Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • Why aren’t PFAS compounds in land applied biosolids prohibited by EPA? 

    Why aren’t PFAS compounds in land applied biosolids prohibited by EPA? 

    As of mid-June 2025, agricultural stakeholders are increasingly aware of claims by clean water advocates and regulatory concerns that land-applying municipal sewage waste (biosolids) may contaminate soil and groundwater with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). In 2023, approximately 60% of U.S. biosolids were land-applied, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Also,  according to the EPA, PFAS exposure may pose health risks, though ongoing research continues to assess the impacts of low-level, long-term exposure, especially in children.

    Federal and state regulators are working to eliminate PFAS compounds considered the most dangerous to our environment and our health, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), from consumer products.  However, reducing environmental PFAS loads will also require alterations to current practices which may simply be recycling existing environmental loads, including agricultural uses of biosolids. Legal changes are expected.  Farmers, who own or rent most of the land involved in applications of biosolids, will be a central focus.  

    What we have seen over the last few years has been a smattering of individual state government actions restricting and limiting the practice of land application of biosolids in various ways.  In some extreme instances, these have included quarantine orders of entire tracts of farmland preventing or limiting further agricultural production.  

    A compilation of those individual state actions has been assembled by a national environmental consulting firm, ALL4 , and it is publicly available at this link: State-by-State Regulatory Update (March 2025 Revision)(see Table 2 – State Water Regulation Highlights).  This documents the patchwork in regulatory landscape faced across the country.  

    Complicating enforcement, biosolids are increasingly transported across state lines, undermining the consistency of state-level regulation and calling for a more unified approach. This regulatory inconsistency challenges both land-applicators and regulators tracking PFAS from production to final disposal.

    While the Clean Water Act (CWA), via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), governs the permitting of biosolid land applications, PFAS-specific regulation under this system remains limited. EPA has issued only non-binding guidance to states for performing their CWA duties. 

    Adding a new pollutant to those already identified and regulated in biosolids is ultimately controlled by the text of 33 U.S.C. §1345(d) of the CWA (“Disposal or Use of Sewage Sludge”), and regulations at 40 CFR Part 503. These require EPA to establish numeric limits and mandatory management practices to protect public health and the environment from the reasonably anticipated adverse effects of designated pollutants during the use or disposal of biosolids. EPA is also required to review these regulations at least every two years and develop standards where evidence warrants.  To date, EPA has not established numeric PFAS limits for biosolids, but a draft risk assessment released on January 15, 2025, marks a first step in that direction. 

    Historically, EPA’s “PFAS Strategic Roadmap” progress reports have stated it would complete by winter 2024 a risk assessment for PFAS in biosolids for use in determining whether to regulate these particular substances in biosolids.  

    On January 15, 2025, EPA commenced that process by publishing in the Federal Register the following document, “Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS).  After multiple extensions, the public comment period is now scheduled to close on August 14, 2025.  The public comments so far are available at the following regulatory docket: EPA-HQ-OW-2024-0504.  

    The upshot of EPA’s draft risk assessment states the following: 

    The draft risk assessment indicates that there are potential risks to human health to those living on or near impacted properties or primarily relying on their products from land application. . .  

    *                                                   *                                                  *

    After the public comment period has closed, the EPA will. . . prepare a final risk assessment. . . If the final risk assessment indicates that there are risks above acceptable thresholds when using or disposing of sewage sludge, the EPA expects to propose a regulation under CWA section 405 to manage PFOA and/or PFOS in sewage sludge to protect public health and the environment. 

    Last year, on June 6, 2024, a federal lawsuit was commenced seeking to compel EPA to establish regulatory standards for PFAS in land-applied biosolids. Farmer, et al. v. EPA, No. 24-cv-1654.  The plaintiffs in that case allege the EPA’s inaction has allowed PFAS-laden biosolids to contaminate millions of acres, harming farmers and the public.  This lawsuit is currently moving slowly with preliminary matters and no resolution is expected for at least another year.

    One thing is certain in the coming months and years.  Those farmers and agricultural stakeholders across the country involved in the common practice of land-applying biosolids will see significant change mandated in their practices and operations by the emergence of PFAS regulation in biosolids. 

    Duer, Brook, and Paul Goeringer. “Why aren’t PFAS compounds in land applied biosolids prohibited by EPA?” Southern Ag Today 5(26.5). June 27, 2025. Permalink

  • Opportunity for Increased U.S. Peanut Oil Production

    Opportunity for Increased U.S. Peanut Oil Production

    Five countries produce 70 percent of the world’s peanuts annually. In the 2024/2025 marketing year, 51.4 million metric tons (MMT) of peanuts were grown, and these five leading countries contributed 35.1 MMT to that total. The United States ranks fourth in global peanut production (2.9 MMT) behind China (19 MMT), India (7.1 MMT), and Nigeria (4.3 MMT).

    Production of peanut oil for the five largest markets together accounted for 81 percent of the 6.24 MMT of global production in the 2024 marketing year. Leading global producers, Chinese production has remained relatively stable between 3.1-3.23 MMT since the 2019/2020 marketing year. Indian production has been similar with production between 1.2-1.28 MMT since the 2019 marketing year. The three that follow together accounted for only 694 thousand metric tons (TMT). 

    Only 470 TMT of peanut oil production was traded in the 2024 marketing year, or 7.5 percent of peanut oil production. The five largest exporters accounted for 91.8 percent of exports in the most recent marketing year. On the other side of that trade, the three largest importers totaled 93.8 percent of peanut oil imports. China accounted for most of that, with 350 TMT in the most recent marketing year, or 74.4 percent of peanut oil imports. The European Union (55 TMT) and, United States (36 TMT) are the two other largest markets.

    In the 2024 marketing year, global demand for peanut oil totaled 6.16 MMT, with 83.7 percent going to the five largest markets. More than half of global demand for peanut oil can be attributed to China. India ranks second, despite being a recurring leader for global exports, with just over one million metric tons. Demand in the United States has remained stable around 123-148 TMT, with the exception of the 2019/2020 marketing year, which was around 111 TMT. Excluding the 2019 marketing year, where only 2 TMT of peanut oil was imported, 10-26 percent of demand for the United States is supplied from imports.

    References

    USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Peanut Oil Custom Query. Production, Supply, Distribution (PSD). Online public database. Accessed June 2025.

    Young, Landyn, and Luis Ribera. “Opportunity for Increased U.S. Peanut Oil Production.” Southern Ag Today 5(26.4). June 26, 2025. Permalink

  • Sugarbeet and Sugarcane Production and Farm Trends 

    Sugarbeet and Sugarcane Production and Farm Trends 

    Like many other agricultural sectors, there has been consolidation in United States (US) farm-level sugar production. Sugar is a unique commodity because about 56 percent of the domestic production of sugar originates from sugarbeets and 44 percent originates from sugarcane. The US domestic production of sugar has increased from 8.02 million short tons raw value (STRV) in 1997 to 9.31 million STRV in 2024, an increase of 16% (USDA ERS, 2025a). However, there are now 50 percent fewer sugarbeet and sugarcane farms in the country. 

    In 1997, the USDA Census of Agriculture recorded a total of 8,136 sugarbeet and sugarcane producing farms (USDA NASS, 2025). However, by 2022 that number had declined to 4,002, a decrease of over 50 percent. Figure 1 shows sugarbeet and sugarcane production from 1997 through 2024 and the number of sugarbeet and sugarcane farms recorded by the US Census of Agriculture every five years, beginning in 1997. 

    Figure 1. Sugarbeet and Sugarcane Production and Farms. 

    Source: USDA ERS (2025a) and USDA NASS (2025).

    Sugarbeets

    From 1997 through 2022, while there was a decrease in sugarbeet farms and sugarbeet harvested acres, there was an increase in the amount of sugar produced from sugarbeets. The number of sugarbeet farms fell by 54 percent, from 7,057 farms in 1997 to only 3,257 in 2022 (Figure 1). Sugarbeet acres also fell by 20 percent from 1.43 million acres in 1997 to 1.14 million acres in 2022 (USDA ERS, 2025a). However, there was an 18% increase in sugar produced from sugarbeets during this time, with 4.39 million STRV of sugar produced from sugarbeets in 1997 and 5.19 million STRV of sugar produced from sugarbeets in 2022 (Figure 1). 

    These trends indicate that in 1997, the average sugarbeet farm size was 203 acres contributing to final sugar production of 622 STRV (3.06 STRV of sugar per acre). Meanwhile in 2022, the average sugarbeet farm size was 350 acres contributing to final sugar production of 1,593 STRV (4.55 STRV of sugar per acre). Thus, sugarbeet farms have become not only larger (350 acres per farm versus 203 acres per farm), but they have also become 49 percent more efficient! One reason for this increased efficiency is that all sugarbeets grown in the US have been genetically modified since 2009 (Kennedy, Schmitz and Lewis, 2020).

    Sugarbeets are currently grown in four regions and 11 states: the Great Lakes (Michigan), the Upper Midwest (Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota), the Great Plains (Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming), and the Far West (Idaho, Oregon, Washington).[1] Sugarbeets are grown in rotation with other crops. Historically, sugarbeet yields in the Far West have been highest. Western sugarbeet production typically utilizes irrigation, which is in contrast to the eastern regions of sugarbeet production that do not use irrigation (USDA ERS, 2025a, b). The largest region for sugarbeet production is the Upper Midwest (Minnesota and North Dakota) (USDA ERS, 2025a). The Upper Midwest represented 42 percent of sugarbeet total production in 1997 and represented 53 percent of sugarbeet total production in 2022 (USDA ERS, 2025a). 

    Each sugarbeet producing region has experienced both consolidation and increased efficiency over the years. For example, the number of sugarbeet farms in Michigan was 1,164 in 1997 (USDA NASS, 2025). That number decreased 43 percent by 2022 to only 663. However, the number of tons of sugarbeets harvested in 1997 was only 3.0 million, and by 2022 the state harvested 4.1 million tons of sugarbeets. 

    Sugarcane

    Sugarcane has also experienced consolidation over the period of 1997 through 2022, where the number of sugarcane farms fell by approximately 31 percent from 1,079 in 1997 to 745 in 2022 without experiencing declines in sugar production or acres engaged in sugarcane production. Sugarcane acres actually increased by 3 percent in 2022 (913,738 acres) relative to 1997 (890,193 acres) (USDA NASS, 2025). Production of sugarcane (for sugar) also increased by approximately 11 percent to 4.06 million STRV in 2022 relative to 1997 (3.63 million STRV) (Figure 1). 

    These trends indicate that in 1997, the average size of a sugarcane farm was 825 acres and contributed to final sugar production of 3,365 STRV (4.08 STRV of sugar per acre). By 2022, the average sugarcane farm size was 1,226 acres and contributed to final sugar production of 5,454 STRV (4.45 STRV of sugar per acre). Thus, the sugarcane sector has seen improvements in production efficiency of approximately 9 percent over the observed period (1997-2022). 

    As recently as 2016, sugarcane was produced in four states (Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas). Sugarcane production in Hawaii and Texas ceased in 2016 and 2023, respectively. In Hawaii, rising labor and land cost were contributing factors in the closure of Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company (HC&S) in Maui. Production in Texas ceased due to water shortages exacerbated by Mexico’s consistent failure to fulfill its treaty obligations to share irrigation water from the Rio Grande. The lack of sugarcane production due to uncertain water availability resulted in the closure of the only sugar mill in the state, Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc. Since 2017, overall sugarcane production has increased in the remaining sugarcane producing states of Louisiana and Florida, despite closure of the sugarcane industries in Hawaii and Texas. In Florida, the number of farms has actually increased from 152 to 240, with the average farm size contracting from 2,772 to 1,656 acres. However, in Louisiana, farms have decreased from 705 to 420 farms. The average size of a Louisiana farm has increased from 561 to 1,158 acres. 

    In Florida, sugarcane is mainly produced in organic soils along the southern and southeastern shore of Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida. The decrease in Florida’s sugarcane acreage leading to 2007 reflected conversion of cropland to public water storage in response to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and reallocation of cropland for sod production in the early 2000’s (VanWeelden et. al., 2023). Sugarcane cultivation on sandy soil is expanding as the expense of citrus cultivation has increased due to citrus greening disease (Sandhu et. al., 2024). 

    Sugarcane acreage across Louisiana has been expanding for the past decade, primarily because of the reduced volatility in sugar prices relative to other crops such as corn, rice, and soybeans. (Gautreaux, 2025). Louisiana sugarcane production has also expanded with the development and adoption of high-yielding sugarcane varieties and with the evolution of custom harvesting groups that induce nontraditional producers into sugarcane cultivation by alleviating concerns for those producers regarding increased capitalization costs of purchasing and maintaining specialized sugarcane harvest equipment.

    [1] California is producing sugarbeets in 2025, but the processing facility will close following this crop season (https://www.smbsc.com/ourstory-2/SMBSCMediaReleaseReSpreckelsSugarCompany2025.04.22.pdf).

    References

    Gautreaux, K. (2025). “Sugarcane expansion moving northward and westward but also increasing in traditional areas.” Louisiana State University AgCenter. https://www.lsuagcenter.com/articles/page1738854832844 . 

    Kennedy, P. L., A. Schmitz, and K.L. DeLong. (2020). Biotechnology and demand concerns: the case of genetically modified US sugar beets. AgBioForum, 22(1), 49-60.

    Sandhu, H., M. VanWeelden, A. Sharma, and W. Davidson. (2024). CP 03-1912: A Sugarcane Cultivar Expanding on Sand Soil in Florida, University of Florida, IFAS Extension. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/SC111 .  

    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS). (2025a). Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook Tables. Group 3 Tables. Retrieved from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables

    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS). (2025b). Sugar and Sweeteners-Background. Retrieved from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-and-sweeteners/background#:~:text=Sugarbeet%20production%20in%20the%20Far,is%20typically%20on%20irrigated%20land. 

    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). (2025). U.S. Census of Agriculture, Volume 1, Chapter 1: U.S. National Level Data. Retrieved from:  https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/index.php . 

    VanWeelden, M., C. Kammerer, W. Davidson, M. Baltazar, and R. Rice. (2023). Sugarcane Variety Census: Florida 2022, Sugar Journal 86 (2), July 2023.

    Headline Photo By: Young Stock photos by Vecteezy

    Delberto, Michael, Brian Hilbun, and Karen L. DeLong. “Sugarbeet and Sugarcane Production and Farm Trends.” Southern Ag Today 5(26.3). June 25, 2025. Permalink

  • Fewer Marketings, Tighter Beef Supplies

    Fewer Marketings, Tighter Beef Supplies

    USDA released the latest Cattle on Feed report amid record high cattle and beef prices.  While the report did not have any big surprises compared to analyst’s pre-report estimates there were some noteworthy data points.  Marketings were 10.1 percent fewer in May 2025 than last May.  Some of that was attributable to one less working day in the month, but the rest was due to fewer fed cattle slaughtered.  An earlier SAT discussed fewer fed cattle being processed on Fridays over the last couple of months.  

    Fewer cattle were placed into feedyards in May, with placements 7.8 percent below last year.  But, placements in Texas and Oklahoma feedyards were down 16.8 and 21.6 percent compared to last year, likely reflecting the continued border closing restricting the supply of Mexican feeder cattle.  Fewer placements and marketing left the total number of cattle on feed down 1.2 percent compared to last year.  

    Fewer cattle marketed from feedlots means reduced fed cattle slaughter and beef production.  Beef production over the last 8 weeks has been 5.5 percent below the same period last year.  A smaller percentage of the beef graded has been grading Choice indicating tighter supplies of Choice beef in addition to lower overall supplies.  While a lot has been made of continued good demand for beef pushing prices higher, certainly reduced supplies are helping higher prices too.

    On the price side, the Choice cutout surged to $390 per cwt on Friday June 20th.  That was a record except for May 2020.  All of the Choice primal cuts have been racing higher except for the rib which has been declining, as it often does this time of the year.  Of note, just as Texas Monthly’s Top 50 BBQ joints edition hit the mailbox primal Choice briskets kept climbing to almost $3.40 per pound.  This would be a record brisket price except for May 2020 when the pandemic closed packing plants and a surge of buying depleted supplies.  

    While not one of the primals that make up the boxed beef cutout value, 50 percent lean beef has skyrocketed in value to almost $190 per cwt, compared to about $1.00 per pound last year.  This beef is largely the product of fed cattle and makes up part of the supplies of ground beef.  Fewer fed cattle marketed and slaughtered in recent weeks has likely cut into supplies while the demand for ground beef remains good.  

    The marketings side of the cattle on feed report highlights today’s tight supplies of cattle and beef.  Reduced production is part of the story of record beef prices.

    Anderson, David. “Fewer Marketings, Tighter Beef Supplies.” Southern Ag Today 5(26.2). June 24, 2025. Permalink

  • Historic and Current Rice Planting Progress in the Southern United States

    Historic and Current Rice Planting Progress in the Southern United States

    Planting rice in a suitable timeframe is critical for profitable rice production. Planting rice too early or too late can result in significant losses in grain yield and milling quality. The timing of rice planting is strongly impacted by weather, particularly excessive precipitation. Too much precipitation can delay rice planting and can also trigger rice replanting and levee repairs in rice fields. In extreme instances, excessive and persistent precipitation can lead to prevented planted rice acres. For example, prevented planted rice acres in Arkansas reached a record high of 512 thousand acres in 2019 due to flooding and excessive precipitation occurring throughout the growing season (Watkins and Gautam, 2021). The initiation and completion of rice planting in a growing season also varies by geographic location. 

    This article evaluates historic and current rice planting progress for the southern United States (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas) using weekly crop progress data from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA, NASS 2025). Historical and current weekly rice planting progress curves are presented for each southern rice-producing state in the accompanying figures. Historic rice planting progress is defined as the 10-year average percent of rice area planted by week for the period 2015 – 2024, while current rice planting progress is defined as the percent rice area planted by week for the 2025 growing season. The early and late planting timelines are based on how much land is usually planted each week, adjusted to show either earlier-than-normal or later-than-normal planting by using a typical range of variation. Dates in the figures represent the ending dates for each week evaluated. For example, 20-Apr represents the week of 14-Apr through 20-Apr.

    A few things stand out when looking at the charts of the five states. First, rice plantings begin and end earlier for the more southerly states (Louisiana, Texas) relative to the more northerly states (Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri), as would be expected. Second, rice planting progress becomes more variable moving south to north. The gaps between early and delayed rice planting curves are wider for Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri than for Louisiana and Texas, implying weather variability has a stronger impact on rice plantings in the more northerly states. Third, the timing of variability in rice planting progress is different when moving south to north. The gaps between early and delayed planting curves for Louisiana and Texas are widest during the beginning of rice planting and become narrower thereafter, implying weather variability is more of a factor for both states when rice planting begins. In contrast, gaps between early and late planting curves in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri expand after rice planting starts and are widest during the second week of April through the second to third week of May. Thus, mid-spring weather can greatly accelerate or greatly delay rice plantings in the northern states.Rice plantings in 2025 have concluded or are very close to completion for all five southern rice states as of this writing. How did rice plantings in 2025 compare with historic 10-year averages? The answer of course varies by state. Arkansas and Mississippi experienced intermittent precipitation throughout the 2025 planting season, leading to rice plantings tracking early and behind the 10-year average for both states at different times in the season. Heavy rain events occurred in both states, resulting in planting delays, flooded fields, washed-out levees, and the need for replanting. In Missouri, rain events slowed rice planting during the first three weeks of April, but planting eventually accelerated thereafter to track closely with the 10-year average. Louisiana and Texas rice plantings were at or ahead of the 10-year average during much of the 2025 planting season. 

    References and Resources

    USDA-NASS (2025). United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Crop Progress. https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/8336h188j

    Watkins, K.B., and T.K. Gautam (2021). An Overview of Rice Prevented Planting Acres in Arkansas, 2011 to 2020. In: J. Hardke, X. Sha, and N. Bateman (eds.) B.R. Wells Arkansas Rice Research Studies 2020. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Series 676:317-321. Fayetteville. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/aaesser/200/

    Watkins, Brad. “Historic and Current Rice Planting Progress in the Southern United States.” Southern Ag Today 5(26.1). June 23, 2025. Permalink