, Mexico, China, and the European Union. Tariffed countries now account for more than 77% of US corn exports, 76% of soybean exports, and 57% of wheat exports (averaged from 2020 to 2024, as shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3). While approximately 15% of US corn, 40% of US soybean, and 45% of US wheat production is exported, China accounts for 17% of corn, 53% of soybean, and 8% of wheat exports. China already announced retaliatory tariffs, which, in combination with the new Trump administration tariffs, coincided with a decline of over $0.50/bu in November 2025 soybean futures over the two days following the announcement.

As retaliatory tariffs take effect, US agricultural commodities become more expensive, reducing exports and increasing ending stocks, which subsequently lowers prices. While nations may not completely halt their purchases of US crops, they are likely to redirect demand toward competing suppliers, such as Brazil, Argentina, and the Black Sea region, if net prices (commodity price + tariffs) are lower.

Regardless of political perspective, tariffs disrupt free trade and undermine comparative advantages and efficiency. For instance, the US has a comparative advantage over most countries in corn and soybean production. When retaliatory tariffs are imposed, the demand for efficiently produced US goods, such as corn and soybeans, decreases, pushing prices down. Conversely, retaliatory tariffs restrict access to efficiently produced goods from other countries, such as fertilizers, resulting in higher prices. Traditional market indicators, such as supply and demand and exchange rates, continue to influence prices. Meanwhile, tariff-induced volatility has likely been exacerbated by artificial intelligence, which can extract insights from written and spoken media while simultaneously executing trades. Although it is nearly impossible for producers to react at the same speed, the announcement of US tariffs or foreign retaliatory tariffs may signal a need for price risk management, as the effects of new tariffs are likely bearish in the short term.

Figure 1: Average US Corn Exports by Destination (2020-2024)

Data Source: US Census Bureau Trade Data

Figure 2: Average US Soybean Exports by Destination (2020-2024)

Data Source: US Census Bureau Trade Data

Figure 3: Average US Wheat Exports by Destination (2020-2024)

Data Source: US Census Bureau Trade Data

Gardner, Grant. “Major Players in US Trade and Grain Market Volatility.” Southern Ag Today 5(15.3). April 9, 2025. Permalink

April 9, 2025
Cattle Inventory and Beef Production

With all the talk about the number of cows and cattle in the U.S., when herd rebuilding might begin, tariffs, and recent record high prices it seems like a good time to re-visit cattle numbers and beef production from a longer-term view.

Things We Know

The cattle industry remains a cyclical industry.  The cattle cycle is driven by biology and economics with events like droughts interrupting the cycle.  Beef production is cyclical also.  It follows from the cow herd expansion or contraction, the number of calves, and the weights of those finished cattle.

The beef cow inventory has declined since its peak in 1975 at 45.7 million head.  Each peak in the number of cows has been smaller than the previous cyclical peak over that time.  The cow herd declined, as part of the current cycle, to 27.9 million head in 2025, the fewest since 1961.  While the herd has moved cyclically up and down every 10-12 years, the overall trend in beef cows is declining over time.

In contrast to cow numbers, beef production has been trending higher since 1975.  Following the 1975 peak in cows, beef production peaked in 1976 at 25.7 billion pounds. This remained the high mark until 1999 when beef production hit 26.4 billion pounds. Production has since exceeded the 1974 level in all but 4 years, despite the lower cow numbers.  Genetics and feeding improvements have led fed beef production to have an upward trend even with fewer head. The key is the trend in cattle weights.  The U.S. has a long-term trend toward heavier weights driven by economics, genetics, technology, cattle size, feeding, and nutrition.

What Does This Suggest?

The industry has experienced tremendous growth through productivity gains that show up in animal weights.  The cattle cycle shows up in beef production as it does in herd numbers.  Declining cattle numbers reduces beef production, mitigated by heavier weights and cow culling, and supports higher prices leading to herd expansion.  A growing cattle herd increases beef production by even more as weights increase.

This discussion leads to questions to consider.  Can we get back to cattle numbers of the past? This would imply more ranchers, more feedlots, and more industry infrastructure? Or will the next cycle continue to the trend of a smaller peak than the most recent cyclical peak in 2019?  Recent record high prices have not quite yet led to herd expansion – but when that expansion comes, can the herd eclipse the 2019 total of 31.6 million head and deliver profitable balance sheets to continue rebuilding?

Maples, Josh, and David Anderson. “Cattle Inventory and Beef Production.” Southern Ag Today 5(15.2). April 8, 2025. Permalink

April 8, 2025
Before Starting a Farm Transfer: A Farm Family Pre-Agreement

Often, when speaking to groups of young farmers looking to return to the family farm, the first question I am asked is, “What is the best way to start a farm transfer?”  In most circumstances, I typically recommend a trial period for both generations. Instead of jumping into a farm business partnership, the junior generation (future owners) and the senior generation (current owners) must agree on how they will work together and how rapidly the farm transfer process will progress. This is something I refer to as a “pre-agreement.”

A pre-agreement should contain at least three parts: how to work together, how to develop the junior generation’s skills, and how long a trial period is necessary. Keep this agreement simple; it is not a legal agreement but a precursor to one. Treat this like an internship opportunity, where both sides must work together to improve the skills and employability of the junior generation and benefit the business for both generations.

How to Work Together

Get both generations’ expectations out on the table. It is better to air one’s concerns ahead of time than have difficult situations result. These “working together” guidelines should include basic things such as pay, time off, and when people are expected to show up and leave work. It is also wise to discuss how much autonomy or decision-making authority each person will have: will decisions be shared, or will the owner be the sole decision-maker?  Also, both parties need to be realistic about working together, even discussing how to part ways amicably if things don’t work out during this pre-agreement process.

How to Develop the Next Generation

The next generation rarely has all the necessary skills and management ability to run the farm immediately. It is also just as rare that the senior generation will have all the necessary skills to be excellent trainers and teachers. The solution is to craft a development program that assesses the skills the junior generation needs and places the training responsibility on the senior generation. If training the next generation is too tricky, don’t be afraid to look to outside sources for farm manager training, such as college degrees, cooperative extension programs, trade schools and associates degrees, and Farm Bureau young farmer and rancher meetings.

How Long of a Trial Period

The junior and senior generations must agree on how long this pre-agreement trial period will last. At the end of the trial period, plan to make a decision: continue farming together; modify the working relationship and progress the farm transfer process; or part ways in a friendly manner. Both parties must always be open to voicing and hearing concerns.  For longer agreement periods, it’s a good idea to schedule routine checkpoints (at least annual, if not more frequent) to discuss how each generation is living up to their side of the bargain.

A Sample Pre-Agreement

A sample is provided here as an example of the types of things a pre-agreement could address.  Feel free to modify this sample to fit your farm’s circumstances.  If additional materials are needed, please talk to your local extension agent.  You may also find general business transfer guides at https://coopcenterSC.org.

Richards, Steven. “Before Starting a Farm Transfer: A Farm Family Pre-Agreement.” Southern Ag Today 5(15.1). April 7, 2025. Permalink

April 7, 2025