Southern Ag Today

Blog

Bringing Unassigned Base Back into Program Eligibility for Cotton Producers

Under the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill (section 10302), producers will have a voluntary opportunity to add new base to their operation, with up to 30 million new base acres allowed nationwide. The return of unassigned base into producers’ program eligible crop base is included in this total. A general question and answer guide was previously published in Southern Ag Today. Here, I focus specifically on unassigned base acres for cotton producers.

First, it helps to look back on how today’s unassigned base acres were created. In 2018, the Bipartisan Budget Act reinstated ‘seed cotton’ as a covered commodity eligible for participation in Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) or Price Loss Coverage (PLC). Cotton producers converted ‘generic base’ from the 2014 Farm Bill back to seed cotton or to other commodities. The calculation for seed cotton base resulted in a residual number of acres classified as ‘unassigned base’. Records for unassigned base were retained by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), but those acres were ineligible for ARC or PLC participation.

Each year since 2019, seed cotton producers have enrolled in either ARC or PLC, with the percentage of acres enrolled in each program varying over time. ARC payments for seed cotton peaked in 2022 [1] in the Southern states (total payments $52 million, with 26% of acres enrolled in ARC-CO) followed closely by 2023, driven heavily by weather related crop losses. Acres harvested and prices are shown in the figure. PLC payments peaked in 2019 ($981 million, with 99% of acres enrolled in PLC) during a period of low prices.

Fast forward to today. For cotton producers across the Southern region, the chance to voluntarily restore unassigned base into safety net programs is a meaningful opportunity. In 2025, there were 2.51 million unassigned generic base acres and 12.31 million seed cotton base acres in the U.S. The likelihood of unassigned base acres returning as seed cotton base acres varies geographically.

The National Cotton Council 2026 Economic Outlook [2] provided some encouraging signs that global demand may expand, but price pressure is expected to remain. With the increase in the seed cotton reference price from $0.367/lb to $0.42/lb in the One Big Beautiful Bill, expanded safety net eligible acres for cotton producers with a 5-year history of production may help cover a portion of breakeven costs that remain above historical average levels.

Figure 1. Upland Cotton

Data source: USDA NASS QuickStats

[1] USDA Farm Service Agency. 2019-2026 ARC and PLC Program Data. Available online: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/arc-plc/program-data

[2] Campiche, J., S. Boyd, and M. Huffman. 2026. “The Economic Outlook for U.S. Cotton 2026.” The National Cotton Council. Available online: https://www.cotton.org/econ/reports/annual-outlook.cfm

Hagerman, Amy. “Bringing Unassigned Base Back into Program Eligibility for Cotton Producers.” Southern Ag Today 6(8.4). February 19, 2026. Permalink

February 19, 2026
2026 Rice Market Outlook

Authors

Ryan Loy, Assistant Professor, University of Arkansas

Alvaro Durand-Morat, Associate Professor, University of Arkansas

2025 Domestic Market Recap and 2026 Outlook

In 2025, U.S. rice acreage amounted to roughly 2.8 million acres, of which 2.7 million acres were harvested (USDA-NASS, 2026). All rice class acreage was down about 4 percent from 2024, due in part to the generational flood event that took place in April across the Midsouth, which forced many farmers to replant, or in some cases leave ground fallow due to razor-thin margins for rice in the South (Biram et al., 2025).  Compared to 2025, the upcoming growing season preview shows tighter stocks, with a declining price environment. The January 2026 WASDE report currently pegs long grain ending stocks at about 34.6 million bushels, little changed from the 24/25 marketing year but with a significant change in average farm price, which is currently forecasted at $10.50/cwt (down from $14.00/cwt during the 24/25 marketing year) (USDA, 2026).

2026 International Trade Outlook

International rice prices remain low due to large exportable surpluses, particularly from Asian exporters, and lower import demand from Indonesia. Temporary price increases, such as those observed in Thailand in late 2025, have already reversed, and export prices across major suppliers—including the United States, Uruguay, Thailand, and Vietnam—show sharp year-on-year declines (FAO, 2026). Unless major production shocks occur in Asia, prices are expected to remain depressed through 2026.

Global rice production for the 2025/26 campaign is projected to be near record levels (around 541 million metric tons), with demand slightly lower (538.6 million metric tons), resulting in a third consecutive year of global surplus and continued stock accumulation (USDA-FAS, 2026). India has emerged as the world’s leading rice producer, surpassing China since 2024/25, and it is expected to reach a new production record in 2025/26 (preliminary reports suggest a record high main Kharif crop harvested in 2025 and an increase in area planted of the second Rabi crop). Its rapidly growing exportable surplus makes India a decisive force in shaping global market dynamics.

Since U.S. long-grain rice competes strongly with Mercosur rice in the Western Hemisphere, it is important to highlight that the upcoming 2025/26 Mercosur harvest is expected to be smaller due to reduced planted area and climatic challenges, although high initial stocks—especially in Brazil—will partially offset lower output (USDA-FAS, 2026). Thus, Mercosur’s lower production performance may be good news for U.S. rice, maintaining or reclaiming market share throughout the Western Hemisphere.

In this international context, U.S. long-grain exports in the first half of marketing year 2025/26 (August-January) decreased 31% relative to the same period a year ago (Figure 1). While the U.S. has maintained export levels to Haiti and Iraq, it has experienced a significant drop in exports to Mexico and, to a lesser extent, to Canada and Honduras, due largely to increasing competition from South America.

Figure 1. U.S. long-grain exports during August-January of the marketing year – total and by top five destinations.

References

Biram, H.D., Loy, R., Hardke, J., Kelley, J., Ross, J., and Davis, J. 2025. Analysis Suggests Historic Flooding Results in $99 Million in Crop-Related Damages. University of Arkansas Factsheet. FSA93. Available online at, https://uaex.uada.edu/publications/PDF/FSA93.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2026. Crop Production: 2025 Summary. Available online at, https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/release-files/795725/cropan26.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2026. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. Available online at, https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0126.pdf.

FAO Rice Price Update. Available online at https://www.fao.org/markets-and-trade/commodities/rice/fao-rice-price-update/en/

United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. 2026. Production, Supply and Distribution Online. Available at https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/advQuery

United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. 2026. Export Sales Reporting. Available at https://apps.fas.usda.gov/esrquery/esrq.aspx

Loy, Ryan, and Alvaro Durand-Morat. “2026 Rice Market Outlook.” Southern Ag Today 6(8.3). February 18, 2026. Permalink

February 18, 2026
Regional Cattle Price Spreads and Patterns

Cattle prices have been supported by supply and demand fundamentals but, they’ve had to navigate several disruptive events, including the announcement by Tyson Foods of the closure of their Lexington, Nebraska packing plant, another Texas beef plant shifting to a single full-capacity shift, rising detections of New World Screwworm in Mexico (NWS), and political comments about boosting beef imports. Fundamental factors and disruptions carry important implications for regional cattle prices.

The closure of the Lexington, Nebraska, beef plant and reduced shifts in Texas represent a decline in demand for fed cattle in those regions and, all else equal, place downward pressure on prices. These changes in processing capacity also negatively affect feeder cattle prices, though that impact is lagged. The first graph shows the relationship between Nebraska and Texas fed steers sold live FOB. The spread (green line) is calculated as the Nebraska steer price minus the Texas steer price. A narrowing of the spread reflects stronger prices in Texas, while a widening of the spread reflects stronger prices in Nebraska.

Leading up to the plant closure announcement, we observe a sharp narrowing of the spread, indicating stronger prices in Texas relative to Nebraska that appears to extend beyond typical seasonal patterns. Historically, seasonality in the spread reflects relatively stronger Nebraska prices during the summer months, with prices more closely aligned in the fall and winter. It is important to note that this period was already characterized by extreme market volatility related to trade policy proposals and retail beef prices. It is difficult to disentangle the effects of beef plant closures from other sources of bearish market news. The key point is that a lot has occurred over a short period, all of which has implications for regional fed cattle markets.

More recent news related to New World Screwworm (NWS) has implications going back to fall 2024. Border closures restrict feeder cattle imports, tightening cattle supplies and supporting prices in Texas, while speculation about reopening the border would have the opposite effect and place downward pressure on prices.

The second graph shows the monthly relationship between 700–800 lb. feeder steer prices in Texas and Nebraska. Monthly prices are used because weekly prices tend to be noisier. The spread is calculated as the Nebraska steer price minus the Texas steer price. As feeder cattle prices have trended higher overall, the magnitude of relative price movements between the two regions has also increased.

Comparing the Nebraska–Texas feeder steer price relationship (third graph) highlights a counter-seasonal pattern that has emerged in recent years. Feeder steer prices in Nebraska have been relatively stronger during the fall over the past two years compared to the previous five-year average. At the same time, the typical seasonal peak in the price spread during the summer of 2025 appears muted relative to both 2024 and the five-year average, which could be related to feeder cattle trade restrictions.

Taken together, recent movements in regional price spreads across feeder and fed cattle markets point to changes in how prices are adjusting across locations and stages of production. These observations are based on visual inspection of price relationships rather than formal analysis, and several factors could be contributing to the patterns shown. In feeder cattle markets, shifts away from typical seasonal patterns coincide with periods of trade-related uncertainty and tighter supplies, while fed cattle markets have also exhibited notable regional price movements coinciding with broader market volatility.

Source: USDA-AMS; LMIC

Source: USDA-AMS; LMIC

Source: USDA-AMS; LMIC

Mitchell, James. “Regional Cattle Price Spreads and Patterns.” Southern Ag Today 6(8.2). February 17, 2026. Permalink

February 17, 2026
A Dollar Saved is a Dollar Earned

As the adage goes, “a dollar saved is a dollar earned”. Perhaps even more so if the dollar is saved from paying taxes and can go towards funding retirement. Many farmers may imagine a scenario where they keep working until their dying breath, and while that might be possible, it is prudent to have other income and a backup plan if needed. Additionally, there can be tax advantages to contributing to a retirement plan now, regardless of whether the income is needed in the future.

Many farmers fall under the sole proprietor / self-employed category, so that will be the predominant situation we’ll examine. It could be that the farmer, their spouse, or both are also working off-the-farm and contribute to their employer’s retirement plan. That can certainly be beneficial (especially if the employer matches contributions), but in some cases, it may alter the tax impacts of a self-employed retirement plan. Each farm’s situation will be a bit different, so be aware that this is not financial or tax advice but general education.

A traditional IRA allows taxpayers, such as self-employed individuals, to contribute up to an annual set amount. The limits are published each year by the federal government. For the 2025 tax year, the annual limit is $7,000 ($8,000 for age 50+), and in 2026 it increases to $7,500 ($8,600 for age 50+). Not only is the amount invested and allowed to grow tax-free until withdrawal from the account (when the withdrawal is taxed as income), but it can also provide a current-year tax deduction when the contribution is made. Another significant feature of these accounts is that contributions can be made up until the tax filing deadline of the next year. For example, a contribution can be made up until April 15 of this year, and it will count as a contribution for the 2025 tax year. Practically speaking, this means that a “pro-forma” or hypothetical tax return could be prepared to estimate current taxes and see how various IRA contribution amounts affect the taxes owed. You will need to specify to your IRA plan administrators the year to which the contribution should apply.

Traditional IRA contributions are deducted on line 20 of the Schedule 1 (Form 1040) and can reduce Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) (line 11a Form 1040) on the tax return. Both spouses can contribute to their own traditional IRA for a potential deduction of up to $14,000. Again, the deduction amount can be impacted by whether either spouse is covered by a work retirement plan and the couple’s overall income, but it can provide a significant deduction if allowed to take the full amount. If the taxpayer or preparer is using tax software to run scenarios, it can make comparisons fairly straightforward. If software is not available, an IRA Deduction Worksheet is included with the Form 1040 instructions that can be a manual way to calculate the traditional IRA deduction.

Many questions come up about Roth IRA accounts. They are also a helpful planning tool but are a bit reversed from traditional accounts. Roth accounts do not provide a current-year tax deduction, but when contributions and earnings are withdrawn later, they are not subject to income tax. It is important to note that the annual contribution limits are considered combined for both the traditional and Roth IRAs. For instance, a $3,500 contribution could be made to a Roth and a $3,500 contribution made to a traditional, as long as the combined total does not exceed the $7,000 limit per individual. Other plans exist, such as SEP, SIMPLE, and 401(k) retirement plans that are similar in nature, with some differing features and stipulations. As always, consult your accountant and/or tax professional for specific guidance on these and other tax/retirement planning tools. For further reading visit IRS Publication 590-A and the IRS website on retirement plans.

Burkett, Kevin. “A Dollar Saved is a Dollar Earned.” Southern Ag Today 6(8.1). February 16, 2026. Permalink

February 16, 2026
Challenges for the Cooperative Farm Store in 2026

In January 2026, the Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council (TACC) held their annual Farm Store Summit. The Summit is a gathering of farm store managers which allows for the sharing of ideas, success stories, and strategies in response to their greatest challenges. As participants discussed the challenges facing their farm store operations, three themes stood out.

I.  Increasing Competition

Consolidation in supply markets, especially for fertilizer, chemical, and seed, is having a negative impact on form store profitability. Agricultural industries are populated by some very large suppliers who may also be competitors in the retail space. That’s a difficult situation for a local cooperative farm store. Increasing urbanization adds to the challenge with a change in the surrounding customer base. As agriculture loses acres to homes and other industries, cooperatives are challenged to adapt to an urban consumer to help maintain sales volume. They strive to tell these customers that they are welcome at the co-op. These changes also bring increased competition from urban-focused retailers like Walmart, Home Depot, and Tractor Supply Co.  Although cooperatives feel they might have an advantage in expertise, their competitors are marketing and distribution powerhouses.

II.  Finding Good Employees

Several times during the summit a manager praised the value of a good employee. In a retail business, employees can make all the difference. They are the first to greet customers and the last to ensure that all expectations were met. Employees that are friendly and engaging with customers generate increased sales. Likewise, poor employees can leave customers feeling dissatisfied and inclined to take their business elsewhere. Even when everything else in the cooperative is executed perfectly, negative behavior and attitudes of employees will be felt in sales. As one manager put it, “culture can edge out competency”. Cooperative farm store managers are replacing the negative energy of poor employees with the profitability that comes with employees that value and understand excellent customer service.

III.  The Attitude of the Board

Perhaps the greatest challenge to the cooperative farm store comes from within the board room. Many managers expressed concern over the attitude of board members toward retail operations. Board members sometimes see their farm store as a needed service rather than a profit center for the cooperative. They are willing to take losses on an activity that represents a convenience or perceived security, especially when the cooperative has another primary activity, such as a grain elevator. However, a profitable farm store represents added resilience to overall cooperative operations. Additionally, board members may focus on the convenience aspects of carrying certain inventory and neglect the profit considerations of inventory turnover. A tractor part may seem invaluable for an occasional emergency, but inventory that sits on the shelf for ten years has already lost money. Retail space and the money used to stock the shelves are investments.

Successful farm stores are valuable to their members and communities. Not only do they provide needed products and services, but they also generate profits from other parts of the supply chain. Their success depends on adapting to competition, excellent customer service, and direction from a board that is focused on profit and financial stability.

Park, John. “Challenges for the Cooperative Farm Store in 2026.” Southern Ag Today 6(7.5). February 13, 2026. Permalink

February 13, 2026