Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • Brazilian Crop Progress: What U.S. Producers Should Watch

    Brazilian Crop Progress: What U.S. Producers Should Watch

    With the continued growth of agricultural production in Brazil, it is increasingly important for U.S. row crop producers to monitor crop conditions there, as the two countries compete directly in global markets. With Brazil located in the Southern Hemisphere, its growing season runs opposite that of the United States, so soybean harvest in Brazil is just beginning, with corn, cotton, and other crops to follow later in the U.S. winter and spring. This article provides an update on current estimates and crop progress for the Brazilian production season based on the January WASDE report from USDA and other sources.

    In Brazil, soybean planting typically runs from September through December, with harvest of early-planted soybeans beginning in January. While some regions experienced early-season planting delays in 2025 due to irregular rainfall, planting progressed strongly later in the season and was largely completed on schedule. As of January 10, soybean harvest has begun in select areas, though progress remains below 1% nationally.

     The USDA is currently projecting Brazilian soybean production at 178 million metric tons, up from 171.5 million metric tons last year. If realized, this would represent another record level of production. Continued expansion of Brazil’s soybean sector is being driven by several factors, including the implementation of a new B15 biodiesel mandate and strong demand from China. Brazil is also expected to remain the world’s leading soybean exporter, with projected exports of 114 million metric tons, compared to 42.86 million metric tons for the United States. Brazil’s growing share of the Chinese import market will continue to pose a competitive challenge for U.S. soybean producers.

    Brazil, unlike the United States, can produce two corn crops per year. The first corn crop is planted from October through December, with harvest beginning in February, and it has historically accounted for the majority of Brazilian corn production. Over the past 15 years, however, growth in Brazil’s corn output has been driven primarily by expansion of the second corn crop (safrinha) (Figure 1). This second crop is planted following the harvest of early-season soybeans in January and February and is harvested from June through September.

    The 2024/25 crop year was a strong production year for Brazilian corn. However, the USDA currently projects 2025 corn production at 131 million metric tons, approximately 2 percent lower than last year. This outlook is driven primarily by expectations of lower yields associated with La Niña conditions. It is important to note that the second corn crop, which in recent years has accounted for approximately 79 percent of total Brazilian corn production, has not yet been planted this year, meaning production estimates could change significantly as the season progresses. In addition, early-season delays in soybean planting could delay harvest, which in turn may reduce the ability to plant the second-crop corn within the optimal planting window, increasing downside production risk.

    Finally, the Brazilian cotton crop is planted from December through February and harvested from May through September. The USDA projects Brazilian cotton production to increase to 18.75 million bales, up 10 percent from last year and 28 percent from 2023. For the first time in 2024, Brazil surpassed the United States as the world’s leading cotton exporter and is projected to maintain that position during the current crop year. Improvements in cotton quality have been a key driver of growing global demand for Brazilian cotton. In addition, ongoing uncertainty in global trade has further supported demand, as importing countries seek to diversify their supplier base. For U.S. cotton producers, Brazil will remain a major competitor, with higher production levels contributing to increased global cotton stocks.

    With Brazil remaining a major competitor to U.S. agricultural exports, it is important for producers to know where to find reliable information on Brazilian production. The USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE)report remains the primary source of supply and demand data for major commodities in the United States and globally. Brazil’s National Supply Company (CONAB) also publishes production estimates through its Agricultural Information Portal, which contains a wide range of useful data. Although the website is in Portuguese, most internet browsers offer built-in translation tools that allow producers to navigate the information easily. As always, your state Extension crop marketing specialist is an excellent source of timely analysis and interpretation of these data.

    Figure 1. Brazilian Corn Production by Corn Crop 

    Source: CONAB 

    Maples, William E. “Brazilian Crop Progress: What U.S. Producers Should Watch.” Southern Ag Today 6(4.3). January 21, 2026. Permalink

  • Two Big Cattle Reports This Month

    Two Big Cattle Reports This Month

    USDA is set to release the January Cattle on Feed and the much-anticipated Cattle inventory report later this month.  This SAT takes a brief look at expectations for each report, key points to look for when they are released, and some market implications of each.

    Cattle on Feed

    The Cattle on Feed report is set to be released on Friday, January 23rd.  There was one more slaughter day during the month of December, based on when the weekends and holidays fell.  That extra day shows up in pre-report estimates of increased marketings for the month.  December marketings are expected to be about 2 percent higher than December 2024.  Daily average marketings should have lagged behind last year, which is to be expected with fewer cattle on feed. 

    Placements of feeders into feedlots are expected to be below a year ago, with pre-report estimates down around 5 percent.  December placements versus a year ago reflect the border closure to cattle imports from Mexico, with no cattle imported in December 2024 and 2025.  This is the first full month of comparison with no imports for a month in either year.  Large declines in placements during 2025 included the impact of no Mexican feeder cattle so in coming months year-over-year placements will indicate changes in domestic feeder cattle placements.  

    The combination of larger marketings and smaller placements results in the total number of cattle on feed expected to be down more than 2 percent on January 1, compared to January 1, 2025.  This report will include an estimate of the number of heifers on feed.  This may be the most anticipated number in the report as evidence of any heifer retention for herd growth.  

    Cattle

    The annual Cattle inventory report will be released on Friday, January 30th.  This report will provide evidence of herd rebuilding and whether this cattle cycle has bottomed out with growth beginning.  I tend to focus on the beef cow herd and heifers held for beef cow replacement more than other data points in the report.  Cow herd: Pre-report estimates indicate close to the same number of cows as a year ago.  Beef cow slaughter during 2025 was down almost 20 percent compared to the year before, and that is low enough for a slight increase in cow numbers.  High calf prices certainly provided an incentive to try to get one more calf out of older cows before culling them.  

    There has been little hard evidence of heifer retention providing cow herd growth.  Continued high heifer slaughter, a large number of heifers on feed as a percent of all cattle on feed, very low numbers of heifers held last year to enter the herd, and a historically small calf crop all contribute to expectations of little herd growth from the heifer side.  

    Beyond the cow herd, the dairy herd should show the largest number of cows since the early 1990s.  The number of stockers on small grain pastures will be interesting for potential placements in the next couple of months.  The number of all cattle will be interesting as a historical number for the cattle cycle. 

    Anderson, David. “Two Big Cattle Reports This Month.” Southern Ag Today 6(4.2). January 20, 2026. Permalink

  • Potential Impact of the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program on Southern U.S. Rice

    Potential Impact of the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program on Southern U.S. Rice

    Low commodity prices, high input costs, and trade market uncertainty have placed significant financial strain on many row crop producers throughout the U.S. In response, the U.S. Department of Agriculture developed the Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) program (USDA-FSA, 2025a). The FBA program aims to deliver one-time commodity-specific payments ($/acre) to row crop producers to serve as a financial bridge until the benefits of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) become available in October 2026 (USDA-FSA, 2025b). Payments will be made to eligible producers based on 2025 planted acres reported to the FSA. Farmers who qualify for the FBA program can expect payments to be released by February 28, 2026 (USDA-FSA, 2025a). On December 31, 2025, the USDA released details on the per-acre payment rates for all eligible row crop commodities (USDA-FSA, 2025b). Rice farmers who qualify for the FBA program will receive a payment rate of $132.89/acre. 

    This article evaluates the impact of the FBA Program on rice returns to operating and total (operating plus fixed) costs in the southern U.S. The analysis is based on average rice production costs and average expected rice yields obtained from 2025 Cooperative Extension rice enterprise budgets from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. Seven southern U.S. rice regions are evaluated (Eastern Arkansas, Mississippi Delta, Southeast Missouri, Northeast Louisiana, Southwest Louisiana, Texas Gulf East, and Texas Gulf West). Results for Southwest Louisiana and Texas Gulf West are evaluated for the first crop and for the first crop plus a ratoon crop. Average rice yields, costs, and returns per acre for the analysis are presented below in the accompanying table.

    Figure 1 presents budgeted rice returns to both operating costs and total costs by southern U.S. rice region without assistance from the FBA program. Budgeted returns to both operating costs and total costs are negative for all regions except those located in Louisiana. Operating costs in the Louisiana rice regions are lower due to lower herbicide, fertilizer, and seed costs. 

    Figure 2 presents rice returns to both operating costs and total costs by southern U.S. rice region when assistance from the FBA program is included. Returns to total costs by region are still largely negative except for the Louisiana regions. However, returns to operating costs are either positive or close to breakeven for many of the remaining southern rice regions. 

    It is important to note that these results are from pre-season budget estimates not actual 2025 observations, but they do provide an estimated scope of the FBA program impact in rice.  Results indicate the FBA program may not help with covering total costs in most instances, but would aid in covering most or all of rice operating costs. Thus, the FBA program could help many rice producers obtain operating loans for production inputs, thus allowing them to get a rice crop planted for the 2026 crop year.

    Table 1. Average Rice Yields, Costs, and Returns by Southern U.S. Rice Region based on State Cooperative Extension Rice Enterprise Budgets, 2025

    RegionYield (cwt/acre)Operating Costs ($/acre)Total Costs ($/acre)Gross Returns ($/acre) Returns Above Operating Costs ($/acre)Returns Above Total Costs ($/acre)
    Eastern AR819471121905-42-216
    MS Delta7610061195851-155-344
    SE MO789531286865-87-420
    NE LA73597710810213100
    SW LA, First Crop72701845804103-41
    SW LA, First + Ratoon988591034108923055
    TX Gulf, East55813918614-199-304
    TX Gulf West, First Crop7010541129782-272-347
    TX Gulf West, First + Ratoon8612411341960-280-381
    Note: Gross returns calculated assuming an average long grain rice price of $11.17/cwt for the months of August – October 2025 (USDA, NASS, 2026). Total costs are calculated as operating plus fixed costs and exclude charges for land and management.  

    References and Resources

    Louisiana State University AgCenter. LSU College of Agriculture. Enterprise Budgets. https://www.lsuagcenter.com/portals/our_offices/research_stations/deanlee/features/enterprise-budgets

    Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics. Budgets. https://www.agecon.msstate.edu/whatwedo/budgets.php

    Texas A&M Agrilife Extension, Extension Agricultural Economics. Texas Crop and Livestock Budgets. https://agecoext.tamu.edu/resources/crop-livestock-budgets/

    University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. Crop Enterprise Budgets for Arkansas. https://uaex.uada.edu/farm-ranch/economics-marketing/farm-planning/budgets/crop-budgets.aspx

    University of Missouri Extension. Missouri Crop and Livestock Enterprise Budgets. https://extension.missouri.edu/programs/agricultural-business-and-policy-extension/missouri-crop-and-livestock-enterprise-budgets

    USDA-FSA, 2025a. Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) Program. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/fact-sheets/farmer-bridge-assistance-program

    USDA-FSA, 2025b. USDA Announces Commodity Payment Rates for Farmer Bridge Assistance Program. December 31, 2025.  https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-events/news/12-31-2025/usda-announces-commodity-payment-rates-farmer-bridge-assistance-program

    USDA-NASS (2026). United States Department of Agriculture, Quick-Stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

    Watkins, Brad. “Potential Impact of the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program on Southern U.S. Rice.“ Southern Ag Today 6(4.1). January 19, 2026. Permalink

  • Top Ten Agricultural Law Stories of 2025

    Top Ten Agricultural Law Stories of 2025

    By: National Agricultural Law Center Attorney Staff

    Agricultural law in 2025 was marked by developments with lasting implications for producers, agribusinesses, and rural communities. Attorneys at the National Agricultural Law Center have identified the following major trends that shaped the year.

    • State restrictions on foreign ownership of farmland continued to expand. Six states amended existing laws and four enacted new restrictions, at the same time courts considered constitutional challenges. Recent cases involving Florida and Texas laws were dismissed on standing grounds, leaving the broader legal questions unresolved.
    • Federal agencies proposed sweeping changes to environmental law. In November, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released a proposed revision to the definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, aligning it with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision limiting jurisdiction to “relatively permanent” waters with a continuous surface connection. Meanwhile, the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service issued four proposed rules revising Endangered Species Act implementation, including species listing, critical habitat designation, interagency consultation, and elimination of FWS’s blanket 4(d) rule for threatened species.
    • Congress also reshaped hemp regulation through appropriations legislation that closed the “hemp loophole” created by the 2018 Farm Bill. The law redefined hemp based on total THC content and excluded synthesized cannabinoids such as delta-8 and delta-10, significantly affecting an industry largely focused on cannabinoid production when the changes take effect in November 2026.
    • Food policy gained attention through the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, led federally by HHS and echoed by states. Legislative efforts included new food labeling requirements, restrictions on ingredients in school meals, bans on synthetic food dyes, and proposals to limit SNAP-eligible foods through USDA waivers.
    • Pesticide litigation remained a major issue, particularly whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state “failure to warn” tort claims. While manufacturers argue federal label approval preempts liability, plaintiffs contend FIFRA requires adequate health warnings. The Supreme Court may resolve the issue in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, with the Solicitor General urging review and preemption.
    • Trade policy also shifted as the Trump Administration increased tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This unprecedented use of IEEPA authority was challenged in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, argued before the Supreme Court in November, while potential trade agreements remain preliminary.
    • Labor issues intensified with changes to the H-2A foreign agricultural worker program. A court vacated the 2023 Adverse Effect Wage Rate rule, prompting reversion to an older formula and subsequent issuance of a new interim final rule, now subject to legal challenge.
    • EPA actions on pesticide registration and labeling continued, including issuance of its Insecticide Strategy, proposed dicamba label revisions, and litigation over herbicides and neonicotinoids that could affect future availability.
    • Competition concerns spanned the agricultural supply chain. DOJ and USDA investigated meatpacker conduct, while scrutiny expanded to seed, chemical, and fertilizer markets. In December, President Trump ordered agencies to investigate anticompetitive behavior across food industries.
    • H.R.1—the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—reauthorized key farm bill programs, increased reference prices and payment limits, strengthened crop insurance, and made major tax provisions permanent, including an inflation-indexed increase to the estate tax exemption.

    Looking ahead to 2026, many of the top issues from this past year will continue to develop. Additional areas to watch are challenges to Prop 12 and related statutes on issues of preemption, interest in state legislatures around the labeling and sale of cell-cultured proteins, and updates to the Colorado River operating plan.  We also expect to see issues related to financial distress in the farm economy and state level responses, such as amending or creating grain indemnity laws and financial assistance programs.  A link with more information about each of these stories is available at https://bit.ly/48SRX0p. 

  • Uncertainty is the Name of the Game for U.S. Agricultural Trade in 2026

    Uncertainty is the Name of the Game for U.S. Agricultural Trade in 2026

    Authors: [1]Luis Ribera, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service

    Aleks Schaefer, Oklahoma State University

    To say that it has been a very busy year for U.S. agricultural trade is an understatement. Since “Liberation Day” back on April 1, 2025, and even before that, trade has been a major news topic.  The current administration’s strategy of leveraging tariffs (combined with the sheer size of the U.S. market) to change trade relationships with the rest of the world has generated much uncertainty in nearly all markets.  Both agricultural and non-agricultural industries have reacted to the almost daily trade talk news.

    U.S. agricultural exports wrapped up 2024 at $174.1 billion.  USDA Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade December 2025 report forecast that exports will close 2025 slightly higher than the previous year at $175.6 billion.  However, the forecast for 2026 exports is $173 billion, the lowest since 2021.  The reason for this slight decrease is both volume and value, as they are expected to decrease by 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively. A continuous decrease in soybean and sorghum exports to China are the main driver of the decrease in value of U.S. ag exports in 2025, as well as expectations for 2026.  China increased their imports of these two products from Brazil and Argentina due to the increased of U.S. tariffs on their exports.  There has been an increase in exports to other countries such as the EU, Mexico, Indonesia, and Vietnam, but not enough to offset the decrease in exports to China.

    On the other hand, U.S. agricultural imports are expected to reach an all-time high in 2025 at $219.4 billion and are expected to decrease in 2026 to $210 billion.  The main reasons for this expected decrease are lower imports of horticultural products and vegetable oils.  Cocoa and products, as well as coffee and products, have increased the value of imports but reduced the volume, showing that prices of those products are expected to go up.  Hopefully, the recent announcement of tariff exceptions on some agricultural products, including beef, tea and coffee, fruit juice, cocoa, spices, bananas, oranges, tomatoes, and certain fertilizers, will help reduce their prices paid by U.S. consumers.

    [1] Ribera is Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. Schaefer is Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University.