Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • U.S. Rice Production Projected Near a 40-Year Low

    U.S. Rice Production Projected Near a 40-Year Low

    USDA’s July World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report, released July 10, projects U.S. rice production at one of its lowest levels in nearly four decades. Total rice production is estimated at 153.3 million hundredweight, which would be the smallest crop since 1987. Long-grain rice, the predominant type grown in the Mid-South, is projected at 104.1 million hundredweight, its lowest level since 1993. The total rice production estimate was lowered by nearly 13 percent from the June 2026 WASDE following the reduction in planted acreage reported in USDA’s June Acreage report.

    Total U.S. rice planted acreage is estimated at 2.02 million acres in 2026, its lowest level since 1972 (Table 1). Acreage is projected to decline in every major rice-producing state, with several states reaching historically low levels. Arkansas is estimated to plant 851,000 acres, its lowest acreage since 1977. Mississippi acreage is projected at only 45,000 acres, the lowest level since 1961. Texas rice acreage is estimated at 113,000 acres, its lowest level since USDA began reporting state rice acreage in 1929.

    Reduced acreage and production have substantially tightened the U.S. rice supply outlook. Long-grain rice ending stocks are projected at 17.7 million hundredweight for the 2026 marketing year, down 52 percent from last year. In response to tighter supplies, USDA raised its projected season-average farm price for long-grain rice to $13.50 per hundredweight, compared with $10.40 last year. Although reduced acreage has improved the price outlook, profitability remains a concern for many producers because prices are still unlikely to offset high production costs. 

    In the Mississippi Delta, the nation’s largest rice-producing region, producers are projected to experience a sixth consecutive year of negative returns (Figure 1). Recent USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates place the total cost of producing an acre of rice in the region at $1,411. Production costs are up more than 12 percent from the previous year, driven largely by higher fertilizer and fuel expenses. Based on the assumed 2026 price ($13.50/cwt) and yield (80 cwt), producers would face an estimated loss of $331 per acre. Although these estimates will not reflect the circumstances of every operation, they indicate that many U.S. rice producers will continue to face a difficult profitability environment in 2026.

    Table 1. Rice Planted Acreage by State, 2025–2026, and Historical Low Comparison
    20252026Lowest Acres Since
      MarchJune 
    Arkansas         1,284,000 1,001,000851,0001977
    California             524,000 508,000455,0002022
    Louisiana             482,000 430,000400,0002017
    Mississippi             164,000 80,00045,0001961
    Missouri             213,000 175,000153,0002011
    Texas             145,000 125,000113,0001929
    Total         2,812,000 2,319,0002,017,0001972

    Source: USDA WASDE July 2026, NASS Quickstats

    Figure 1. Rice Production Costs and Returns for the Mississippi Delta Region

    Source: USDA Economic Research Service Cost of Production Estimates. The 2026 revenue estimate is based on USDA’s projected season-average farm price of $13.50 per hundredweight and an assumed yield of 80 hundredweight per acre.

    Recommended citation format:

  • Pasture and Rangeland Conditions

    Pasture and Rangeland Conditions

    As of early July 2026, pasture and rangeland conditions across much of the country remain drier than they were a year ago, though several regions have improved some in the past month. USDA details pasture and rangeland conditions in weekly crop progress reports. The share of pasture rated poor or very poor is a useful gauge of overall forage condition, and it often reflects moisture stress in particular.

    In the Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, and WV), pasture and rangeland rated poor or very poor started near 36 percent in early May when the report began. Conditions have improved, easing to about 26 percent by the week ending July 5. Even with that improvement, the region is running well behind last year, when only about 6 percent of pasture was rated poor or very poor at this point in the year. Current ratings also sit above the five-year average of roughly 15 percent for early July, indicating that forage is noticeably drier than producers have grown accustomed to.

    The Southern Plains (Texas and Oklahoma) show a similar pattern. Poor and very poor ratings started near 38 percent in early May and have eased to about 29 percent in early July. That is higher than the roughly 12 percent rated poor or very poor a year ago, but close to the five-year average near 26 percent for this time of year. 

    Conditions in the other regions are mixed. In the West, poor and very poor ratings have held in the high 20 percent range, an improvement over last year near 38 percent and slightly better than the five-year average. The Great Plains remain the trouble spot, with ratings near 40 percent in early July. That is down from more than 50 percent in mid-May, but still well above last year near 24 percent and above the five-year average, making it the region most stressed relative to normal.

    While range and pasture condition improvement in recent weeks is certainly positive, overall conditions continue to hold back cattle herd expansion.  Beyond moisture, producers across southern pastures are also contending with the pasture mealybug, an invasive insect that is damaging bermudagrass and other forages.  

    Recommended citation format: Maples, Josh. “Pasture and Rangeland Conditions.“ Southern Ag Today 6(30.2). July 21, 2026. Permalink

  • Fuel Pricing Impacts Irrigation Pumping Costs Across All Systems 

    Fuel Pricing Impacts Irrigation Pumping Costs Across All Systems 

    Authors: Michael Deliberto and Stacia Davis-Conger

    As crops enter the summer growing season, irrigation activities will be closely monitored as rising energy prices and drought have the potential to substantially increase irrigation costs. The conflict in the Middle East has caused fuel prices to increase, impacting farm production costs as the agricultural economy continues to struggle. 

    Examples of a surface water and a deep well irrigation system (both furrow irrigation via poly pipe) were created using the performance assumptions presented in Table 1. Both diesel and electric power sources are explored.  A noticeable difference in system design is the required engine size (120 hp vs 100 hp) to achieve a common flow rate of 2,500 GPM as energy needed to pump water to the surface increases with depth. For a wide range of recent electricity and diesel fuel prices, the electric power source is generally more efficient and cost effective. 

    Table 1. Performance and Energy Consumption assumptions for surface and well irrigation systems with diesel and electric power. 

     SurfaceWell
    2500 GPM / Engine100 hp120 hp
    Run time per Acre-foot*2.172 hours2.172 hours
    Fuel TypeDieselElectricDieselElectric
    Fuel Consumption rate**6.78 gal / hr84.7 kW8.136 gal / hr101.64 kW
    Fuel Consumption per Acre-foot14.73 gal183.99 kWh17.67 gal220.79 kWh
    * 1 acre-foot = 325,851 gallons
    ** diesel consumption = 0.0678 gallons/horsepower/hour
         electric consumption = 0.847 kW / horsepower

    Using Louisiana as an example, in an average year, furrow irrigation using poly pipe is expected to deliver 10.5 acre-inches of water in three applications throughout the growing season for corn, soybeans, and cotton crops. However, in a continuous flood system for rice, the number of acre-inches can vary from 20-26 in upwards of six applications.  Irrigation pumping costs per acre are estimated for diesel and electric (Table 2) power options in surface and well irrigation systems.  

    Table 2. Irrigation diesel costs per-acre for varying fuel prices and applications 

    Diesel Fuel Price per gallonSurfaceWellElectricity Price per kWh*
    Row Crop Application at 10.5”Rice Application at 24”Row Crop Application at 10.5”Rice Application at 24”
    $1.50$19.33$44.19$23.20$53.02$0.1201
    $2.00$25.77$58.91$30.93$70.70$0.1601
    $2.50$32.22$73.64$38.66$88.37$0.2001 
    $3.00$38.67$88.38$46.39$106.04$0.2401 
    $3.50$45.11$103.10$54.13$123.73$0.2802 
    $4.00$51.55$117.83$61.86$141.39$0.3202 
    $4.50$57.99$132.56$69.59$159.07$0.3602 
    $5.00$64.44$147.30$77.32$176.74$0.4002 
    $5.50$70.88$162.10$85.06$194.42$0.4403 
    $6.00$77.32$176.74$92.79$212.04$0.4803 
    * electricity price resulting in the same per acre irrigation cost. 

    Variability in irrigation pumping costs can be observed in the following example for rice. Earlier this year, the diesel price was $3.00 per gallon. For a diesel-powered surface irrigation system applying 24 acre-inches of water, the total pumping costs would be $88.38 per acre. However, with a $5.00 per gallon fuel price, the pumping costs increase to $147.30 per acre. To irrigate a corn crop at 10.5 acre-inches for a surface system, pumping costs would increase from $38.67 to $64.44 per acre. These costs would only be magnified for a well system, as the cost per acre-inch is higher. 

    Table 2 also illustrates the general efficiency of electricity over diesel.  The last column includes electric prices that would result in equivalent irrigation costs per acre for each level of diesel fuel price.  With diesel at $5.00 per gallon, any electricity price less than $0.40/kWh would be more cost effective.  Commercial electricity rates are generally in the range of $0.15 to $0.20/kWh.  To match electric efficiency, diesel would have to be below $2.50/gallon.

    This analysis illustrates the direct impact of energy prices on irrigation costs. Lingering drought conditions can further increase water pumping costs by increasing the frequency of application across all systems. The benefits obtained from utilizing existing strategies (e.g., weather-based scheduling, surge irrigation, bulk purchasing fuel) and cost-effective technologies (e.g., soil moisture sensors, automated pump control) to increase irrigation efficiency can produce long-term cost savings.

    Recommended citation Format: Delbierto, Michael, and Stacia Davis-Conger.”Fuel Pricing Impacts Irrigation Pumping Costs Across All Systems.” Southern Ag Today 6(30.1). July 20, 2026. Permalink

  • United States Supreme Court Holds Roundup Failure to Warn Claims Preempted by Federal Law 

    United States Supreme Court Holds Roundup Failure to Warn Claims Preempted by Federal Law 

    The United States Supreme Court recently issued a 7-2 decision in Monsanto v. Durnell, holding that state‑law failure‑to‑warn claims related to pesticide labeling are expressly preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The case arose after John Durnell, a longtime Roundup user diagnosed with non‑Hodgkin’s lymphoma, sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging the company failed to warn consumers about cancer risks. Monsanto argued that FIFRA preempted such claims because federal law requires manufacturers to use EPA‑approved labels—and Roundup’s label, repeatedly reviewed and approved by the EPA since 1974, contains no cancer warning. 

    Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion emphasized FIFRA’s “uniformity” clause, which prohibits states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” federal requirements. Because Mr. Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning not included on the EPA‑approved label, the Court held the claim constituted an additional labeling requirement and was therefore preempted. The majority relied heavily on the fact that this was a safety claim, and during the registration process, the EPA thoroughly reviews all safety-related issues.  The majority stressed that EPA’s label approval reflects its determination that the label is not misleading and contains all necessary warnings; allowing states to impose additional requirements would undermine FIFRA’s regulatory structure. 

    Justice Thomas concurred but questioned FIFRA’s constitutionality, arguing Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause authority and improperly delegated legislative power to the EPA. He also seemed to question whether agriculture in general could be regulated pursuant to the Commerce Clause.  

    Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented. The dissent believed Mr. Durnell’s claim was equivalent to FIFRA’s misbranding standard, not “different from” it. Because EPA had not set specific cancer‑related warning requirements, she contended that Missouri’s failure‑to‑warn law merely duplicated federal obligations. The dissent emphasized that registration is only prima facie evidence of compliance and does not eliminate the possibility that a registered pesticide may still be misbranded. Jackson also rejected implied preemption, noting Monsanto could comply with both federal and state law by halting sales or seeking EPA approval for a revised label. 

    To read a more detailed summary, click here. 

    Recommended citation format: Lashmet, Tiffany Dowell. “United States Supreme Court Holds Roundup Failure to Warn Claims Preempted by Federal Law.” Southern Ag Today 6(29.5). July 17, 2026. Permalink

  • Can the U.S. South Regain Its Hardwood Market in China?

    Can the U.S. South Regain Its Hardwood Market in China?

    Established following the May 2026 summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the U.S.-China Board of Trade is a new bilateral initiative aimed at rebuilding commercial ties between the U.S. and China by reducing trade barriers, addressing tariff disputes, and encouraging trade between countries (USTR, 2026). Implementation details, including which products will be covered, how procurement commitments will be measured, and how compliance will be enforced, are still being finalized. 

    In a recent bipartisan letter to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, members of Congress urged the Administration to explicitly include “American hardwood lumber” in the newly established framework, to ensure that China’s procurement commitments prioritize U.S. hardwood lumber. The lawmakers argue that restoring access to the Chinese market is critical for the U.S. hardwood industry. As noted in the letter, the industry has suffered nearly $10 billion in lost sales and a 48% decline in domestic hardwood lumber production since the onset of the U.S. trade war with China in 2018. See the following link for a full copy of the letter: https://www.shaheen.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ustr_hardwood_letter.pdf. 

    The importance of this letter becomes clearer when viewed in the context of the hardwood industry and declining export sales, especially to China. 

    The U.S. is one of the world’s leading producers and exporters of hardwood logs and lumber, with exports providing an important source of income for forest landowners, sawmills, and rural communities. Hardwood exports are particularly significant in the U.S. South, a region characterized by abundant timber resources and a strong dependence on international markets for sales. For instance, the largest hardwood export category, oak lumber (red and white), was valued at $873 million in 2025, led by exports from the South ($327 million) where North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky are top suppliers. It is important to note that prior to the 2018 trade war, U.S. oak lumber exports were $1.3 billion. In 2017, China accounted for more than 60% of U.S. oak lumber exports. This decreased to 34% in 2025 (USDA, 2026).

    Trade data show just how important the Chinese market has been for southern hardwood producers (See Figure 1). Exports of hardwood products from the South experienced strong growth after 2010, driven largely by rising demand from China. Southern hardwood lumber exports to all destinations increased from roughly $500 million in 2010 to more than $1.2 billion in 2017, while exports to China alone grew from less than $200 million to nearly $700 million over the same period. This pattern highlights the central role that China played in expanding markets for southern hardwood producers. Hardwood log exports also benefited from Chinese demand, although growth was more modest than for lumber.

    The 2018 trade war marked a clear turning point. Following retaliatory tariffs imposed by China, hardwood lumber exports to China fell sharply, dropping by nearly half between 2018 and 2019. Exports have never returned to their pre-trade-war levels and continued to decline through 2025. Lumber exports from the South to all countries also trended downward after 2018, suggesting that losses in the Chinese market were only partially offset by sales to other destinations. Southern hardwood log exports have also weakened, although they have generally been more stable than lumber exports. Overall, the figure shows how deeply the southern hardwood industry depended on China before 2018 and how the trade war fundamentally altered exports. 

    Rebuilding trade with China could help strengthen the southern hardwood industry. Among overseas markets, China emerged as one of the most important destinations for U.S. hardwood products. Expanding furniture manufacturing and increasing demand for high-quality wood materials contributed to a substantial rise in U.S. hardwood exports to China. As a result, many U.S. hardwood producers became increasingly reliant on Chinese demand. These exports supported employment, investment, and forest management activities throughout southern states. 

    Figure 1. U.S. Hardwood Exports from Southern States to All Countries and China: 2010-2025

    Note: Hardwood lumber exports are based on all Harmonized System (HS) classifications from 4407.91 – 4407.99, and hardwood logs are based on HS 4403.91 – HS 4403.99.
    Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (2026)

    For more information:

    Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) (2026). USTR Seeks Public Comment on the Scope and Operation of a Mechanism to Promote Balanced and Reciprocal Trade with China. Press Release (June 02, 2026). https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2026/june/ustr-seeks-public-comment-scope-and-operation-mechanism-promote-balanced-and-reciprocal-trade-china

    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2026). Global Agricultural Trade System. Foreign Agricultural Service. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx

    Recommended citation format: Muhammad, Andrew. “Can the U.S. South Regain Its Hardwood Market in China?” Southern Ag Today 6(29.4). July 16, 2026. Permalink