Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • Dairy Semen Market Trends

    Dairy Semen Market Trends

    In a recent Southern Ag Today article, the topic of beef x dairy (BxD) placements was discussed (Wyatt and Martinez, 2025). In that article, the authors highlight that the number of BxD calves has been increasing since 2016. If the number of BxD calves has been increasing over that time frame, then the breeding decision to use beef semen versus dairy semen, should have an impact on cattle semen sales. 

    Annually, the National Association of Animal Breeders (NAAB) releases a report that includes domestic, export, and import sales for beef and dairy semen. Figure 1 displays the breed makeup of domestic US dairy semen sales from 2010-2024. 

    Figure 1. Domestic US Dairy Semen Sales.

    Source: NAAB

    In 2010, total domestic dairy semen sales were 21.6 million units and increased to 23.6 million (9.25% increase) in 2015. Since 2016, there has been a negative trend in overall units of domestic dairy semen sold. In 2024, there were approximately 16.1 million units sold, which is a 31.77% decrease since 2015. Holstien genetics make up the largest share of domestic dairy semen sales, followed by Jersey genetics. In 2010, Holstein sales made up 89% of domestic sales, while Jersey sales were 9%. In 2024, Holstein sales made up 82% of domestic sales, whereas Jersey sales were 13%. 

    In contrast to domestic sales, there has been an increase in units of dairy semen exported. In 2010, there were approximately 14.8 million units of semen exported (Figure 2). In 2024, 30.8 million units of semen were exported, which is a 108% increase during that time frame. Holstein genetics constitute majority of these sales, and Jersey genetics are the second most. Top destinations for these sales are China, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and the United Kingdom (United States Department of Agriculture-Foreign Agricultural Service, 2025).    

    Figure 2. US Dairy Semen Export Sales. 

    Source: NAAB

    Since 2010, the market trend for imported dairy semen varies (figure 3). In 2010, there were about 220 thousand units of semen imported, 19 thousand consisting of Norwegian Red. In 2024, imports were at the lowest volume in the previous 14 years, with 101 thousand units, and over half of the imports being Norwegian Red genetics. 

    Figure 3. US Dairy Semen Import Sales. 

    Source: NAAB

    The figures above highlight various trends for dairy semen sales. Domestic sales have trended lower since 2016, which is likely due to BxD production. Exports have increased over time, highlighting the value of US dairy genetics. Imports are low in volume but have increased in Norwegian Red genetics.

    References

    Wyatt, Parker, and Charley Martinez. “Beef x Dairy Placements.” Southern Ag Today 5(29.2). July 15, 2025. Permalink

    National Association of Animal Breeders. 2025. “Semen Sales Report 2010-2024.”

    United States Department of Agriculture-Foreign Agricultural Service. 2025. “Global Agricultural Trade System Database.” Internet site: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx (Accessed  July 2025).

    Mundy, D. Eli, and Charley Martinez. “Dairy Semen Market Trends.” Southern Ag Today 5(32.2). August 5, 2025. Permalink

  • Cowherd Expansion is Not the Only Way to Capitalize on a Strong Calf Market

    Cowherd Expansion is Not the Only Way to Capitalize on a Strong Calf Market

    Much has been written recently about the strength of the current cattle market. With beef cow inventory at a 60+ year low and demand being very strong, cow-calf operations are clearly in the driver’s seat. Calf values are more than double what they were three years ago, which speaks to considerable opportunity for cow-calf operators to invest in their cowherds. Expansion is often the first opportunity that comes to mind in a strong calf market, and there is likely merit in expansion, if doing so is consistent with the goals of the operation. However, some producers may not be interested in growing the size of their cowherds due to land constraints, management limitations, or other reasons. The following are a few other investment opportunities worth consideration.

    Genetics – Some producers may choose to use the current increase in cow-calf revenues to improve the genetics of their herds. Investment in genetics often has long-run implications, resulting in more valuable calves to sell over multiple years. Sires certainly come to mind, but the current calf market combined with the strong cull cow prices may provide an opportunity to cull a bit harder and also purchase some higher quality females.

    Facilities – Working facilities are crucial resources for cow-calf operations for numerous reasons. Value-added opportunities such as health protocols, post-weaning programs, castration, implants, etc. are made much easier with quality working facilities. The same is true for receiving, sorting and loading of cattle. If facilities have historically been a constraint, the current market may be providing an opportunity to make improvements and position the operation to sell higher value calves in the future.

    Grazing systems – Winter feeding days are typically the most expensive days for cow-calf operations as stored feed (hay) is being fed. Improved grazing systems (interior fencing, additional water sources, portable mineral feeders, etc.) allow for more efficient use of existing forage during the grazing season. This has the potential to increase the number of grazing days and reduce the number of hay feeding days. In most cases, this results in lower costs per cow per year and puts an operation in a better position when calf prices fall.

    Debt service / financial management – Strong markets also provide an opportunity to make financial moves that set an operation up for the long run. Increased revenues may allow an operation to pay down some debt and thereby lower their cost structure going forward. Similarly, it may provide an opportunity to build some working capital and lower dependence on operating loans. In both cases, future interest expenses are reduced, which has implications for profitability.

    To be clear, the purpose of this article was not to discourage expansion. There are likely operations that need to do just that. But I also live in an area where land constraints are real and know that expansion is not always feasible. Plus, I have seen situations where operations expanded during strong markets and wished they had not done so a few years later. The main point is that the current calf market provides a significant opportunity for a cow-calf operation to position itself for the long-run, and that will look different for each one of them.

    Burdine, Kenny. “Cowherd Expansion is Not the Only Way to Capitalize on a Strong Calf Market.” Southern Ag Today 5(32.1). August 4, 2025. Permalink

  • Challenge to California’s Hen Housing Laws

    Challenge to California’s Hen Housing Laws

    Last week, the Trump administration reignited the legal fight over farm animal confinement laws by filing a new lawsuit challenging California’s egg-related regulations. The complaint argues that California’s laws are invalidated by the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA).

    The DOJ claims California’s laws are preempted by the EPIA, a 1970 federal law ensuring the safety, quality, and labeling of eggs and egg products in interstate commerce. The EPIA authorizes USDA to set national standards for egg grading, sanitation, labeling, and packaging.

    Challenged Provisions
    The lawsuit challenges Proposition 12, Proposition 2, and AB 1437. Prop 2 (2008) imposed space requirements for pregnant sows, veal calves, and laying hens. AB 1437 (2010) extended those standards to all eggs sold in California. Prop 12 (2018) further expanded these laws, regulating the production and sale of veal, egg, and pork products, requiring minimum space per animal, and banning the sale of products from animals confined more restrictively. 

    Standards Preemption

    The DOJ relies on the EPIA’s preemption clause, which bars states from imposing additional or conflicting requirements. Under 21 U.S.C. § 1052(b), no state may impose standards “in addition to” or “different from” federal standards for egg “quality, condition, weight, quantity, or grade.”

    DOJ argues California’s laws regulate egg “condition” and “quality,” defined by USDA regulations. DOJ points to AB 1437’s stated purpose—to protect consumer health—as an attempt to regulate inherent egg properties. It also cites Prop 12’s stated concern for health, safety, and foodborne illness risk.

    Labeling Preemption
    DOJ also claims California’s regulations conflict with EPIA’s labeling preemption. California requires specific terms in shipping manifests and bans “cage free” labeling unless eggs meet its standards. DOJ argues these are labeling rules that differ from USDA’s.

    Next Steps
    DOJ seeks a judgment declaring the California laws preempted and unenforceable. California will likely file a response, and a request for an injunction may follow.

    For a more detailed analysis, click here for a NALC blog post. 

    Rumley, Beth. “Challenge to California’s Hen Housing Laws.” Southern Ag Today 5(31.5). August 1, 2025. Permalink

  • Addressing Questions about Additional Base Acres in the One Big Beautiful Bill

    Addressing Questions about Additional Base Acres in the One Big Beautiful Bill

    Last summer, we wrote about a novel new concept for adding base acres to farms that had been proposed in the House Ag Committee-passed version of the 2024 Farm Bill (Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024). While that farm bill never came to fruition, the concept ultimately was adopted in the One Big Beautiful Bill (H.R. 1) that was recently signed into law by President Trump.   The provision will allow up to 30 million additional base acres across the nation. Today’s article addresses some of the questions we’ve been asked, while providing an overview of the mechanics. 

    • What will happen to my existing base acres?  Nothing. 
    • If this doesn’t affect my existing base acres, then what does it do?  For those farms where recent plantings (described below) exceed the number of existing base acres on the farm, it allows the landowner to add additional base acres. 
    • How does it work? There are essentially two simple components to the additional base provision that address acres planted to both covered and non-covered commodities:
      • Covered Commodities:  If the average number of acres of covered commodities planted (or that were prevented from being planted) on a farm from 2019 through 2023 exceeds the number of existing base acres on the farm, you are eligible to add the difference as additional base acres.
      • Non-Covered Commodities:  You can also add the number of acres of eligible non-covered commodities planted (or that were prevented from being planted) on a farm from 2019 through 2023 as additional base acres, so long as the total does not exceed 15% of the total acres on the farm.
    • If I get additional base acres, what crops will they be assigned to?  They will be assigned in proportion to the covered commodities you planted from 2019 to 2023.
    • If I have “unassigned crop base” from previous changes to U.S. cotton policy, is it eligible to be included in the allocation of additional base acres?  Yes.
    • Will I get these new base acres in time for the 2025 crop year (i.e., the crop I harvest in 2025)? No. The OBBB clearly stipulates that the new base will be in effect for the 2026 crop year.
    • What happens if USDA discovers there are more than 30 million acres of eligible new base?  If the total number of eligible acres across the country exceeds 30 million acres, the Secretary would be required to apply a pro-rata, across-the-board (i.e., no progressive factoring) reduction to all farms to reduce the number of eligible acres to equal 30 million. For example, if USDA determines there are 60 million acres of eligible new base, everyone would see their additional base acres factored by 50% (i.e., 30 million divided by 60 million). 
    • I’ve read that this concept wasn’t vetted and that it was designed to only help one region of the country. Is that true?  No, that’s just political nonsense. Yes, the OBBB was a partisan process—reconciliation is notoriously partisan and has been repeatedly used by both political parties—but as we noted above, this provision went through a full committee mark-up last summer and has been thoroughly discussed/vetted over the last year. Finally, while this will certainly provide more benefit to areas like the Northern Plains where more covered commodities are being planted than in the past, we see no evidence that this was done to provide special benefit to any single region.  In fact, it seems obvious to us that it was designed to address repeated complaints from all corners of the country to help landowners who—for whatever reason—have land that is not fully based.
    • Do I need to reach out to my county office?  No. Congress is requiring USDA to go through a notification process with landowners. Further, producers already report their plantings to USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA), so in theory, FSA already has the data it needs to automate this process. With that said, the bill also provides an opportunity for a landowner to opt out of receiving additional base acres if they wish. Also, for purposes of assigning the new base to crops, for acreage that has been planted to a subsequent crop (other than a covered commodity produced under an established practice of double cropping), the owner gets to elect the covered commodity (but not both) to be used for that crop year in determining the 5-year average. In other words, there will be cases where the process cannot be completely automated.

    Bottom line: this is a significant change from previous law that can only help producers (i.e., there is no downside).  As always, the information above is provided for educational purposes only and is subject to change.  USDA is the final authority on how this provision will be implemented, so be on the lookout for details in the weeks and months ahead.

    Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “Addressing Questions about Additional Base Acres in the One Big Beautiful Bill.” Southern Ag Today 5(31.4). July 31, 2025. Permalink

  • New Marketing Assistance Loan Program Rates Established for 2026-2031 Crop Years

    New Marketing Assistance Loan Program Rates Established for 2026-2031 Crop Years

    During the farm bill legislative process in 2024, the House Agriculture Committee proposed increases to the Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Loan (MAL) rates that were predominantly 10% higher than the existing rates for the major commodities shown in Table 1.  A discussion of the 2024 House and Senate proposals was published in Southern Ag Today on June 24, 2024. While the farm bill was never finalized in 2024, on July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law the “One Big Beautiful Bill” that included many agricultural provisions.  New MAL rates, similar to the previous House Agriculture Committee proposal, were included in Title I Subtitle C of this bill, effective with the 2026 crop year through the 2031 crop year.

    Here we compare the MAL rate of 2018 to the new MAL rate, as well as discuss the function of the MAL as a marketing tool to cover operating costs of production.  Table 1 shows the 2018 loan rate and the new MAL rates. The MAL rate has increased 10% across the board, except for upland cotton which ranges between 6% and 22%. This wide-ranging percentage increase for upland cotton reflects how the MAL rate in the 2018 Farm Bill is specified from $0.45 to $0.52/lb, but the new rate is a flat $0.55/lb.  Given that the loan rate for upland cotton has not actually been below $0.52/lb since the 2018 Farm Bill, this effectively translates to a 6% increase.

    Table 1: MAL Rates from the 2018 Farm Bill and the One Big Beautiful Bill

    CommodityUnit2018 Farm Bill Loan Rate per UnitNew Loan Rate Per UnitPercentage Increase in Loan Rate from 2018Forecast Operating Cost per Acre for 202612026 Yield Projection2
    Barleybu2.502.7510%193.1981.7
    Cornbu2.202.4210%457.90183.7
    Oatsbu2.002.2010%168.1666.2
    Peanutston355.00390.0010%641.803986
    Ricecwt7.007.7010%784.297745
    Sorghumbu2.202.4210%184.0771.9
    Soybeansbu6.206.8210%245.5953.1
    Upland Cotton*lb0.45-0.520.556%-22%568.36882
    Wheatbu3.383.7210%161.2550.1
    1ERS Commodity Cost and Returns, Cost of production forecasts for major U.S. field crops, 2025F-2026F. 6/18/2025
    2Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri, U.S. Agricultural Market Outlook, April 2025,
    FAPRI-MU Report #01-25                             
    *For upland cotton, the 2018 Farm Bill specifies that the marketing loan rate shall be between $0.45-$0.52/lb and not less than 98%
    of the loan rate for the preceding year.  The rate has been $0.52/lb every year since 2018.  

    The MAL can be used as part of a broader marketing plan to provide an influx of cash at harvest to help cover operating loans or expenses with potentially more favorable terms.  With certainty of the MAL rate through 2031, farmers should now consider how this tool can be used for their specific operation to allow for more time to market crops after harvest.  A factsheet with additional information is available from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency

    Reference

    Rabinowitz, Adam (June 24, 2024). “Current Farm Bill Negotiations for the Marketing Assistance Loan Program.” Southern Ag Today 4(26.1). Available at: https://southernagtoday.org/2024/06/24/current-farm-bill-negotiations-for-the-marketing-assistance-loan-program/.

    Bafowaa, Bridget, and Adam Rabinowitz. “New Marketing Assistance Loan Program Rates Established for 2026-2031 Crop Years.” Southern Ag Today 5(31.3). July 30, 2025. Permalink