Through the first quarter of 2026, the U.S. imported 1.7 billion pounds of beef, which is up more than 15 percent from the same period last year. Beef exports fell nearly 18 percent to 586 million pounds. Both trends reflect the tight U.S. cattle herd and high domestic beef prices.
South Korea and Japan together accounted for nearly half of all U.S. beef exports but have both declined, down 7 percent and 17 percent, respectively. Mexico and Canada, the third and fourth largest destinations, each declined around 8 percent, while Taiwan was the lone increase among major markets, up nearly 8 percent. Exports to China during the first three months of 2026 totaled only 5.3 million pounds, down 95 percent from a year ago and a dramatic reversal from recent years when China was among the top U.S. beef markets.
On the import side, the U.S. imported 1.7 billion pounds through the first quarter, up 15.3 percent year over year. Brazil leads all import sources with 394 million pounds, up 8 percent. The majority of those shipments entered at the higher out-of-quota tariff rate of 26.4 percent after the “Other Countries” annual quota was filled within the first week of 2026. Australia posted a 12 percent gain to 334 million pounds. The largest gain among major suppliers came from Mexico, up 23 percent to 197 million pounds. It’s likely that some increase in beef imports from Mexico are due to the border closure to feeder cattle, leading to increased beef production in Mexico, boosting their exportable supplies. Argentina ranked sixth among suppliers at 3.6 percent of total imports despite shipments nearly doubling year over year.
USDA currently projects 2026 will set another annual import record. Tight domestic cattle supplies and strong beef demand are expected to keep imports elevated and exports under pressure well into 2026. The May 11thannouncement of suspension of the tariff rate quotas for beef, effectively reducing import tariff levels, could lead to even higher beef import totals. It’s worth remembering that the majority of beef imports are lean beef trimmings for ground beef so any potential impacts of more imports due to TRQ related tariffs would fall on trimmings and cull cow markets. But, even then, price impacts are expected to be limited.
The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has created volatility in fertilizer prices. While the duration of the conflict is hard to predict, the prolonged rise in energy prices (crude oil and natural gas) can have an impact on the price that U.S. agriculture producers pay for fertilizer. In turn, this can impact farm profitability at a time when margins are razor thin.
The Fertilizer Institute noted that 65% of overall U.S. agricultural nitrogen (N), phosphate (P), and potassium (K) needs are sourced by domestic production. However, the remaining 35% is supplemented by imports. Measured as the percent of imports relative to consumption, the U.S. imports 6% of its N needs- mainly from Trinidad and Tobago and Canada; 13% of its P needs from Peru and Morocco; and 94% of its K needs from Canada, Russia, Belarus, and Israel (Monaco, Schnitkey, and Paulson, 2025). Therefore, exposure to the global fertilizer market can lead to significant price volatility when geopolitical conflicts arise.
By examining fertilizer and fuel costs associated with corn, cotton, rice, and soybean production in Louisiana, a comparison is made between early January and mid-March prices. The early-January fertilizer and farm diesel expenditures were revisited by using the March 13, 2026, USDA AMS Alabama Production Cost Report’s diesel price and average bids for urea, DAP, and potash fertilizers. The price increase varies across nutrients, with N (urea) increasing by 27%, followed by K (potash) at 10%. Interestingly, DAP (P) declined but did show a relatively large price range ($756 to $1,075 per ton) in the weekly USDA report. Fuel prices increased from $2.85 to $4.04 per gallon, a $1.19 (42%) increase.
Table 1. Fertilizer input unit prices ($ per pound of active ingredient), January and March estimates.
Fertilizer
January
March
Change
Change
N
$0.60
$0.76
$0.16
27%
P
$1.03
$0.99
-$0.04
-4%
K
$0.40
$0.44
$0.04
10%
The level of fertilizer and fuel needs varies by crop nutrient requirements and irrigation method/frequency. For Louisiana crops, per-acre N needs are the highest in corn (210 pounds) and hybrid rice (150 pounds), while cotton requires 90 pounds and soybeans require none. P and K needs are relatively consistent among the selected crops at 60 and 40 pounds per acre. The suggested fertilizer rates for poly-pipe and flood irrigation applications were obtained from the LSU AgCenter. Tables 2-5 provide a January and March comparison of production expenditures for these energy-related inputs on a dollar per acre basis.
Table 2. Corn, cotton, rice, soybean fertilizer and fuel expenditures per acre, January and March estimates for Louisiana production.
Corn
Early-January
Mid-March
Item
Cost
Item
Cost
Change ($)
Change (%)
Fertilizer
$180.90
Fertilizer
$214.96
$34.06
19%
Fuel
$49.49
Fuel
$70.16
$20.67
42%
Total
$230.39
Total
$285.12
$54.73
Cotton
Early-January
Mid-March
Item
Cost
Item
Cost
Change ($)
Change (%)
Fertilizer
$139.80
Fertilizer
$153.82
$14.02
10%
Fuel
$65.43
Fuel
$92.75
$27.32
42%
Total
$205.23
Total
$246.57
$41.34
Rice
Early-January
Mid-March
Item
Cost
Item
Cost
Change ($)
Change (%)
Fertilizer
$155.20
Fertilizer
$179.45
$24.25
16%
Fuel
$128.09
Fuel
$181.57
$53.48
42%
Total
$283.29
Total
$361.02
$77.73
Soybeans
Early-January
Mid-March
Item
Cost
Item
Cost
Change ($)
Change (%)
Fertilizer
$71.50
Fertilizer
$71.44
-$0.06
0%
Fuel
$33.04
Fuel
$46.83
$13.79
42%
Total
$104.54
Total
$118.27
$13.73
For example, Louisiana corn fertility cost increased by $34 while diesel fuel for tractors, implements, and irrigation pumps increased by $21 per acre. In total, corn’s energy-related input costs increased by almost $55 per acre. Cotton’s energy-related input costs increased by $41 per acre. From Table 4, the energy-related input costs for rice increased by $78 per acre due to the paddy flood irrigation practice. Since soybeans received no N, the cost increase was the lowest at $14 per acre.
As economic conditions in the farm economy remain a concern for producers, restrictions on cash flows have acted to reduce the amount of inputs producers may pre-book earlier in the year when fertilizer and fuel prices were lower. This is an example of how geopolitical unrest and market distributions can affect local farming profitability.
Translating this production cost increase as a function of increased yield, a producer would have to yield an additional 11 bushels of corn per acre (at a price of $5.00); 111 pounds of cotton lint ($0.70 price); 6.4 hundredweights of rice ($12.20 price); and 7 bushels of soybeans ($11.80 price). As Louisiana benefited from favorable production conditions in 2025, further increases in yield per acre would likely exceed state records. While this information is specific to Louisiana, the application of partial enterprise budgeting can be applied to other states. This economic analysis understates the fact that, given the current farm economic conditions, generating additional per-acre production to compensate for increasing production costs is difficult even with a moderate improvement in commodity prices.
References
Deliberto, M. and B. Hilbun. “Projected Costs and Returns for Corn in Louisiana.” LSU AgCenter, January 2026.
Deliberto, M. and B. Hilbun. “Projected Costs and Returns for Cotton in Louisiana”. LSU AgCenter, January 2026.
Deliberto, M. and B. Hilbun. “Projected Costs and Returns for Rice in Louisiana.” LSU AgCenter, January 2026.
Deliberto, M. and B. Hilbun. “Projected Costs and Returns for Soybeans in Louisiana.” LSU AgCenter, January 2026.
Rural food systems[1], including the local foods movement, have been a popular topic over the last twenty years and gained even more popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Did this movement also encourage more cooperatives? To hone in on this, a survey of twenty-two CooperationWorks![2] members was performed in 2025, representing every state except for Nevada, Arizona, and Utah.
Cooperative Involvement in Rural Food Systems by Purpose and Activity
Survey results hint at the prevalence of cooperatives in rural food systems and the purposes and activities they represent[3]. Figure 1 shows that cooperatives are mentioned more often in relation to local, specialty, and niche-based foods. In contrast, other organizations, such as non-profit organizations and NGOs, are more often mentioned in relation to efforts to address nutrition and food insecurity. Figure 2 shows the mentions of cooperative involvement by specific rural food system activities. Food production and distribution are the most frequently mentioned activities, followed by rural grocery stores, food processing, and multi-stakeholder firms[4].
The Importance of Cooperatives in Rural Food Systems
While this survey does not measure the magnitude of cooperative involvement in rural food systems, it suggests that cooperatives are an important ingredient. Open-ended survey responses suggest that cooperatives involved in rural food systems tend to be newer and smaller, unlike older and larger “legacy” commodity cooperatives. This makes sense, as many aspects of rural food systems, such as local food systems, are also small and new, accounting for about 3.2% of our nation’s food supply (USDA NASS, 2024).
Figure 1: Cooperatives Mentioned in Rural Food Systems by Purpose
Figure 2: Cooperatives Mentioned in Rural Food Systems by Activity
The Cooperative Advantage
Many survey respondents expressed concerns about the continued availability of grant funding for rural food system efforts, as some have vanished amid shifting priorities away from COVID-era initiatives (e.g., LFPA grants). Cooperatives may have an advantage here, as cooperative members contribute equity to their organizations, potentially insulating them from changes in public funding priorities.
If you are part of a cooperative, stay engaged by attending meetings, voting in elections, and serving on the board. If you are looking to start a cooperative, CooperationWorks! and many land-grant universities have extension personnel and cooperative specialists available to assist.
[1] Rural food systems are largely synonymous with local and regional food systems: networks connecting food production, processing, distribution, and consumption within a specific region.
[3] The survey questions record the number of responses that mention cooperatives being involved in these activities and purposes. These percentages should not be considered the number or percentage of cooperatives involved in these activities or with these purposes. This survey is simply a barometer of whether cooperatives are involved in rural food systems.
[4] Multi-stakeholder firms are those with multiple membership types (e.g., producers and consumers), voting and investment options. Some states allow cooperatives to have these features, and some do not.
The U.S. is highly competitive in agricultural production and the largest agricultural exporter in the world. In 2024, these exports were estimated to total $181.3 billion. Given that the world population is expected to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050, the U.S. is well positioned to be the source of agricultural products to feed the growing population. Moreover, global GDP is expected to grow between 2 and 4 percent through 2050. This means that not only will there be more people to feed, but also those people will have more purchasing power.
Of the top eight U.S. agricultural export commodities, the U.S. ranks first in global exports of corn and pork, and second in soybeans, cotton, and poultry (Table 1). Meanwhile, Brazil, another powerhouse in agricultural production with $144.4 billion in agricultural exports in 2024, ranks first in global exports of soybeans, beef and veal, cotton and chicken, and second in corn and soybean meal. Brazil’s ability to double crop, produce two crops in the same season, and its potential to double or even triple its cropland puts it in a very advantageous position to continue to increase its global food market share. On the other hand, U.S. productivity and agricultural infrastructure, i.e., roads, rail, waterways, and ports, help in remaining competitive globally.
One area that erodes U.S. competitiveness is the increase in government regulations. To illustrate, Figure 1 shows the total number of pages published in the Code of Federal Regulations, increasing from around 15,000 in 1950 to around 190,000. If the cost of U.S. regulations were a country, it would be the fourth richest country in the world, just behind the U.S., China, and Japan. Moreover, a study by the National Association of Home Builders stated that 23.8 percent of the cost of a new single-family home, or an average of $93,870, is due to government regulations. Finally, regulatory costs, also known as societal hidden taxes, are equivalent to $14,684 or 22 percent of the 2020 annual household expense budget; more than any other expenses except housing, which is $22,624 (Figure 2).
Regulatory costs are an added source of concern to agricultural production as well. A study by Hamilton and McCullough (2025) showed that while production costs for a lettuce farmer in Salinas Valley, California, have increased significantly over the years, regulatory costs have increased exponentially from 2006 to 2024 (Table 2). In 2006, the cooperating lettuce grower reported regulatory costs totaling $109.15 per acre, increasing to $977.30 per acre in 2017, and growing to $1,600.12 per acre in 2024, which is a 63.7 percent increase from 2017 and a 1,366 percent increase since 2006. Regulatory costs comprised just 1.24 percent of production costs in 2006, then rose to 8.9 percent in 2017 and 12.6 percent of production costs in 2024. Agriculture is a hard business to be in; producers deal with constant price volatility, increasing input costs, pests, and weather, among many other challenges outside of their control. On top of that are increasing regulatory costs, which add yet another barrier to remaining competitive in the global arena with countries that do not have such a burden.
Table 1. Ranking of Agricultural Exports for Selected Commodities, 2025
United States
Brazil
Corn
1
2
Soybean
2
1
Beef-Veal
4
1
Pork
1
3
Wheat
5
10
Soybean Meal
3
2
Cotton
2
1
Poultry
2
1
Source: Production, Supply, Distribution (USDA/FAS)
Figure 1. Total Pages Published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 1950-2023.
Figure 2. U.S. Household Expense Budget of $66,928 Compared to Regulatory Costs
Table 2. Regulatory Costs for Salinas Valley Lettuce Grower, 2006, 2017, and 2024.
Regulatory Category
2006
2017
2024
Cost per acre
Education/Training for Regulatory Compliance
$1.27
$26.31
$25.60
Air Quality Requirements
$0.00
$5.31
$8.29
Water Quality/Quality Requirements
$4.30
$18.57
$29.72
Department of Pesticide Regulation
$22.98
$35.55
$47.59
Food Safety – LGMA Assessments
$0.64
$181.48
$244.15
Food Safety – PR Assessments
$19.66
$14.88
$13.18
Labor Health & Safety Requirements
$0.00
$28.72
$43.71
Worker’s Compensation
$58.94
$336.23
$428.40
ACA Requirements
$0.00
$141.19
$334.47
Labor Wage Requirements
$1.36
$189.10
$425.00
Totals (per acre)
$109.16
$977.34
$1,600.12
Source: Hamilton & McCullough, 2025
References
Adcock Flynn, Luis A. Ribera, Yuri Calil, and Constanza Valdes. “Brazil at 2040: Customer and Competitor.” Center for North American Studies, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University. CNAS Report 2018-02. October 2018.
Coffey, Bentley, Patrick A. McLaughlin, and Pietro Peretto. “The Cumulative Cost of Regulations.” April 2016
Crews Jr., Clyde Wayne. 2026. “Ten Thousand Commandments, 2026: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State.” 30th Anniversary Competitive Enterprise Institute Edition.
Calil, Yuri and Luis A. Ribera.2019. “Brazil’s Agricultural Production and Its Potential as Global Food Supplier.” Choices Magazine. Quarter 3.
Hamilton, Lynn and Michael McCullough. “A Decade of Change: A Case Study of Regulatory Compliance Costs in the Produce Industry.” Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. January 2025.
IMF World Economic Outlook (WEO). October 2015.
World Bank. “Global Economic Prospects.” January 2026.
World Trade Organization. “World Trade in Agriculture.” January 22, 2026.
In their April 8, 2026, Southern Ag Today article, Will Maples and Wendiam Sawadgo explained why futures markets matter for producers. Futures markets help farmers manage price risk, but speculators also play a useful role. Speculators add liquidity and take the “other side” of hedges, assuming price risk. But there is a second question worth asking. What happens when large amounts of financial capital enters agricultural futures markets?
Today’s agricultural commodity prices reflect more than local crop fundamentals. They also reflect money moving across asset classes. Economists call this “financialization”—the flow of capital into and out of agricultural futures by pension funds, index investors, exchange-traded funds, and managed money. Financial investors trade commodities for different reasons, including diversification and inflation protection. While stocks and bonds respond to interest rates, earnings, and Federal Reserve policy, agricultural commodities respond more directly to drought, exports, livestock cycles, biofuel demand, and global food demand. That difference makes commodities an attractive investment in a portfolio. As commodity index products have grown, agricultural futures markets have gained a larger and more persistent source of outside capital, contributing to price movements that may not always align with underlying crop fundamentals.
The extent to which financialization affects commodity prices remains debated. Fundamentals still dominate long-run agricultural prices, but financial participation can matter at the margin and add liquidity. It can also increase price volatility, moving with oil and other financial markets, as well as news from outside agriculture. Tang and Xiong (2012) found that after the growth of index investment, agricultural commodity futures became more correlated with broader financial markets, especially for commodities included in major indexes.
Using cotton markets as an example, Figure 1 plots the rolling 12-month correlation between monthly ICE cotton futures returns and monthly S&P 500 returns from December 2012 through May 2026. The correlation is positive in most months, averaging about +0.25. It reached +0.91 in the summer of 2020, when cotton and equities rallied together during the pandemic-era policy response. It can also turn negative, such as what occurred in late 2021 and early 2026. Some of this co-movement is fundamental. Cotton is an industrial input for textiles, and apparel demand rises and falls with consumer spending. However, the swings suggest that broader financial conditions may have affected the cotton price signal alongside fundamentals.
Figure 2 helps explain the financial channel. Index trader positions are large and slow to change. Hedge fund positions swing more sharply. Nearby cotton futures prices often move with those swings, but that does not mean hedge funds determine cotton prices. Robinson (2021) estimated that hedge fund positioning contributed to the 2021 rally, while flagging that tightening fundamentals and index fund buying were also at work. The lesson is that speculative flows can amplify short-run price moves.
Financialization does not displace fundamentals. Drought, exports, livestock cycles, and global food demand still drive agricultural prices in the long run. But financial flows now also shape how prices move in the short run, and the strength of that influence varies with the macroeconomic environment. Commodity futures prices carry two signals: one from the field and one from Wall Street. The weight of each changes over time. Producers do not need to become Wall Street traders, but understanding how that signal is built is now part of marketing agricultural commodities.
Figure 1. Rolling 12-Month Correlation Between ICE Cotton No. 2 Futures and the S&P 500, December 2012 Through May 2026.
Source: Author’s calculations from ICE Cotton No. 2 and S&P 500 monthly prices.
Figure 2. Cotton Net Positions of Index Funds, Hedge Funds, vs Nearby Futures Prices. January 3, 2006, through April 28, 2026
Source: The Cotton Marketing Planner (2026), Prof. John Robinson.
Tang, K., & Xiong, W. (2012). Index investment and the financialization of commodities. Financial Analysts Journal, 68(6), 54–74. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v68.n6.5
