Blog

  • 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

  • Clearing the Air on Manure: What the New Ruling Means for Agriculture

    Clearing the Air on Manure: What the New Ruling Means for Agriculture

    We are excited to bring you the 1,000th Southern Ag Today article! 

    A recent federal district court decision constituted a big win for livestock and poultry operations around the country.  For years, there has been uncertainty related to livestock and poultry operations’ obligation to report air emissions under two federal laws, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).  Congress amended CERCLA in 2018 to exempt livestock operations from air emissions reporting; however, it did not include a similar exemption in EPCRA.  Shortly after the change, the EPA exempted livestock operations from EPCRA’s reporting requirements.  Environmental groups sued over this exemption arguing that the exemption violated EPCRA.

    In August 2025, the federal district court for the District of Columbia upheld the exemption in a Memorandum Opinionissued in Rural Empowerment Ass’n for Cmty. Help v. EPA, No. 18-2260 (TJK) (D. D.C. Aug. 7, 2025).  

    Background

    Congress enacted CERCLA and EPCRA to ensure federal, state, and local authorities could respond to hazardous substances released into the air. For years, the Congress and the EPA wrestled with whether livestock and poultry operations should be required to report air emissions from manure and decomposing manure. In 2018, Congress resolved part of the issue by passing the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method Act (FARM), which exempted such emissions from CERCLA reporting. Following FARM, the EPA enacted a rule extending the exemption to EPCRA Section 304, reasoning that because livestock and poultry emissions no longer triggered CERCLA’s reporting requirement, EPCRA’s parallel duty to notify local officials was likewise inapplicable. 

    Environmental groups sued the EPA, arguing that in enacting the exemption the EPA had misinterpreted EPCRA and failed to consider environmental consequences, thereby violating EPCRA, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and NEPA.  Several agricultural groups intervened in the lawsuit including the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and National Pork Producers Council.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court sided with the EPA and agricultural groups upholding the reporting exemption.  Specifically, the court relied upon the decades-old interpretation of the interplay between CERCLA reporting requirements and EPCRA reporting requirements.  Congress expressly tied the EPCRA reporting requirements to CERCLA, and the EPA has long required only those releases that require notification under CERCLA to report under EPCRA.   The EPA’s decision to exempt manure emissions from EPCRA based on Congress’s exemption under CERCLA was neither inconsistent nor unreasonable, according to the court.  Additionally, the court held that NEPA did not apply.  Congress made clear in the FARM Act that farm animal waste was exempted from CERCLA and that reporting under EPCRA is dependent on CERCLA.  Because of this, the EPA was not required to undertake a NEPA analysis to enact its exemption. 

    Why is This Important?

    For livestock operations, required reporting under CERCLA and EPCRA was burdensome, complex, and difficult to quantify.  Additionally, some believed that requiring such reports caused unnecessary alarm for citizens.  At least for now, this decision answers the long-standing legal battle over air emissions reporting from livestock and poultry operations.  It’s important to note, the environmental groups may appeal this decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.


    Goeringer, Paul, and Tiffany Dowell Lashemt. “Clearing the Air on Manure: What the New Ruling Means for Agriculture.” Southern Ag Today 5(36.5). September 5, 2025. Permalink

  • Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade in 2025: Exploring the Recent August Forecasts 

    Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade in 2025: Exploring the Recent August Forecasts 

    The August 2025 Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade provides a snapshot of the current challenges and opportunities in global markets (USDA, 2025a). The quarterly report has long been a valuable tool for understanding how international trends affect the U.S. farm economy. In the past, it included both data and written commentary to explain possible causes behind trade shifts. However, the May 2025 report sparked controversy when its release was delayed. The issue centered on explanatory text that linked rising agricultural trade deficits to tariffs (Ingwersen & Douglas, 2025). As a result, the USDA removed the commentary and now publishes only data tables. This change has raised concerns about transparency and the loss of expert interpretation that helped make sense of complex trade dynamics.

    The August report shows that the U.S. will continue to import more agricultural goods than it exports. However, the projected trade deficit for fiscal year (FY) 2025—running from October to September—was revised downward from $49.5 billion in the May report to $47.0 billion. This adjustment was driven by an upward revision in forecasted exports, while the import forecast remained unchanged from May at $220 billion. For FY2025, exports are now expected to reach $173 billion, with imports holding at $220 billion.

    These revisions raise important questions. Are they justified based on the available data? Most notably, is there clear evidence of increased export activity to support the upward revision? And given current trends, should the import forecast have been adjusted as well—either upward or downward? A closer look at recent trade is needed to assess whether these changes reflect actual market conditions or optimism. 

    Year-to-date (October to June) export values are reported in Table 1. The data suggest that the value of agricultural exports will remain relatively flat. During the first three quarters of the fiscal year, export values increased slightly from $135.0 billion in 2024 to $135.7 billion in 2025, which is a modest 0.6% rise. However, the volume of exports grew significantly, increasing from 162.4 million metric tons (MMT) to 175.9 MMT, an 8.3% increase. This growth in quantity was offset by a 7.2% decline in average prices (unit value), which fell from $831/MT to $772/MT, suggesting lower prices per unit across many commodities. Depending on prices, the upward revision in the export forecast could be justified despite current trade tensions (USDA, 2025b). 

    Assuming fourth-quarter imports in FY2025 will follow patterns seen in recent years, available data suggest that total imports could reach $223 billion. This supports the decision to hold the official import forecast steady at $220 billion given the small $3 billion difference (USDA, 2025b). If ongoing trade tensions continue, it would not be surprising if actual imports were lower than $220 billion. 

    Figure 1. U.S. Agricultural Imports: FY2021-FY2025

    Note: FY is the fiscal year (October – September) 
    Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS) (2025b) 
     

    Table 1. U.S. Agricultural Exports: FY2024 and FY2025 (year-to-date: October – June)

    ExportsOct. – June
    2024
    Oct. – June 2025% Change
    Value ($ billion)$135.0$135.70.6%
    Quantity (MMT)162.4175.98.3%
    Unit Value ($/MT)$831.1$771.5-7.2%
    Note: FY is the fiscal year (October – September) 
    Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS) (2025b

    Reference

    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2025a. Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade: August 2025https://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2025-08/AES-133.pdf

    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2025b. Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS). Foreign Agricultural Service, Washington, D.C. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/GATS/default.aspx

    Ingwersen, Julie and Leah Douglas. 2025. “USDA redaction of trade analysis causes concern about report integrity” Reutershttps://www.reuters.com/world/us/usda-redaction-trade-analysis-causes-concern-about-report-integrity-2025-06-06/


    Muhammad, Andrew. “Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade in 2025: Exploring the Recent August Forecasts.Southern Ag Today 5(36.4). September 4, 2025. Permalink

  • Marketing Challenges from Storage Capacity and Excess Supply

    Marketing Challenges from Storage Capacity and Excess Supply

    The 2025 grain crop year has presented several challenges, including elevated production costs, significant competition from Brazil and Argentina in the global marketplace, and disruptions in U.S. exports as a result of tariffs. As the midpoint of the 2025 harvest season approaches in the southern region, this year’s grain production is projected to be a second consecutive record crop, while depressed market prices continue. During a year of increased supply, questions arise regarding the availability of grain storage, both on and off the farm, and the potential to delay selling until the market shows favorable prevailing prices. Additionally, producers without on-farm grain storage are burdened with issues of product transportation, off-farm storage availability, and the ability to better control post-harvest grain quality. 

    Figure 1 shows each of the southern states’ on and off-farm grain storage capacity as of December 2024. The top three states with the most storage capacity are Texas, Arkansas, and Kentucky. In the case of Kentucky, on-farm storage capacity is more than double that of off-farm storage capacity. Oklahoma and Texas have significantly more off-farm storage capacity than on-farm.  On-farm storage can play an important role for producers, providing three key advantages to a farm. First, there is the ability to store and hold the harvested crops, allowing flexibility in delivery and the possibility to benefit from higher prices outside of harvest.  Maples (2022) illustrates monthly price variations in a previous Southern Ag Today article, showing that May-July were the highest average prices for corn and soybeans from 2014-2021. Second, on-farm storage permits earlier harvest. Assuming bins have dryers, producers can harvest at higher moisture levels and dry the grain before delivery, avoiding moisture discounts. The third advantage of on-farm storage is increased harvest efficiency. Transportation time is less with on-farm storage and is dependable, versus off-farm storage that may be impacted by time spent waiting at the local grain elevator or barge points. This is increasingly important in southern regions where distance to grain buyers can be particularly challenging. 

    A comparison of grain storage capacity to the total estimated production of corn, soybeans, and wheat in 2025, as well as the average production of the same grains from 2021 to 2024, is also shown in Figure 1. The combination of on-farm and off-farm grain storage capacity exceeds the 2025 estimated production in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia.  Meanwhile, production exceeds the combined grain storage capacity in Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee, presenting a potential for marketing challenges if space is not available for the remaining harvest. South Carolina and Louisiana also show production higher than off-farm storage capacity, but on-farm storage capacity data are not available for these states.

    The relationship between grain storage capacity and estimated production is important to consider at harvest because when production exceeds capacity, producers generally face having to sell at a negative basis or transport grain farther distances where storage may be available. In a year when excess supply occurs and storage capacity may be strained, there is an increase in the number of producers that are objectively left with the question of, “What do I do with my grain to avoid accepting a really bad price?” Marketing strategies to help answer that question might include deferred pricing contracts, futures, or options, all of which were discussed in a Southern Ag Today article in 2022 and continue to be relevant marketing strategies today.

    Source: USDA-NASS Quickstats
    Notes:: *On-farm storage capacity is not reported for Louisiana and South Carolina.
    2025 Estimated Production is the sum of corn, soybean, and wheat production published by USDA as of August.
    Florida not shown because on-farm storage capacity data and grain production data are not available.

    References:

    Maples, William E. “On-Farm Grain Storage in Southern States”. Southern Ag Today 2(38.1). September 12, 2022. https://southernagtoday.org/2022/09/on-farm-grain-storage-in-southern-states/.

    Smith, S. Aaron. “Marketing Strategies if Producers Do Not Have Access to On-Farm Storage.” Southern Ag Today 2(40.1). September 26, 2022. https://southernagtoday.org/2022/09/26/marketing-strategies-if-producers-do-not-have-access-to-on-farm-storage/.


    Pittman, Wilton, and Adam Rabinowitz. “Marketing Challenges from Storage Capacity and Excess Supply.Southern Ag Today 5(36.3). September 3, 2025. Permalink