Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • Understanding Interval-Based Enrollment Risk in PRF: How Interval Selection Strategies Can Impact Protection Across the South

    Understanding Interval-Based Enrollment Risk in PRF: How Interval Selection Strategies Can Impact Protection Across the South

    Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage (PRF) insurance continues to be one of the most widely used federal crop insurance plans nationwide, with the most insured acres of any crop insurance plan in the US. While the program’s design has remained the same, the rainfall patterns that determine its performance have not (Davis et al. 2025). A new analysis comparing baseline loss ratios with recent changes in rainfall inconsistency highlights areas where producers may need to reconsider their insured intervals, and why those adjustments matter.

    Figure 1 presents the baseline loss ratios of PRF from 2017 to 2024 across the south, demonstrating how the program would perform without interval choice affecting outcomes. This eliminates the human enrollment bias that happens when producers repeatedly select intervals that paid better in the past, do not follow a consistent enrollment strategy, or do not enroll consistently in general (Davis et al. 2025). Results show a mean loss ratio of 0.79 and a standard deviation of 0.20, indicating that, after controlling for enrollment behavior, most grids in the South maintain a relatively stable loss ratio that is below the national standard of 1.  Figure 1 demonstrates that baseline performance and protection received by producers varies by location.

    Figure 1. Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage Baseline Loss Ratio Map Across the Southern United States for Policy Years (2017-2024)

    Note: For these values, each of the 11 dual-month intervals held equal weight of the policy for each year (2017-2024) and was averaged at the grid level. 

    Davis et al. 2025 demonstrate that changes in the trend and variance of rainfall over time can be incorporated into an interval selection strategy. With PRF’s Rainfall Index being based on outcomes back to 1948, changes in more recent years in rainfall are less and less impactful on the index. So the strategy is to use the declining impact of each year’s rainfall to identify a gap between the assumed and actual risks, as our research showed. Figure 2 shows the results of such a strategy. The mean loss ratios of these grids increased to 0.83 under this strategy, with a standard deviation of 0.33. There is an increase in the average loss ratio, though not massive, and, more interestingly, a big jump in the standard deviation. This tells us that in certain areas, such as grids where rainfall has been especially uncertain, looking at past Rainfall Index values can help you choose a policy aligned with the intervals that provide the most safety net protection for your situation. 

    Regions with loss ratios of 1+ are presented as either white or red grid cells. Compared with Figure 1, there are significant visual changes. Except for Kentucky and Tennessee, most southern states show more grids performing at or above the standard loss ratio of 1, suggesting improved outcomes for producers when using this interval selection strategy. Grids that were performing well across all intervals (Figure 1) also seem to perform even better under this strategy.

    Figure 2. Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage Loss Ratio Map with Enrollment Selected by Increasing Rainfall Uncertainty Across the Southern United States Averages for Each Policy Year (2017-2024)

    Together, these two maps highlight how PRF interval selection is critically important to the insurance outcome and the protection provided to the producer. For producers, the baseline loss ratio map can act as a reference for the expected PRF performance in their grid. However, it is important to investigate the performance of select 2-month intervals and take a more strategic approach, like the example above, to improve the chances of getting dependable coverage. A great place to start is by looking at the PRF Rainfall Index values for your area. Watch for downward trends or times when the index has been more variable.  Of course, it is also important to consider interval selection based on the seasons when rainfall is most critical to your forage production cycle.  Together, take advantage of all the information available to choose the interval combinations that best add to your farm’s safety net.

    References:

    Davis, Walker, Lawson Connor, Hunter Biram, and Michael Popp. 2025. “Performance and Feasibility of Pasture Rangeland and Forage Insurance in the Delta Region.” M.S., University of Arkansas. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3255211943/abstract/752CC539274B4F6FPQ/1.

    Davis, Walker, Lawson Connor, Michael Popp, and Shelby Ryder. 2025. “Is PRF Profitable in a Wetter State?” Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, 132–46.

    Davis, Walker. Understanding Interval-Based Enrollment Risk in PRF: How Interval Selection Strategies Can Impact Protection Across the South. Southern Ag Today 5(46.1). November 10, 2025. Permalink

  • Court Asked to Overturn Registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo

    Court Asked to Overturn Registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo

    Environmental plaintiffs are seeking summary judgment in a lawsuit they filed in 2023 to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) 2022 decision to register the pesticides Enlist One and Enlist Duo for use through January 2029. Specifically, the plaintiffs have asked the court to revoke the labels for both Enlist products, a move that would make both products unavailable for use.

    Both Enlist One and Enlist Duo are herbicide products manufactured and sold by Corteva Agriscience LLC. Both products contain as an active ingredient the choline salt of 2,4-dichlogophenoxyacetic acid, otherwise known as 2,4-D. Enlist Duo also includes glyphosate as a second active ingredient. Enlist One and Enlist Duo have both been approved for use on 2,4-D resistant corn, soybean, and cotton crops in 34 states. 

    A pesticide may not be sold or distributed in the United States until EPA registers the pesticide for use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). To register a pesticide, FIFRA requires EPA to determine that using the pesticide for its intended purpose will not cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” which is defined as “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of the pesticide.” In other words, FIFRA requires EPA to register a pesticide for use only if the agency has determined that the costs of using the pesticide in its intended manner do not outweigh the benefits.

    When EPA registered Enlist One and Enlist Duo for use in 2022, the agency concluded that one of the main benefits of using Enlist products was the products’ effectiveness against herbicide-resistant broadleaf weeds in cotton and soybean crops. EPA also identified certain environmental risks such as potential harm to pollinators, pollinator host plants such as milkweed, and other wildlife species. To address those risks, EPA included additional application requirements on the Enlist labels to reduce the amount of 2,4-D that could travel off target via spray drift or runoff. Those measures included a 30-foot spray drift buffer and a requirement that Enlist applicators select mitigation measures from a “pick list” developed by EPA for the purpose of limiting pesticide exposure to wildlife. Each mitigation measure is assigned a point value, and to apply Enlist One or Enlist Duo, applicators will need to achieve four to six points of runoff mitigation depending on their location. To learn more about EPA’s mitigation “pick list” for herbicides, click here.

    The plaintiffs in Ctr. For Food Safety v. Envtl. Protection Agency filed a motion for summary judgment with the court in late August.  In that motion, the plaintiffs argue that EPA did not satisfy FIFRA’s “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” standard when registering Enlist One and Enlist Duo because EPA (1) understated or ignored important costs to the environment; (2) overstated alleged benefits; and (3) improperly relied on ineffective mitigation.

    First, the plaintiffs argue that EPA’s 2022 registration failed to fully analyze the environmental costs posed by use of Enlist products. According to the plaintiffs, when EPA drafted its 2022 registration decision it failed to evaluate current usage data for Enlist products. Instead, EPA relied on Enlist use data from 2018 and 2019 which the plaintiffs claim was before the widespread adoption of Enlist products. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue that EPA failed to consider the future use of Enlist which the plaintiffs claim will continue to increase during the seven-year registration period. By failing to consider the actual amount of Enlist products that would be applied during the registration period, the plaintiffs claim that EPA understated the environmental costs posed by Enlist. 

    Next, the plaintiffs argued that EPA overstated the benefits of using Enlist One and Enlist Duo by exaggerating the effectiveness of Enlist products on herbicide-resistant weeds. The plaintiffs claim that although EPA suggests using Enlist with other pesticides or weed management tools to avoid contributing to the likelihood of increased herbicide resistance, evidence indicates that many applicators use Enlist products as their sole method of controlling glyphosate-resistant weeds. According to the plaintiffs, this increases the likelihood that weeds will grow more resistant to herbicides, which EPA failed to address when registering the pesticides.

    Lastly, the plaintiffs claim that the mitigation measures that EPA added to the Enlist labels fail to effectively mitigate the adverse effects that Enlist One and Enlist Duo have on the environment. The mitigation measures stem from a new policy that EPA has adopted to limit the impacts of pesticide exposure to species of wildlife protected by the Endangered Species Act. Enlist One and Enlist Duo were some of the first products to have new mitigation measures added to their labels as a result of this policy. The mitigations for Enlist include a 30-foot spray drift buffer and a requirement that applicators achieve four to six points of runoff reduction by selecting one or more mitigation activities from a “pick list” developed by EPA. 

    According to the plaintiffs, EPA’s reliance on a 30-foot drift buffer is contrary to evidence showing that 2,4-D can drift further off target. The plaintiffs also argue that the runoff mitigation measures identified by EPA do not effectively reduce pesticide runoff. They claim that most farmers that use Enlist products would not have to make any changes to their applications to achieve the required number of runoff points. Therefore, the plaintiffs argue that the spray drift and runoff mitigation measures do not effectively reduce the adverse effects that Enlist One and Enlist Duo have on the environment.

    In filing a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs have asked the court to overturn the 2022 Enlist labels. If the court does so, it would likely result in neither product remaining available for use. Additionally, the court’s ruling in this case could have broader implications for EPA’s new mitigation policy. If the court agrees with the plaintiffs that the spray drift and runoff mitigations do not satisfy FIFRA, that could impact other pesticide labels that include mitigation measures based on EPA’s policy. However, should the court disagree with the plaintiffs and find that the mitigation measures meet the FIFRA “adverse effects on the environment” standard, that would suggest that other pesticide labels with similar mitigation measures could also survive a legal challenge. Ultimately, the outcome of this court case could have effects that are felt throughout the agricultural industry. To learn more about this lawsuit, click here.

    Rollins, Brigit. “Court Asked to Overturn Registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo.” Southern Ag Today 5(45.5). November 7, 2025. Permalink

  • A Reminder That All Three Parts of the Producer Safety Net Matter

    A Reminder That All Three Parts of the Producer Safety Net Matter

    Over the past few months, we have been asked by producers on multiple occasions…since the ARC and PLC programs aren’t going to help very much why don’t we just forget it and use the money on crop insurance that does help?  This article contains the answer we typically give to that question. 

    First, remember that the producer safety net is made of three parts: ARC and PLC, marketing assistance loans, and crop insurance.  Over the past few years, ARC and PLC have not kept up in trying to offset producer losses that have occurred because of low commodity prices and extremely high costs of production.  The marketing assistance loan program provides a harvest time loan to producers who need the cash flow but do not want to sell at harvest, which is typically the lowest prices of the year.  Not all producers utilize the marketing assistance loan program; however, in the South, cotton producers have routinely used this program.  At the same time, producers have reported that crop insurance programs (especially revenue insurance) have been a very useful safety net for their operations and that crop insurance was the most important part of the safety net.  We cannot disagree with this assertation. 

    However, going forward, the One Big Beautiful Bill significantly increased reference prices used in both ARC and PLC while changes were made to the ARC program that will trigger payments sooner while covering bigger potential losses.  These changes will help increase the value of ARC and PLC to producers.  At the same time, in the current low-price environment, crop insurance will become relatively less helpful as insurance prices—which are based on a month of futures market daily closing values—are likely to be significantly lower than producers’ costs of production.  Losses will still be covered; however, producers will be indemnified at levels far below recent years because the futures market prices are low.   

    The good news in all of this is when market prices eventually rise, insurance prices will rise with them.  With higher prices, the ARC and PLC program will be less likely to trigger assistance.  The marketing assistance loan program will still be useful to offer storage loans to allow producers to pay their bills while waiting for prices to increase.  In this situation, what we see is that each of the three parts of the producer safety net are important and are designed to complement one another, but there will be times when each are relatively more important.

    Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. “A Reminder That All Three Parts of the Producer Safety Net Matter.” Southern Ag Today 5(45.4). November 6, 2025. Permalink

  • Soybeans Stage a Comeback: Chinese Demand and Biofuel Growth Lead the Way

    Soybeans Stage a Comeback: Chinese Demand and Biofuel Growth Lead the Way

    Following strong prices in 2022 and 2023, soybean values have fallen sharply from highs above $14 per bushel to current levels near $10.00 across much of the United States. While prices have recently rebounded on news of renewed Chinese buying, soybeans are still projected to generate negative returns during the 2025/26 marketing year. Looking ahead to 2026/27, November 2026 soybean futures are trading near $11.10. Assuming a -$0.50 harvest basis, a trend yield of 55 bushels per acre, and $650 per acre in input costs, estimated returns still imply roughly a $67 per-acre loss.

    While it is still early and profitable prices could emerge, the signal remains clear: soybean supply continues to outpace demand at current production levels, and without stronger and sustained demand growth, profitability will remain elusive.

    Between 2019 and 2022, U.S. soybeans were split roughly between exports (44%) and domestic crush (47%), with the remainder going to seed, feed, residual use, or ending stocks (Oilseed Yearbook, 2025). Recently, crush expansion has boosted domestic demand, but exports have declined, particularly due to reduced Chinese purchases (Gerlt, 2025). The U.S. recently negotiated a trade agreement under which China will purchase 12 million metric tons (MMT) of U.S. soybeans by January 2026, followed by 25 MMT annually from 2027 through 2029. This level would return Chinese buying close to 2024/25 volumes (Clayton, 2025). While the agreement provides some near-term support, questions remain about fulfillment and what happens beyond 2029.

    In the near term, renewed Chinese buying represents the most direct path back to profitability. Crush expansion is important but largely anticipated by markets and will ramp up gradually; it cannot immediately offset recent export weakness. Meanwhile, China remains by far the dominant global buyer: in 2022, China imported more soybeans than all other countries combined, with the rest of the world accounting for just 61% of China’s import value (Figure 1). Over the long run, diversifying export markets can reduce reliance on China and lower price risk, but fully replacing Chinese demand is unrealistic.

    Longer-term, continued crush growth provides a pathway to tighter balance sheets. Figure 2 illustrates how expanded crush capacity could increase domestic use even if Chinese purchases do not return to prior highs. Projected crush use climbs steadily after 2025 (Gerlt, 2025), supported by renewable diesel and other biofuel investments that may anchor domestic soybean demand going forward. If exports can stabilize near current projections, or strengthen modestly, the combination of incremental trade growth and rising domestic crush could gradually restore profitability. The recent trade agreement may buy time, but building durable demand outside of China will be essential to a more resilient soybean market beyond 2029.

    Figure 1: World Demand for Soybeans Outside of China, 2022

    Figure 2: Soybean Supply, Demand, and Projected Crush Expansion

    Citations: 

    Clayton, Chris. “Trump Champions Soy Deal for Farmers.” Progressive Farmer. October 30, 2025. https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2025/10/30/bessent-china-agrees-buy-nearly-1-us

    Gardner, Grant. “Major Players in US Trade and Grain Market Volatility.” Southern Ag Today 5(15.3). April 9, 2025. Permalink

    Gerlt, Scott. (2025, April 10). Soybean Crush Expansion, 2025 Update. American Soybean Association. Retrieved from https://soygrowers.com/news-releases/soybean-crush-expansion-2025-update/

    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2025). Oil Crops Yearbook [Data set]. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    World Bank (n.d.). World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS) [Data set]. Accessed via WITS: https://wits.worldbank.org/

    Gardner, Grant. “Soybeans Stage a Comeback: Chinese Demand and Biofuel Growth Lead the Way.” Southern Ag Today 5(45.3). November 5, 2025. Permalink

  • Cattle Auction Prices Follow Futures Prices Lower

    Cattle Auction Prices Follow Futures Prices Lower

    Cattle futures markets remained volatile last week but tended to rebound following the sharp selloff generated by the discussion of plans to lower beef prices.  Given a couple of weeks, we now have a better picture of how cattle auction cash prices reacted to the futures market uncertainty.  

    The CME December Live Cattle contract traded below $224 for part of the day on October 27th, but has since recovered some and is trading above $232 at the time of this writing. This is sharply lower than the $248 price on October 16th. However, it is just a few dollars below the average trading price of the December contract during the month of September ($235.80). Similarly, the CME November Feeder Cattle contract traded below $330 for part of the day on October 28th but has since recovered some and is trading above $342 at the time of this writing. For context, this contract topped $380 on October 16th but averaged $353.72 during trading in September. The market uncertainty over the past few weeks has not crashed the futures market to low levels, but it has erased the rally seen in futures markets over the past month or two. 

    Most auction markets operate sales one day per week, compared to the futures market that trades every weekday.  Local auctions have now had at least one sale since the futures market selloff and rebound, so we have the opportunity to better gauge the local cash market reaction.  Auction market prices saw sizable drops last week across the Southeast. The table shows selected averages for various states across the southeast.  Prices were lower across all states in the table for both 500-600lb steers and 700-800lb steers. Prices dropped the most in Oklahoma City and in Missouri. Averaging across all states, the value of a 550 lb. steer was about $150 lower per head in the southeast compared to the week prior. The value of a 750 lb. steer was about $120 lower per head. The impacts were certainly larger in some states. 

    Fed cattle prices also dropped last week. The average live negotiated fed steer price fell $7 per cwt to $230.86, which is the lowest weekly average since the last week of September. Boxed beef cutout values did not decline. The choice cutout was about $7 higher last week and is $12 higher than it was two weeks ago.  It’s worth remembering that the cutout reflects the values of the 7 primal cuts weighted by their pounds in the carcass.  Imports would largely have more of an impact on lean beef trimmings for ground beef.  While some chucks and rounds go into ground beef, along with some sirloins and occasionally some briskets, the impact of more imports might have a more indirect effect on the boxed beef cutout.

    There remains significant fundamental strength for cattle markets given the tight supplies of cattle and strong demand for beef. However, the past few weeks have shown that uncertainty can have swift impacts on cattle prices – not only for traders in futures markets but also at cattle auctions in towns across the U.S. 

    Southeast Cattle Prices
    Prices $/cwt.     		For Weeks Ending On
    10/31/25   10/24/25     11/1/24    		%Chg
    Prev. Week    		%Chg
    Prev. Year    		  Chg Prev.
    Week
    500-600lb.
    Feeder Steers    		Mississippi
    MIL #1-2    		$355.63$374.66$252.68-5%41%($19.03)
    Arkansas MIL#1$379.93$406.43$267.74-7%42%($26.50)
    Kentucky MIL#1-2$370.00$396.52$267.74-7%38%($26.52)
    Oklahoma MIL#1-2$378.76$428.54$265.80-12%42%($49.78)
    Alabama MIL#1$382.54$405.10$263.25-6%45%($22.55)
    Tennessee
    MIL #1-2    		$351.26$361.37$257.56-3%36%($10.11)
    Texas 
    MIL #1-2    		$347.73$374.21$263.65-7%32%($26.48)
    Missouri MIL#1-2$365.08$406.06$269.15-10%36%($40.98)
    700-800 lb. Feeder SteersMississippi
    MIL #1-2    		$299.22$318.83$211.66-6%41%($19.60)
    Arkansas MIL#1$341.16$355.77$226.06 -4%51%($14.61)
    Kentucky MIL#1-2$332.35$341.63$238.65-3%39%($9.27)
    Oklahoma MIL#1-2$334.26$356.95$246.09-6%36%($22.69)
    Alabama MIL#1$327.36$333.72$231.67-2%41%($6.36)
    Tennessee
    MIL #1-2    		$315.63$322.00$226.65-2%39%($6.37)
    Texas 
    MIL #1-2    		$312.50$334.24$241.60-7%29%($21.74)
    Missouri MIL#1-2$334.58$362.91$240.18-8%39%($28.33)
    Negotiated Fed SteersLive Price$230.86$237.89$189.82-3%22%($7.03)
    Dressed Price$358.54$369.30$296.97-3% 21%($10.76)
    Boxed Beef CutoutChoice Value,
    600-900 lb.    		$379.06$372.13$319.502%19%$6.93
    Select Value,
    600-900 lb.    		$360.32$354.47$288.372%25%$5.85
    Sources: USDA, LMIC, and CME

    Maples, Josh. “Cattle Auction Prices Follow Futures Prices Lower.” Southern Ag Today 5(45.2). November 4, 2025. Permalink