Southern Ag Today

Blog

  •  Brazil’s Record Soybean Crop Meets a Fragile Supply Chain

     Brazil’s Record Soybean Crop Meets a Fragile Supply Chain

    Brazil’s 2025/26 soybean crop is headed for a record near 6.6 billion bushels (USDA, 2026). Maples (2026) laid out the fundamentals in Southern Ag Today earlier this season. But as the season has unfolded, the key question for U.S. producers is no longer whether Brazil has soybeans. It is whether Brazil can move them to market as smoothly as the headline crop suggests. Three forces suggest otherwise: logistics frictions are disrupting exports at peak season; geopolitical shocks are raising costs across the supply chain; and a structural rise in domestic crushing is keeping more of the crop inside the country.

    The first pressure is timing and logistics. Heavy rains in the Center-West slowed harvest while drought in the South trimmed yields. By mid-March, Brazil’s soybean harvest was running 10.6 percentage points behind the same point last year (Figure 1). About 60% of Brazil’s soybeans move to port by truck, yet only about 14% of the country’s roads are paved (Salin, 2025). A phytosanitary dispute with China compounded the problem: Brazil increased inspections on soybeans bound for China at Beijing’s request, Cargill paused exports to China, and longer certification waits raised both demurrage and freight costs (MAPA, 2026). 

    The second pressure is cost. Brazil imports more than 80% of its fertilizer (ANDA, 2026), and nearly 30% of global fertilizer exports transit the Strait of Hormuz (FAO, 2026). The closure stranded roughly a million metric tons and sent diesel prices surging in rural Brazil. Because the soybean crop was largely fertilized before the shock, the immediate input-cost pressure falls more on safrinha (second crop) corn and on 2026/27 budgets. But freight costs hit now: bunker fuel prices have surged as the Middle East conflict disrupts supply to Singapore, the world’s largest ship-refueling hub (Bloomberg, 2026).

    Beneath these disruptions, a structural shift is changing the soybean balance sheet. Domestic crushing is projected to reach a record 2.26 billion bushels, up about 50% from a decade ago (ABIOVE, 2026). Biodiesel policy is one reason. Brazil’s blending mandate has risen from B7 (or 7%) in 2016 to B15 (or 15%) in 2025, and soybean-oil-based biodiesel production has more than doubled, from about 0.8 billion gallons to 1.9 billion as shown in Figure 2 (ANP/ABIOVE, 2026). More beans crushed at home means fewer whole soybeans available for export.

    Two regulatory shifts add nuance. Cargill, ADM, and Bunge withdrew from the Amazon Soy Moratorium in early 2026 after a Mato Grosso state law penalized companies adhering to environmental agreements exceeding federal requirements. Their exit came as the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) is set to enter into force. That collision could create openings for U.S. soy in Europe. Meanwhile, the EU-Mercosur trade agreement would give Brazilian soy preferential European access, but a legal challenge could delay implementation (Council of the European Union, 2026).

    Brazil still has an enormous crop. But large production does not guarantee maximum export pressure. Fertilizer costs are higher. Bunker fuel is tight. Port roads are congested. Ships face delays at port. And a growing share of Brazil’s soybeans are staying at home to be crushed domestically. In 2026, the key gap is between Brazil’s ability to grow soybeans and its ability to move them efficiently. That gap is where the competitive opportunity for U.S. producers may emerge. 

    Figure 1. Brazil Crop Progress Is Running Behind Last Year’s Pace

    Note: Soybean harvest and safrinha corn planting as a percentage of total area, week ending March 14. The soybean harvest trailed the prior year by 10.6 percentage points; safrinha corn planting lagged by 4.1 percentage points. Source: CONAB (2026b).

    Figure 2. Soybean-Oil-Based Biodiesel Production in Brazil Has More Than Doubled Since 2015

    Note: Annual biodiesel production from soybean oil in billion gallons, 2008 through 2025. Production rose from about 0.2 billion gallons in 2008 to 0.8 billion in 2015 and 1.9 billion in 2025. Labels indicate Brazil’s national biodiesel blending mandate, expressed as the share of biodiesel required in commercial diesel fuel: B2 = 2%, B5 = 5%, B7 = 7%, B8 = 8%, B10 = 10%, B14 = 14%, B15 = 15%. Soybean oil accounts for roughly 70–75% of all Brazilian biodiesel feedstock.
    Source: ANP/ABIOVE (2026).

    References

    Associação Brasileira das Indústrias de Óleos Vegetais. (2026, March). Atualização das projeções do complexo soja para 2026 [Data set]. ABIOVE. https://abiove.org.br

    Associação Nacional para Difusão de Adubos. (2026). Estatísticas: Entregas e produção de fertilizantes, 2025 [Data set]. ANDA. https://www.anda.org.br

    Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis & Associação Brasileira das Indústrias de Óleos Vegetais. (2026). Produção de biodiesel por matéria-prima: Total nacional, 2008–2025 [Data set]. ANP/ABIOVE. https://www.gov.br/anp

    Bloomberg. (2026, March 16). Iran war spurs volatility for Singapore ship fuel distributors. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com

    Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. (2026a). Boletim de safras: 6º levantamento, safra 2025/26. https://www.conab.gov.br

    Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. (2026b). Progresso de safra: Plantio e colheita, semana de 8 a 14 de março de 2026 [Data set]. https://www.conab.gov.br

    Council of the European Union. (2026, January 9). EU-Mercosur: Council greenlights signature of the comprehensive partnership and trade agreement [Press release]. https://www.consilium.europa.eu

    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2026, March). Global agrifood implications of the 2026 conflict in the Middle East. FAO. https://openknowledge.fao.org

    Maples, W. E. (2026, January 21). Brazilian crop progress: What U.S. producers should watch. Southern Ag Today, 6(4.3). https://southernagtoday.org

    Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária. (2026, March 13). Ofício-Circular nº 7/2026: Procedimentos de inspeção fitossanitária de cargas de grãos destinadas à exportação. Departamento de Defesa Agropecuária/Secretaria de Defesa Agropecuária. https://www.gov.br/agricultura

    Salin, D. L. (2025, September). Soybean transportation guide: Brazil 2024. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. https://dx.doi.org/10.9752/TS048.09-2025

    USDA World Agricultural Outlook Board. (2026, March). World agricultural supply and demand estimates (WASDE-672). U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde

    Calil, Yuri. “Brazil’s Record Soybean Crop Meets a Fragile Supply Chain.” Southern Ag Today 6(13.3). March 25, 2026. Permalink

  • Boxed Beef Cutout Pushes Higher 

    Boxed Beef Cutout Pushes Higher 

    The Choice boxed beef cutout topped $400 per cwt last week and is up about $50 per cwt since the start of the year. The Choice cutout is over $400 for the first time since the 2025 highs in September. The select cutout has also surged and is at levels only surpassed by May 2020.  The gap between the Choice and Select cutout has been narrow during the first few months of 2026, indicating there has not been much of a premium for Choice cattle over Select.  

    Boxed beef values tend to build gradually through the first quarter before accelerating in the spring and reaching a seasonal peak ahead of summer grilling season. In 2026, the cutout has surged earlier in the year as cyclical market fundamentals are outweighing typical seasonality. Cattle supplies and beef supplies are tight. When supplies are tight, wholesale prices tend to respond quickly. Additionally, buyers may be pulling some purchases forward due to expectations of tight supplies and even higher prices later this spring. 

    Increases in the Rib and Loin primal values since the start of the year are key contributors to the overall cutout value increase. In 2025, the Rib value ran up sharply from March to April, while the Loin value increased from March to June. This year, both primal values have been on a strong uptrend since mid-January. For producers, strong early-year boxed beef prices are supportive of fed cattle markets. Strong demand and tight supplies are supporting beef values in 2026.   

    Maples, Josh. “Boxed Beef Cutout Pushes Higher.” Southern Ag Today 6(13.2). March 24, 2026. Permalink

  • Farm Equipment Prices Continue to Rise

    Farm Equipment Prices Continue to Rise

    Authors: Brian E. Mills and Kevin Kim

    Farm equipment is a significant investment, second only to land investment for farm operations. Therefore, it is important to understand how equipment prices change over time and how that can impact a farm’s bottom line. Mississippi State University collects equipment price data every year for a large number of tractors, harvesters, implements, etc. (Gregory et al. 2025). Using that data, we can see how equipment prices have changed since 2019 and what impact that would have on costs per acre. 

    Figure 1 shows the purchase price for a 200-249 horsepower tractor across time. In 2019, the cost of buying this tractor was around $191,000. For 2026, the cost of this same size tractor is now $327,000, an increase of 71% (well above the rate of inflation). Also included in Figure 1 are the costs per acre for that tractor. Costs per acre are based on machine cost calculations that include labor, fuel, interest, taxes, insurance, housing, and depreciation costs. In this case, assuming that the tractor is used over 2,000 acres, the costs per acre for this tractor increased from $27.24/ac up to $41.11/ac. In other words, the same size tractor today is going to cost you $13.86/ac more than it did 7 years ago if your acreage has not changed. A producer would have to use the new tractor over 3,018 acres in order to have the same costs per acre, $27.24/ac, as it did in 2019. These per acre costs do go down on occasion, particularly when fuel prices or interest rates decline.

    The purchase price and costs per acre for a cotton picker are shown in Figure 2. From 2019 to 2026, the price of a cotton picker has increased from $777,000 to $1,100,000, a 41% increase, resulting in an increase in costs per acre from $126.35/ac to $189.34/ac for the cotton picker. Lastly, the change in purchase price of a 12-row planter increased from $76,800 in 2019 to $123,600 in 2026, a 61% increase (Figure 3). This results in planter costs per acre increasing from $12.26/ac to $19.76/ac from 2019 to 2026.

    Clearly, farm equipment prices have significantly increased and are likely to continue.  Additionally, higher purchase costs for equipment can lead to higher financing needs and additional debt being incurred by producers.  If producers are not spreading the cost of more expensive equipment across more acres, their costs of production will go up. The trend makes it harder for smaller producers to remain profitable and encourages farms to get larger and larger through economies of scale. Buying used or leasing are options to consider.  Of course, some will just keep older equipment longer.  Other options include equipment sharing partnerships or doing custom work for others to spread your equipment cost across more acres. 

    Mills, Brian E., and Kevin Kim. “Farm Equipment Prices Continue to Rise.” Southern Ag Today 6(13.1). March 23, 2026. Permalink

  • In Search of Tomorrow’s Catfish Buyers

    In Search of Tomorrow’s Catfish Buyers

    Authors: Kuan-Ming Huang, Daniel Petrolia, and Zhifeng Gao

    Catfish holds a special place in U.S. food culture, especially in the South, where it’s a beloved staple of regional cuisine. The South is also a major producer of farm-raised catfish, with most (96%) production concentrated in Mississippi (60%), Alabama (27%), Texas (5%), and Arkansas (5%) (USDA NASS, 2021). Outside the South, however, catfish is less popular, and its availability is more limited (House et al., 2003; Muhammad & Jones, 2009). This article presents findings from a recent survey of 5,760 primary household grocery shoppers from across the U.S. experienced in buying and preparing fish. We focus on this specific group of shoppers because 63% of seafood by weight is consumed at home (Love et al., 2020). Home-cooked seafood is likely to be bought and prepared by shoppers who have experience purchasing and preparing it.  Thus, understanding these shoppers’ experiences and opinions on catfish is critical for the industry as it seeks to expand the market. We aim to address key questions for catfish farmers and industry stakeholders to refine their marketing strategies: Which consumer segments have never purchased catfish to cook at home? Furthermore, how many of these non-buyers would be willing to buy and try catfish if it were available at their local stores? By understanding where potential resistance exists across regions and sociodemographic groups, the industry can better design strategies to encourage first-time trials in buying and preparing catfish at home. With the right marketing approach, today’s nonbuyers may become tomorrow’s regular catfish home chefs. 

    Figure 1: Distribution of Respondents by Demographic Characteristics (n=5,760)

    Source: Survey data collected and compiled by authors 
    Note: Regional groupings are based on the U.S. Census Bureau definition. Check the following link for more info:  https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf
     

      From our survey, 24% respondents indicated they never purchased catfish to prepare at home. Figure 2 highlights several notable patterns in the share of respondents who have never purchased catfish to cook at home. Note that these results specifically reflect grocery shopping and home-cooking habits. Women (30%) are nearly twice as likely as men (16%) to report never buying catfish to prepare at home, and this gender gap is statistically significant. This significant gap may suggest that it’s not just a matter of whether one likes catfish. Instead, it is possible that current retail packaging or specific product attributes simply aren’t hitting the mark for many female shoppers. Differences across age groups are also significant and even more pronounced: more than one-third (37%) of respondents aged 55 and older have never purchased catfish to cook at home, compared with only about 10-14% among younger groups. This is consistent with and partially supported by a Global Seafood Alliance report indicating that younger generations are more likely to cook seafood at home, and to do so more frequently, compared to older generations (Craze & Crocker, 2024). As younger consumers cook more seafood at home, they should have more opportunities to try cooking different types of fish, including catfish. Significant disparities emerged across income levels as well. Only 13% of households earning $100k+ have never bought catfish, whereas more than a quarter of those in lower income brackets report no experience purchasing it for home preparation. Catfish (about $6 – $10 for a pound of fillets) is an affordable alternative to premium protein options like steak or salmon, but it is still more expensive than budget-friendly proteins like tilapia and chicken. As expected, geographic location significantly influences purchasing history. The South has the highest market penetration, with a never-purchased rate of only 21%, which is statistically lower than the Midwest (26%) and the Northeast (28%). This disparity likely reflects the industry’s distribution, where catfish is mainly produced, has higher local availability, and holds deep-rooted cultural significance in the South. 

    Figure 2: Percentage of Respondents Who Never Purchased Catfish to Cook at Home in Each Sociodemographic Group (n=5,760)

    Source: Survey data collected and compiled by authors 

    Recognizing that limited availability may be why some respondents have never purchased catfish to cook at home, we asked a follow-up question to respondents who said they have never purchased catfish: Would you be willing to buy and try catfish if it were available in your local stores? Of these 1,375 respondents, 36% said yes they would be willing to buy and try catfish if it were available at their local stores. This suggests that a proportion of non-buyers are not inherently opposed to the product but may rather be constrained by product accessibility. This conclusion is supported by House et al. (2003), who found that the lack of availability is one of the main reasons why non-consumers do not consume catfish.

    Taken together, these findings highlight a strong foundation for the industry and point toward exciting avenues for expansion. First, the data underscores a more solid and larger consumer base in the South, compared to other regions. This home-field advantage serves as a powerful model for success that can be leveraged in other markets. The greater number of non-buyers in the Northeast and Midwest should be viewed as an opportunity. As supply chains continue to evolve, these regions represent emerging market opportunities where increased visibility can turn unfamiliarity into new demand. Furthermore, as younger generations prioritize convenience when buying seafood (Craze & Crocker, 2024) and catfish consumers are more likely to eat it in a restaurant than cook at home (House et al., 2003), introducing quick-prep packaging and simplifying the home-preparation experience can allow the industry to empower more households to make catfish a staple in their home-cooked meal rotations. By focusing on these high-potential segments and bridging the geographic gap, the industry is well-positioned to convert curious non-buyers into lifelong customers, ultimately driving long-term growth across the national market. 

    Reference:

    Craze, M., & Crocker, G. (2024). Report: Seafood industry must adapt to younger consumers’ demand for convenience as at-home prepared foods sector booms. Global Seafood Alliance Report. https://www.globalseafood.org/advocate/report-seafood-industry-must-adapt-to-younger-consumers-demand-for-convenience-as-at-home-prepared-foods-sector-booms/

    House, L., Hanson, T., Sureshwaran, S., & Selassie, H. (2003). Opinions of US consumers about farm-raised catfish: Results of a 2000-2001 survey. Mississippi Agricultural & Forestry Experiment Station Bulletin, 1134.https://www.mafes.msstate.edu/publications/bulletins/b1134.pdf

    Love, D. C., Asche, F., Conrad, Z., Young, R., Harding, J., Nussbaumer, E. M., Thorne-Lyman, A. L., & Neff, R. (2020). Food sources and expenditures for seafood in the United States. Nutrients, 12(6), 1810. 

    Muhammad, A., & Jones, K. G. (2009). An assessment of dynamic behavior in the US catfish market: An application of the generalized dynamic Rotterdam model. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(3), 745-759. 

    USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). (2021). Catfish Production. Agricultural Statistics Board, 1948-271X. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/cfpd0221.pdf

    Huang, Kuan-Ming, Daniel Petrolia, and Zhifeng Gao. “In Search of Tomorrow’s Catfish Buyers.” Southern Ag Today 6(12.5). March 20, 2026. Permalink

  • Prospects for Farm Bill 2.0 or the Skinny Farm Bill

    Prospects for Farm Bill 2.0 or the Skinny Farm Bill

    Authors: Joe Outlaw and Bart Fischer

    While pressure for an enhanced crop producer safety net was reduced when Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) last summer, there still remains work to be done to pass a new farm bill by September 30th of this year when the current extension of the 2018 Farm Bill expires.  Farm Bill 2.0—or the Skinny Farm Bill as some call it—is still important to producers and rural America for what it does beyond commodity programs.   Farm Bills are far more than the producer safety net programs contained in Title I.  For example, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (Farm Bill 2.0) passed out of committee in the House of Representatives on March 5th and contains 12 titles (commodity, conservation, trade, nutrition, credit, rural development, research, extension, and related matters, forestry, energy, horticulture, marketing and regulatory reform, crop insurance, and miscellaneous) and is 802 pages.  For comparison purposes, the 2018 Farm Bill also contained 12 titles but was only 529 pages.  

    The House Committee-passed bill included 181 marker bills that were introduced by Members of Congress. The bill also addresses California’s Prop 12, clarifying that “producers of covered livestock have a Federal right to raise and market their covered livestock in interstate commerce and therefore no State or subdivision thereof may enact or enforce, directly or indirectly, a condition or standard on the production of covered livestock other than for covered livestock physically raised in such State or subdivision.”  Among a whole host of other changes, the bill also reauthorizes the Conservation Reserve Program at 27 million acres and increases farm credit borrowing limits—both of which are needed during this downturn in the farm economy. 

    So, what is next?  House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson is looking to leadership in the House of Representatives to find time on the House calendar to begin considering the bill in hopes of passing it out of the House.  Senate Agriculture Committee leadership would need to mark-up their version of Farm Bill 2.0 and then pass it out of committee and the Senate before the two bills could be conferenced to work through any differences.  This is the normal process for getting bills passed into law.  One thing that surely makes this effort different is the November mid-term election which, as history has shown during the mid-term election year, reduces the amount of legislation that is considered and passed in Congress—generally for political reasons.  With that said, the most recent farm bill—the 2018 Farm Bill—was signed into law in December 2018, immediately following the mid-term election during President Trump’s first term.

    Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. “Prospects for Farm Bill 2.0 or the Skinny Farm Bill.” Southern Ag Today 6(12.4). March 19, 2026. Permalink