Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • Financial Literacy for All: Addressing Disparities Through Targeted Education

    Financial Literacy for All: Addressing Disparities Through Targeted Education

    Despite growing awareness of the issue, access to high-quality financial education remains inconsistent, especially in vulnerable communities. Studies have shown that early intervention, ideally during high school or even middle school, can lay the groundwork for responsible money habits later in life [Urb+20]. Educators and nonprofit organizations around the globe are now designing curricula focused on real-world financial skills: budgeting, navigating loans, understanding interest rates, and more. By integrating practical lessons into classroom settings, students can build confidence in handling money matters and cultivate healthy habits that last well into adulthood.

    Recent evidence further underscores the importance of targeting financial education efforts toward vulnerable groups. Wagner (2019) found that financial education, whether provided in high school, college, or through employers, is strongly associated with higher financial literacy scores, with the effect being especially pronounced among individuals with lower income and education levels. Using national survey data, the study highlights that financial education can substantially narrow financial knowledge gaps, particularly benefiting populations who are often vulnerable by traditional financial systems.

    This targeted approach is especially critical given the complex modern financial landscape. Recent surveys reveal that many adults struggle to grasp even the basics of personal finance. In 2024, the Personal Finance Index (P-Fin Index) published by TIAA Institute-GFLEC revealed that, on average, U.S. adults answered only 48% of the 28 questions correctly, indicating significant knowledge gaps in areas such as compound interest, inflation, and risk diversification [TG24]. This finding underscores a widespread lack of financial knowledge. Moreover, women, low-income individuals, and those with lower levels of education are particularly prone to these gaps [LM20], which further emphasizes the need for targeted educational interventions.

    From a broader societal perspective, enhancing financial literacy helps build stronger and more equitable economies, particularly for vulnerable communities. Research demonstrates that financially literate individuals are more likely to start small businesses, avoid predatory lending practices, and remain resilient during economic downturns [Con22; KLO15]. This is especially significant for low-income and minority populations who have historically faced barriers to financial information and services. A cross-national study of 143 countries found that regions with targeted financial education programs experienced increased formal banking participation among previously unbanked populations, reducing their reliance on exploitative informal financial services [GKM18; CSZ16]. When vulnerable communities gain financial knowledge, they become better protected against financial fraud and predatory lending practices that disproportionately target these populations [BS21].

    The necessity of financial literacy education cannot be overstated. Clear, accessible, and well-structured programs that address core concepts offer individuals of all ages the tools they need to manage their resources effectively. Bolstering one’s financial knowledge can have profound implications, not just for personal prosperity but for the economic well-being of entire communities [LM20].

    References

    [BS21] B. Balasubramnian and J. D. Springer. “Impact of Inflated Perceptions of Financial Literacy on Financial Decision Making.” Journal of Economic Psychology 82 (2021), p. 102343. DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2020.102306.

    [Con22] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Financial Literacy Annual Report. Tech. rep., Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 2022. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-reports/financial-literacy-annual-report/.

    [CSZ16] S. Cole, T. Sampson, and B. Zia. “Prices or Knowledge? What Drives Demand for Financial Services in Emerging Markets?” Journal of Finance 66.6 (2016), pp. 1933–1967. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01696.x.

    [GKM18] A. Grohmann, T. Klühs, and L. Menkhoff. “Does Financial Literacy Improve Financial Inclusion? Cross Country Evidence.” World Development 111 (2018), pp. 84–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.020.

    [KLO15] L. Klapper, A. Lusardi, and P. van Oudheusden. “Financial Literacy Around the World: Insights from the Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services Global Financial Literacy Survey.” World Bank Research Report (2015). https://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/3313-Finlit_Report_FINAL-5.11.16.pdf.

    [LM20] A. Lusardi and O. S. Mitchell. “Financial Literacy and Financial Resilience: Evidence from Around the World.” Financial Management 49 (2020). DOI: 10.1111/fima.12283.

    [TG24] TIAA Institute and Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center. 2024 TIAA Institute-GFLEC Personal Finance Index: Financial Literacy in the United States. Tech. rep., TIAA Institute, 2024. https://gflec.org/initiatives/personal-financeindex/.

    [Urb+20] C. Urban et al. “The Effects of High School Personal Financial Education Policies on Financial Behavior.” Economics of Education Review 78 (2020), p. 101786. DOI: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.03.006.

    [Wag19] J. Wagner. “Financial Education and Financial Literacy by Income and Education Groups.” Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning 30.1 (2019), pp. 132–141. DOI: 10.1891/10523073.30.1.132.

    Lee, Siun. “Financial Literacy for All: Addressing Disparities Through Targeted Education.” Southern Ag Today 5(37.5). September 12, 2025. Permalink

  • Measuring the Revenue Risk Reduction of Supplemental Crop Insurance Policies

    Measuring the Revenue Risk Reduction of Supplemental Crop Insurance Policies

    From 2015 to 2023, crop insurance programs played a critical role in protecting American farmers from financial risk, particularly in the face of increasing climate volatility. By combining basic policies—such as Actual Production History (APH), Yield Protection (YP), Revenue Protection (RP), and RP with Harvest Price Exclusion (RP-HPE)—with supplemental options like the Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) and Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO), producers saw substantial improvements in both revenue stability and risk reduction.

    Under baseline conditions, the integration of these supplemental insurance layers resulted in a 27.9% increase in the chance to receive insurance funds that offset weather revenue losses, compared to farming without insurance. This revenue loss reduction comes from both subsidized premiums and indemnity payments that compensated for losses. More importantly, the variability in farm revenue dropped by nearly half—49.05%—and downside risks were dramatically reduced. Relative downside risk fell by 83.6%, while absolute downside risk declined by 80.98%. These figures reflect a significant buffer against income shocks, achieved at a relatively low cost: an actuarially fair premium rate of just 12.34 cents per dollar of liability, with 63.67% of that cost covered by federal subsidies. Farmers paid only 4.35 cents per dollar out of pocket.

    However, the benefits of crop insurance were not evenly distributed across all crops and regions. Cotton emerged as the crop with the highest reduction in downside revenue risk at 88.47%, followed closely by corn (85.91%), canola (83.41%), and wheat (82.42%). Other major crops such as soybeans, peanuts, and rice also saw meaningful reductions, but were lower than the crops above. Geographically, states like Arizona (cotton), Iowa (corn), Indiana (soybeans), Minnesota (corn), and Illinois (corn) led the nation in risk reduction, with rates exceeding 86%. In contrast, states such as Arkansas, California, Vermont, Louisiana, and West Virginia reported lower reductions, often below 71%.

    Further analysis revealed a trade-off: programs that delivered the greatest risk protection also tended to involve higher revenue transfers and greater out-of-pocket costs for producers. The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB or OB3) that passed in July 2025 included an increase in premium subsidy for SCO and ECO, increasing subsidy rates to 80%. Further, underlying basic policy subsidies increased by 5 percentage points. This balance between security and affordability remains a key consideration for producer decision making going forward.

    Together, these results underscore the importance of crop insurance as a cornerstone of agricultural risk management. As climate-related disasters become more frequent and severe, the role of insurance in stabilizing farm income and supporting rural economies will only grow more vital.

    Illustration of supplemental coverage combined with an underlying individual policy at 75% coverage level 

    Tsiboe, Francis, Hunter Biram, and Amy Hagerman. “Measuring the Revenue Risk Reduction of Supplemental Crop Insurance Policies.” Southern Ag Today 5(37.4). September 11, 2025. Permalink

  • Sorghum’s Big Crop, Bigger Risks

    Sorghum’s Big Crop, Bigger Risks

    The U.S. sorghum market enters 2025/26 with a bigger crop, weaker domestic demand, and uncertain access to China. The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects U.S. sorghum production at 9.94 million metric tons (MMT), up nearly 14% from last year. At home, demand is wilting, with domestic use set to fall by almost a quarter. The market hinges on foreign demand, especially from China.  

    China’s use is expected to jump nearly 50% in 2025/26 to over 11 MMT, and imports may approach 8 MMT (USDA-ERS, 2025). On a 2019-2023 quantity average, about 72% of China’s sorghum imports came from the United States (FAO, 2025). Yet, the U.S. export rebound is far from assured. In early 2025, following the U.S.-China trade dispute, Beijing imposed duties on U.S. sorghum and suspended firms on quality grounds. Shipments to China fell more than 95% in the first half of the year (Table 1). 

    Australia and Argentina moved quickly to fill part of the gap, sending sorghum—including some cleared for baijiu (a Chinese liquor made from fermented sorghum)—into South China ports. For farmers across Texas and the Southern Plains, the result has been a fragile Gulf basis, highly sensitive to whether Chinese demand resumes or alternative buyers step in. Mexico remains steady; Spain is emerging (Table 1); and Vietnam is showing interest. But no one matches Beijing’s scale. 

    The season-average farm price is forecasted to be near $3.70/bu., with sorghum trading at a discount to corn. A strong Chinese pull narrows the corn-sorghum spread; policy frictions widen it. In the near term, the U.S. has grain but not guaranteed access. 

    Producers can hedge sorghum against corn futures, closely monitor export flows, and scale sales when rallies appear due to demand from China or Mexico. For now, USDA is projecting U.S. sorghum exports to China to more than double to 5.72 MMT in 2025/26 (Figure 1). Ultimately, sorghum’s fate rests less in fields than in the outcomes of geopolitics.

    Figure 1 – U.S. Sorghum Supply, Use, and Ending Stocks. 

    Obs.: This figure compares USDA ERS/WASDE 2024/25 estimates with 2025/26 August projections. All values are in million metric tons.
     Source: USDA-ERS (2025). 

    Table 1 – U.S. Sorghum Export Shipments by Destination (metric tons

    Country20242025
    Qtr1Qtr2Qtr3Qtr1Qtr2Qtr3
    China1,944,8221,156,2801,018,67083,2913,117 
    Colombia  53
    Eritrea32,55133,00033,000   
    Haiti  239
    Japan809,061406036,2039,471
    Mexico493 23,724202,791117,619
    Spain   51,932110,34233,967
    Taiwan  2,000
    United Kingdom   22  
    Total1,977,9461,198,3411,051,710159,268354,453161,110
    Obs.: Quarterly exports correspond to the sum of USDA FAS “Weekly Exports” for the weeks in that quarter. “Weekly Exports” are actual shipments that left the United States during the reporting week (Friday–Thursday), as reported by exporters under the Export Sales Reporting program. Quarters are calendar quarters (Q1=Jan–Mar, etc.); totals may differ from WASDE marketing-year exports (Sep 1–Aug 31) due to different time windows, sources, and rounding.
    Source: USDA-FAS (2025). 

    References

    FAO (2025). FAOSTAT: Detailed trade matrix (TM) [Data set]. Retrieved September 8, 2025, from https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TM

    USDA-ERS (2025) Commodity Outlook – WASDE projections at a glance. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/commodity-outlook/wasde-projections-at-a-glance

    USDA-FAS (2025). Export sales query system. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from https://apps.fas.usda.gov/esrquery/esrq.aspx

    Calil, Yuri, and Pancho Abello. “Sorghum’s Big Crop, Bigger Risks.” Southern Ag Today 5(37.3). September 10, 2025. Permalink

  • Productivity In Cattle, Hogs, and Lambs

    Productivity In Cattle, Hogs, and Lambs

    One of the questions that has been asked repeatedly lately is “how have we managed to keep beef production relatively high when we have the smallest cow herd since 1961?”  The simple answer is “productivity.”  The cattle industry produces more beef per cow than ever before.  Productivity changes are also occurring in the production of pork and lamb. This SAT article examines production per breeding animal for cattle, hogs, and lambs, with differing reasons in each sector.  We’ll follow up on poultry and dairy in a later article.

    Cattle and Beef

    Beef production per cow has, generally, increased during this century. Whether measured by production per beef cow or production per all cows (which includes dairy cows), there is an upward trend. The cattle cycle impacts production measures when herd expansion reduces beef production due to heifers and cows being held back.  Beef production per all cows has increased from 629 pounds per cow in 2000 to 724 pounds in 2024. The growth in production per cow is even more dramatic if measured by beef cows only, where production per cow has increased from 166 pounds per cow to 966 pounds in 2024.

    Increasing beef production per cow has come, largely, from increased weights. Dressed weights for fed steers and heifers have steadily increased for many years. There is less evidence of changes in calving rates boosting productivity over the last 25 years.

    Hogs and Pork

    Pork production per sow has increased rapidly throughout this century, going from 3,041 pounds in 2000 to 4,635 pounds per sow in 2024, an increase of 52 percent.  In contrast to beef per cow, production per sow gains have come from rapid gains in pigs per litter, and litters per sow per year, along with weights. Barrow and gilt dressed weights have increased from about 190 pounds per head in 2000 to an average of 212 pounds per head in 2024. Pigs per litter have increased from 8.8 in 2000 to about 11.8 in 2024, while litters per sow per year have grown from 1.8 to about 1.94 over the same time period. 

    In recent years, litters per year per sow and weights have declined while the number of pigs per litter has continued to grow. Disease events like Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea (PEDv) reduced pork production per sow.  

    Lamb

    Lamb and mutton production per ewe tells an opposite story to beef and pork over this century. Production per ewe has declined from about 57 pounds per ewe in 2000 to 48 pounds per ewe in 2024. The decline in production per ewe is mostly attributable to declining dressed weights. The industry has experienced a dramatic change over time due to the emergence and growth of the non-traditional market, with many buyers desiring smaller carcasses. The growth of hair sheep breeds replacing many traditional wool breeds has also likely aided in that dressed weight decline.  

    Production per breeding animal is one way to look at productivity changes over time.  Economic incentives, genetics, nutrition, animal health, and market changes have all been involved in changing productivity. Other efficiency measures could also be employed to examine productivity. But, this simple measure of pounds per breeding animal goes a long way in examining the changing structure of livestock industries.  

    Anderson, David, and Charley Martinez. “Productivity In Cattle, Hogs, and Lambs.” Southern Ag Today 5(37.2). September 9, 2025. Permalink

  • Tracking Chapter 12 Bankruptcies in the South: 2015 – 2025 Trends and Identifying On-Farm Stress

    Tracking Chapter 12 Bankruptcies in the South: 2015 – 2025 Trends and Identifying On-Farm Stress

    What is Chapter 12 Bankruptcy?

    Chapter 12 bankruptcy is a provision under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code tailored specifically for family farmers and fishermen. Introduced in 1986 during the height of the farm crisis, Chapter 12 allows qualifying family farmers to restructure their debts while continuing to operate. It offers a more flexible repayment structure than Chapter 11 or Chapter 13. 

    Chapter 12 Filings in the Southern Region 

    Data from 2015 to 2025 (measured from July 1 of the preceding year to June 30 of the labeled year) highlight important developments in Chapter 12 bankruptcy trends across the southern United States. Total Chapter 12 filings in the south have fluctuated over the past decade, peaking at 148 filings in 2020 before sharply declining to 53 in 2023 (see Figure 1). This decline aligns with post-pandemic trends across the United States due in part to government assistance and higher commodity prices, which improved short-term farm financial conditions. However, the most recent year of data (e.g., July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025) shows a rebound to 101 filings. This may suggest that on-farm financial pressures are intensifying for southern producers. 

    Figure 1. Total Chapter 12 Filings for the Southern Region, 2015 – 2025

    *Note: 2025 = July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025
    Source: UScourts.gov

    Digging deeper into state-level filings reveals that Georgia, Texas, and Arkansas account for a large share of filings over the 2015 to 2025 period. Georgia recorded the highest total filings, with more than 30 annually through 2018 and peaking at 42 in 2017. Arkansas has shown a significant surge in the most recent reporting period from 4 filings in 2023 to 25 in 2025 (Figure 1). This increase in Chapter 12 filings signals financial stress in Arkansas despite more stable trends in neighboring states (e.g., Mississippi). The current state-level differences may point to uneven financial pressures within the southern region, which is likely shaped by crop mix, farm size, or local crop production systems. The 2025 rebound in filings could be due to the cyclical nature of agriculture following several years of low bankruptcy filings.  But the increase also raises concerns about on-farm financial stress in southern agriculture. For smaller family-owned operations with limited liquidity, these pressures can become untenable, making bankruptcy not just an option, but a necessity. 

    Farm operations are often generational legacies, woven into family identity and rooted in the community. For many, bankruptcy is not only a financial loss but also an emotional burden. Bankruptcies serve as a reminder that financial stress in agriculture extends beyond the farm. It often impacts families, rural communities, and personal well-being. Tight (or non-existent) margins, increasing input costs, and mounting debt pressures can erode both financial stability and a producer’s sense of identity. These realities highlight the importance of timely support through open conversations, proactive engagement, and access to financial and mental health resources, including dedicated services such as the National AgriStress Helpline (1-833-897-2474) and the SAMHSA Disaster Distress Helpline (1-800-985-5990), both of which are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As pressure continues to mount, directly addressing farm stress is essential to sustaining farm operations and safeguarding the vitality of families and rural communities. 

    References

    Loy, Ryan, and Hunter Biram. “The Disparity Between Crop Prices Received and Input Prices Paid.” Southern Ag Today 4(28.3). July 10, 2024. Permalink

    Fields, Erica, and Ronald Rainey. “Identifying Financial Stress in Farmers and Ranchers: A Guide for Families, Friends, and Agricultural Community Stakeholders.” University of Arkansas Factsheet. Retrieved from: https://www.uaex.uada.edu/publications/pdf/FSA96.pdf

    USDA-Economic Research Service (2025). Farm Sector Income & Finances: Highlights from the Farm Income Forecast. Retrieved from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-income-finances/highlights-from-the-farm-income-forecast/

    USDA- Economic, Statistics, and Market Information System. (2025). Agricultural Prices. Retrieved from: https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/c821gj76b?locale=en

    United States Courts. (2025). Caseload Statistics Data Tables. Retrieved from: https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/caseload-statistics-data-tables

    Loy, Ryan, Erica Barnes Fields, and Ronald Rainey. “Tracking Chapter 12 Bankruptcies in the South: 2015 – 2025 Trends and Identifying On-Farm Stress.” Southern Ag Today 5(37.1). September 8, 2025. Permalink