Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • July 2026 WASDE: Acreage Moves in July, Yields Move in August

    July 2026 WASDE: Acreage Moves in July, Yields Move in August

    The July World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report has a reputation as a quiet one for most crops. The reason is timing: USDA releases the Acreage report at the end of June (Rabinowitz, 2026), and the World Agricultural Outlook Board folds those acreage numbers into the July WASDE while leaving yield projections untouched until the August surveys begin. Wheat is the exception, receiving its largest yield revision of the year in July. Because the acreage numbers are already public, prices tend to move when the Acreage report is released, not when the WASDE repeats it two weeks later.

    Figure 1 shows the average absolute revision to acreage and yield in each monthly WASDE from the 2010/11 marketing year through the most recent report. The pattern is clear: the largest acreage revisions cluster in July with small changes to yield estimates when the Acreage report enters the balance sheet, and the largest yield revisions arrive in August with the first survey-based estimates.    

    On the supply side, the July 2026 WASDE mostly followed the script. Acreage changed for soybeans (+0.8%), wheat (-2.5%), cotton (+2.2%), and rice (-12.9%), while corn acreage was left unchanged. Yield revisions were modest: wheat (+1.9%), cotton (+0.7%), and rice (+0.2%), with corn and soybean yields held at trend. Adding in beginning stocks and imports, total corn supply fell 120 million bushels (-0.7%), soybean supply rose 30 million bushels (+0.6%), wheat supply fell 22 million bushels (-0.8%), cotton supply rose 0.4 million bales (+2.3%), and rice supply fell 20.9 million cwt (-7.6%).

    On the demand side, corn and soybean total use increased 50 million bushels (+0.3%) and 30 million bushels (+0.7%), both on stronger exports. Rice was the opposite: USDA cut total use 9 million cwt (-3.9%), mostly domestic, to absorb part of the smaller crop.

    The net result shows up in ending stocks. Carryout fell 8.7% for corn (moderately bullish), 3.0% for wheat (mildly bullish), and 27.8% for rice (strongly bullish), while cotton carryout rose 10.8% (bearish) and soybean carryout was unchanged (neutral).

    The quiet reputation of the July WASDE is really a statement about yields, not about the balance sheet. The report rarely delivers new information because the June 30 Acreage and Grain Stocks reports have already done the talking, but as this month shows, what they say can be substantial. Rice supplies tightened dramatically, corn carryout fell on stronger old-crop use, and cotton stocks built with no offsetting demand. For Southern producers, the July report is less a market event than a scorecard of how the June Acreage and Grain Stocks reports reshaped the year ahead. The real test arrives in August, when USDA replaces trend yields with its first survey-based estimates and the largest revisions of the season historically follow. With corn and soybean yields still penciled in at trend, August, not July, is the report with the most room to surprise.

    Recommended citation format: Gardner, Grant. “July 2026 WASDE: Acreage Moves in July, Yields Move in August.” Southern Ag Today 6(29.3). July 15, 2026. Permalink

  • Data Centers and Poultry Growers

    Data Centers and Poultry Growers

    Of all the factors that might influence the cost of producing poultry for U.S. contract growers, data centers likely would not come to mind. Yet their impact may be broader than expected, bringing both benefits and challenges.

    First, we might consider what a data center does.  They are physical buildings that house large numbers of computer servers.  These computers provide 3 basic roles:  data storage, computer processing, and sending out digital information.  Artificial intelligence (AI) systems use these massive computer systems to perform the calculations, searches, and generate answers.  Because a data center is a massive number of computer networks linked together, they require a massive amount of electricity and water to keep them running and cool.

    On the positive side, modern poultry farms are increasingly connected through internet-based, integrated control systems. AI based decision systems hold the potential to further transform management decision making leading to economic gains.  Internet based control systems allow growers to monitor and adjust housing conditions around the clock from virtually anywhere using smart devices. The continued expansion of data networks enhances the speed, reliability, and responsiveness of these systems. This benefits growers by helping them better maintain bird welfare and respond quickly to changing conditions, while integrators gain from improved efficiency and lower grow-out costs. 

    However, the downside is more complex. Data centers are massive consumers of electricity. Estimates suggest their power demand could rise significantly by the end of the decade, potentially accounting for a sizable share of total U.S. electricity use. Increased demand from data centers is widely expected to contribute to higher electricity costs. This matters greatly for poultry operations, which already rely heavily on electricity for ventilation, cooling, and environmental control. A typical broiler farm in the Southeast may use around 1.65 kWh per square foot annually, totaling roughly 132 megawatt-hours for a standard four-house operation. 

    Water use presents another important area of overlap. Both poultry farms and data centers require substantial amounts of water to manage heat. A large data center may consume over a million gallons of water per day, many times what an entire broiler farm uses in a full year. Although the scale and timing differ, both experience peak demand during hot weather. Additionally, both are often located in rural areas where supply systems may be less robust and water resources more limited. Increased competition for water can strain local utilities, drive up water costs, and potentially deplete aquifers that supply farm wells. This is particularly concerning in regions already facing tight water supplies.

    The effects may extend even further into heating costs. To meet growing electricity demand, much of it driven by data centers, utility companies are investing in new natural gas-fired power plants as a relatively fast way to expand generation capacity. In parts of the Southeast, planned additions of natural gas capacity are substantial (Figure 1). Some data center operators are even considering on-site natural gas generation to power their facilities independently.

    For poultry growers, this increased demand for natural gas could lead to higher fuel prices if supply does not expand sufficiently. Since heating is a major cost, especially in broiler production, this could significantly affect profitability. The situation is further complicated by the link between natural gas and propane (LP), as a large share of U.S. propane is derived from natural gas production. Increased natural gas output could potentially boost propane supply and moderate LP prices, meaning growers using propane might see different cost impacts than those relying on natural gas.

    In short, while data centers provide the internet infrastructure to improve efficiency for modern poultry production, they also intensify competition for electricity, water, and fuel. This creates a mixed and evolving cost landscape for growers.

    Figure 1: Looking at the top 10 broiler producing states, increased natural gas usage by power plants is seen across the board. However, the broiler heavy states of Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and North Carolina are leading the way in increased NG usage for electricity production (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2026)

    References: 

    Recommended citation format: Brothers, Dennis. “Data Centers and Poultry Growers.” Southern Ag Today 6(29.2). July 14, 2026. Permalink

  • “How Much Are You Selling Those Tomatoes For?” A Regional Collaboration

    “How Much Are You Selling Those Tomatoes For?” A Regional Collaboration

    Authors: Kevin Burkett and Brett Wolff

    Farmers markets across the country are in full swing this time of year. Farmers markets play a critical role in local agriculture. It is a place where buyers and growers gather, a place that creates community, where people can enjoy a leisurely stroll, and where many product samples (and even a bit of town gossip) get shared. Many markets share similar features, and yet each one is a bit different as to customer segments, market structure, products being sold, and the economics behind them. This is true of markets within a state or region, and even more broadly of markets across the U.S. Just like product offerings and prices vary at grocery stores, the same is true of farmers markets. Often, product availability is based on regional tastes, seasonality, profitability, and inputs or growing conditions needed to produce the items. 

    Recently, a group of land-grant institutions and state programs have been meeting on a regular basis to discuss formal reporting at farmers markets. There are a small number of states that are independently coordinating reporting projects across their areas. Some states have had longer-term projects, and others are more recent. The methods and details may differ, but the goal of the programs is the same: documenting which items are being sold, when, and at what price. While the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has collected market data via its Market News segment for a long time, the local farmers market reports focus on direct-to-customer sales (compared to wholesale) and aims to include staple items, (sometimes) previously undocumented crops, and multiple regions of a state or area (compared to one urban center). The data collected seeks to represent numerous markets within a state to help producers, consumers, and agriculture professionals understand more about local foods.  

    These reports can help farmers, customers, researchers, and the public. The University of Kentucky found that farmers use local price reports to set prices, choose crops, budget, write business plans, determine markets, conduct feasibility studies, and pursue grants and loans. Technical assistance providers also use reports to support clients in navigating these decisions (Wolff and Woods). For customers, it can provide information on what’s available, when, and the cost. This can be especially informative for value-added processors, restaurants, and other food businesses that might put an emphasis on using local products. For research, data can show the effects of the overall economy, support programs, natural disasters, black swan events, or political impacts. For a general audience, price reports can enhance our understanding of local agriculture production and food systems. Annual reports provide data to analyze trends, developments, and economic impacts over time. For these reasons, the states and project coordinators continue to push local reporting. 

    Currently, the authors are aware of price reporting projects in Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, and West Virginia. 

    For more information about the reporting projects or to get involved, please contact the article authors. 

    Reference:

    Wolff, B. and T. Woods (2026) Local Price Reporting as Food System Infrastructure: Evidence from Kentucky Farmers Markets and Produce Auctions. Forthcoming.

    Recommended citation format: Burkett, Kevin, and Brett Wolff. “How Much Are You Selling Those Tomatoes For? A Regional Collaboration.” Southern Ag Today 6(29.1). July 13, 2026. Permalink

  • Status of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Tariff Litigation

    Status of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Tariff Litigation

    Introduction

    At the onset of 2025, President Trump laid tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China under a claim of authority from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This act, passed in 1977, grants the president the authority to “regulate . . . importation” in response to a declared national emergency. President Trump claimed that “poisonous fentanyl” and “the extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens” had led to national emergencies in the U.S., which justified the imposition of tariffs under IEEPA. Whether IEEPA actually allowed for a president to implement tariffs was a question raised in multiple lawsuits, and eventually the Supreme Court stepped in to provide their answer. 

    The Supreme Court’s Decision 

    Two separate cases were ultimately consolidated in the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the IEEPA tariffs. One casebegan in the Court of International Trade (CIT) when a group of businesses filed a complaint asserting that IEEPA did not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The second case, originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, similarly challenged the scope of IEEPA’s authority. After both cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, the Court combined both cases in its decision of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. There, the Supreme Court sought to answer the question which had prompted both lower court cases: Does IEEPA authorize the President to impose tariffs? 

    To resolve this dispute, the Supreme Court needed to determine whether “regulate . . . importation” included the authority to lay tariffs. First, the Court noted that the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to lay and collect taxes, which has historically included tariffs. According to the Court, when Congress wishes to confer its authority to lay taxes and tariffs it will do so “clearly.” The Court reasoned that “when Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits.” 

    Here, the Court ultimately determined that Congress had not explicitly conferred the authority to impose tariffs through IEEPA. In reaching this conclusion, the Court looked at precedent and the text of IEEPA itself.  First, no President has ever relied on IEEPA to impose tariffs. Given this lack of precedent and the “breadth of authority” now being claimed under IEEPA, the Court concluded that the IEEPA tariffs were beyond the President’s “legitimate reach.” Second, and perhaps most importantly, the word “tariff” is not mentioned anywhere in IEEPA’s text. The Court reasoned that if Congress had intended for IEEPA to include the power to lay tariffs, it would have made that clear in IEEPA’s text, “as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.” Without any historical precedent or clear Congressional intent, the Court concluded in a 6-3 decision that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose tariffs. 

    The Aftermath 

    The Court’s decision vacated the IEEPA tariffs, however it did not discuss the issue of potential refunds. Considering the massive impact of the IEEPA tariffs, this left many businesses wondering if and how refunds would be issued for the now vacated IEEPA tariffs. Following an order to begin issuing refunds from the CIT, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) outlined its new system for processing and issuing IEEPA refunds. The Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system is a digital portal where importers can file a refund claim for duties paid while the tariffs were in effect. The CAPE system is being implemented through a “phased development” with system functions being implemented over time. Businesses who paid duties pursuant to the IEEPA tariffs should visit CBP’s website to learn more about potential IEEPA refunds under the CAPE system. 

    Shortly after the Court vacated the IEEPA tariffs, President Trump announced that he would be implementing a global 10% tariff rate. This time, President Trump claimed the tariffs were authorized by Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. As was the case with IEEPA, no President had ever relied on Section 122 to implement tariffs. Unlike IEEPA, Section 122 does explicitly grant the President the authority to impose tariffs. However, the Section 122 tariffs would still go on to face legal challenges. Currently, the Section 122 tariffs are still in effect at an increased rate of 15%, but this is subject to change depending on the outcome of ongoing litigation. Regardless, these tariffs are indicative of the Administration’s ongoing intent to continue placing emphasis on tariffs in its international trade strategy. 

    Conclusion

    The IEEPA tariffs dominated international trade headlines while still in effect. Reportedly, nearly $140 billion in duties were collected from the IEEPA tariffs by December of 2025. Naturally, this means that many businesses felt their effects. While the IEEPA tariffs may now be vacated, refunds and tariffs enacted under other statutes remain an important issue for many business owners. To learn more about the Supreme Court’s decision to vacate the IEEPA tariffs, click here. To learn more about the aftermath of the Court’s decision, click here. 

    Recommended citation format: Scobey, Will. “Status of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Tariff Litigation.” Southern Ag Today 6(28.5). July 10, 2026. Permalink

  • The Next Farm Bill Needs to Address Economic Realities

    The Next Farm Bill Needs to Address Economic Realities

    Authors: Joe Outlaw and Bart Fischer

    The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry released its discussion draft of the Agricultural Act of 2026 on June 23rd with the expectation to advance the legislation after the summer recess.  The House of Representatives has passed their version of the farm bill and await the Senate passing their version so that differences can be worked out in conference.  Prior to passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) last summer, there had been a lot of discussion regarding the need for—and the impacts of—ad hoc assistance that had been provided to farmers due to the inadequacies of the current farm bill programs.  We have discussed these issues here, here and here.  The hope had been that, as we move forward, the improvements in OBBBA would reduce the need for ad hoc assistance, with the changes to Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) providing a meaningful safety net for producers when needed.

    So, what’s the problem?  Quite simply, even though OBBBA raised producer payment limits to $160,000 per person or legal entity per year from $125,000, when times are bad, it simply is not enough assistance to be a viable safety net for a commercial sized farm.  Lest anyone gets hung up on the use of the term “commercial,” here we use it to describe a family farm that attempts to make their living primarily from farming.

    Every major agricultural group in this country has advocated for additional ad hoc economic and physical loss assistance that has come in the form of the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP), the Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) program, and the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP).  The ECAP payment limitation was $125,000 per person or legal entity (doubled to $250,000 if at least 75% of your average gross income comes from farming, ranching, or forestry).  The payment limit for the FBA program was $155,000 per person or legal entity.  The Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) has provided physical loss assistance to producers for the 2023 and 2024 crop years, thus far.  There is a $125,000 producer payment limit per program year (doubled to $250,000 if at least 75% of your average adjusted gross income comes from farming, ranching, or forestry).

    While covering different types of losses over the past three years, $37.09 billion has been provided to producers, with each program having its own payment limitation.  While we can extol the virtues of ending ad hoc assistance—ranging from the fact that it is uncertain and delivered long after the losses occur to the fact that it is likely contributing to the stickiness of input costs—there is virtually no way that farm bill programs (i.e., ARC and PLC) could replace that kind of assistance, in part because of the $160,000 payment limitation per person or legal entity. If the payment limits are not further addressed to reflect economic realities, then demands for ad hoc assistance will continue in the near term and Congress will have gone to a lot of trouble make the safety net programs more meaningful to producers only to see payment limits render them less effective.

    Recommended citation format: Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. “The Next Farm Bill Needs to Address Economic Realities.” Southern Ag Today 6(28.4). July 9, 2026. Permalink