The outlook for the dairy industry going into 2026 was cautious. After strong prices in the latter half of 2024, milk production expanded rapidly mid-way through 2025. Milk prices came down significantly as a result. Given the size of the dairy cow herd, there was little indication the supply situation would resolve itself in the short term.
January 2026 data indicated that this price situation was playing itself out. The average all milk price in January 2026 was just $17.50/cwt (see Figure 1). This was the lowest January reading since 2021. This low milk price appeared to be the result of significant milk production (see Figure 2; over 3% higher year over year).
Fast forward just one month, and the story seemed to be shifting. In February 2026, milk production was again up compared to year-ago levels (just under 3% year over year). However, the all milk price rose by $0.80/cwt compared to January 2026 (around 5% jump month-over-month). These improved February prices contributed to higher milk margins despite higher feed costs.
Recent weekly data shows continued price improvements in March compared to January. Wholesale dairy product prices from cheese, butter, non-fat dry milk, and whey have increased from the start of the year (e.g., butter and cheese) and/or are higher compared to year-ago price levels (e.g., non-fat dry milk and whey). Strong exports have played an important role in this improvement, too. Total tons of dairy products exported are up by over 10% through the first two months of the year compared to the same time last year.
In the months ahead, the outlook could face headwinds. Exports may start to face pressure from geopolitical uncertainty and from higher prices. Additionally, the supply situation does not appear to be changing over the next few months, as beef-on-dairy calves remain a very profitable avenue for dairy producers, and weekly dairy cow slaughter appears to be similar to last year’s levels. The remainder of the year may be a tightrope walk balancing large supplies and demand.
A top priority of the second Trump administration is to enforce immigration laws, including mass deportations. Since the size of the undocumented population is likely at least 10 million people (Gutierrez-Li, 2025), the removal of a significant number of undocumented individuals could have economic effects on industries that have historically employed them. Such industries include agriculture, construction, and hospitality (Gutierrez-Li, 2026). In the case of farming, foreign workers represent around two thirds of the labor force, with undocumented workers accounting for around 40% of hired crop laborers (USDA, 2026), making agriculture particularly susceptible to immigration policies.
While the production of row crop commodities is highly mechanized, specialty crop agricultural operations common in the Southeast and the West Coast are still heavily reliant on a dependable workforce. Incidentally, undocumented individuals are concentrated in states like California, Florida, Washington, Georgia, and North Carolina (Table 1), where labor-intensive agriculture is prevalent. Despite the recent intensification in immigration enforcement, the reality is that there has already been a reduction in the inflow of undocumented workers to the agricultural sector for several years. Tightening labor markets and a diminishing supply of undocumented workers have led to significant growth in the number of H-2A visas issued each year, which constitute the only legal channel for bringing foreign agricultural workers to the United States. Since the early 90s, the H-2A program has been gaining popularity among agricultural producers, to the point that more than 300,000 H-2A visas were issued by the U.S. government in 2024 (Figure 1).
Table 1. Unauthorized Immigrant Population by Top Ten States of Residence, 2018–2020 and 2022
State
2018
2019
2020
2022
California
2,640,000
2,620,000
2,410,000
2,600,000
Texas
1,950,000
1,950,000
1,900,000
2,060,000
Florida
680,000
650,000
610,000
590,000
New Jersey
460,000
390,000
400,000
490,000
Illinois
460,000
440,000
370,000
420,000
New York
600,000
510,000
370,000
410,000
North Carolina
360,000
340,000
360,000
360,000
Georgia
390,000
360,000
360,000
340,000
Washington
310,000
330,000
340,000
340,000
Arizona
340,000
330,000
340,000
290,000
Other/unknown
3,380,000
3,200,000
3,040,000
3,090,000
Total
11,570,000
11,110,000
10,510,000
10,990,000
Source: Gutierrez-Li, A (2025) with data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Homeland Security Statistics, population estimates, referenced in Baker and Warren (2024).
Despite the rapid growth in the demand for H-2A workers, there are reasons to think that the program is far from solving agricultural labor shortages. Farmers and industry groups have repeatedly cited that while they value the ability to hire H-2A workers as needed, the high costs associated with doing so have limited the number they can afford. However, at the end of 2025, several changes were made to the H-2A program. First, the data source to calculate the minimum wages changed. Second, two categories of wages were created. One for the five standard occupational class codes covering field and livestock workers, and another for all other standard occupational class codes. Third, two different wage rates were introduced, based on skill level (I and II). Fourth, a reduction in wages paid by employers if housing is provided. Altogether, these changes led to significant reductions in the minimum wages paid to H-2A workers across most states, which will likely result in a significant increase in the program’s utilization.
Figure 1. H-2A Visas Issued by the U.S. Government: 1992-2024
Increasingly strict immigration policies that reduce the number of undocumented farmworkers may well be offset by a comparable rise in the number of H-2A workers, leaving the net impact on the farm labor supply of both policies somewhat unnoticeable. Combined, the policies of the second Trump Administration could reduce the share of undocumented workers in agriculture, which would generally be positive. However, the significant short-run reductions in H-2A workers’ wages will likely disincentivize investment in automation, leaving employers vulnerable to future changes in wage policies following political cycles.
References
Farm Labor. Economic Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture.
Gutiérrez-Li, A. 2026. Breaking Down the Deportation Strategy: A Look at Policies, Costs and Potential Consequences. Choices 41(1).
Gutiérrez-Li, A. 2025. The Unseen Workforce: How Immigration Enforcement Could Shake the U.S. Economy. Choices 40(3).
In a recent ruling from the bench in a Virginia Circuit Court case, the judge made a surprising finding on the signage requirements under the Virginia Agritourism Activity Act. The language in the Virginia Act is identical to the language in many similar acts across the country. The court found that to meet the notice requirements under the Act, a separate sign must be placed at each separate agritourism activity, necessitating dozens of signs or more in many instances.
In Angel v. Leesburg Animal Park, LLC, Case No.: CL23005507-00 (Loudoun County, Virginia Circuit Court 2026), the plaintiff filed suit after injuring her hand on a slide on the farm. The defendant raised the defense of the Virginia Agritourism Activity Act. However, the plaintiff argued that the signage, one sign inside the gift shop and another at the outside entrance, failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Act. Instead, the plaintiff claimed, a sign should be placed at each and every separate agritourism activity. In this particular case, more than a dozen signs would be required.
The Virginia Act, like many others, states that, “[e]very agritourism professional shall post and maintain signs that contain the notice specified [in this act]. The sign shall be placed in a clearly visible location at the entrance to the agritourism location and at the site of the agritourism activity.” Virginia Code Ann. § 3.2-6402. In a March 10, 2026, ruling from the bench, the judge agreed with the plaintiff and ruled that the defendant’s failure to post signs at each separate agritourism activity disqualified it from the protection of the act.
Although this ruling surprised many agricultural lawyers, at least one other case appears to agree with this ruling. In Bayne v. Carleton Farm, Inc., 25 Wash. App.2d 1042 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). In 2023, the Washington Court of Appeals determined that, because there was no evidence showing where the sign was placed, there was also no proof that the sign was intended for individuals participating in the specific agritourism activity (a slide). Bayne at *6. The language in the Washington State statute (RCWA 4.24.835) is identical to the language in the Virginia statute.
The rulings in the Virginia and Washington State cases indicate that agritourism operators must place a separate sign at the entrance to the facility and at the location of each agritourism activity. The Virginia case is binding only in the Circuit Court of Loudoun County, Virginia. The Washington Court of Appeals opinion is binding only in Washington State. However, the reasoning of these opinions may lead courts in other states to rule similarly. Agritourism operators should consider placing the required warning signs at each agritourism activity to ensure that the state act protects the activity. As one agricultural lawyer stated, “signs are cheap, lawsuits are not.”
We often forget that beer, wine, and spirits are fundamentally agricultural products, rooted in the cultivation of corn, barley, rye, wheat, grapes, and other farm commodities. As a result, disruptions to alcohol trade are not just shocks to beverage markets, but direct blows to farmers, rural communities, and the wider agricultural economy that supplies these products (Muhammad et al., 2025). This broader agricultural story now runs straight through Canada, where trade tensions transformed alcohol import demand into a geopolitical statement. Canada has long been an important export destination for U.S. beer, wine, and spirits, supported by geographic proximity, integrated supply chains, and decades of tariff‑free trade. In 2024, for instance, Canada was the leading market for U.S. wine exports and the second leading market for U.S. distilled spirits and beer exports (USDA, 2026). This relationship shifted abruptly in 2025 when trade tensions escalated beyond conventional tariff retaliation and entered the retail marketplace.
At the heart of the disruption was Canada’s decision to remove American alcohol from store shelves entirely. Rather than relying solely on retaliation through tariffs, multiple provinces instructed their liquor authorities to stop purchasing and selling American beer, wine, and spirits. In early February 2025, the United States announced broad tariffs on Canadian imports. Canada responded in March with retaliatory tariffs on a range of U.S. goods, including alcohol (Kitamura, 2026). Provincial governments escalated further by directing liquor boards in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and other provinces to halt purchases of U.S. alcohol and remove existing products from shelves and digital platforms. Throughout the spring and summer of 2025, these delistings remained largely in place, with only limited reversals in select provinces (DISCUS, 2026).
Figure 1 summarizes the year‑over‑year change in U.S. beer, wine, and distilled spirits exports to Canada between 2024 and 2025, reflecting the impact of the trade war on each product category. As shown in the figure, wine and related products experienced the largest decline, falling from $460 million in 2024 to $103 million in 2025, a 77.6% reduction or a $357 million loss. Distilled spirits exports declined from $238 million to $89 million, a 62.7% decrease, resulting in a $149 million loss. Beer exports also dropped sharply, falling from $47 million to $17 million, a 64.4% decline or $30 million loss. Taken together, total U.S. alcohol exports to Canada fell from $744 million to $208 million, a 72% decrease amounting to an overall dollar loss of $536 million.
These shelf removals sent a clear political signal to U.S. policymakers while simultaneously encouraging Canadian consumers to substitute toward domestic or non‑U.S. products. It also exposed the vulnerability of exporters operating in markets where governments control distribution infrastructure, demonstrating how trade wars can extend beyond borders and tariffs to reshape retail availability itself. Even as some punitive measures were later eased, this episode underscored how quickly trade relationships built over decades can be disrupted when retaliation targets market access rather than prices alone.
Figure 1. U.S. Beer, Wine, and Spirits Exports to Canada: 2024 and 2025
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS) (USDA, 2026)
Authors: Will Maples, Mississippi State University, and Wendiam Sawadgo, Auburn University
Many articles published by Southern Ag Today reference the futures market. Given its importance, it is worth taking a step back to review what a futures market is and why it matters for agriculture. Futures markets are one of the most important tools available to row crop producers for managing price risk. At their core, futures markets allow buyers and sellers to agree today on a price for a commodity that will be delivered at a future date. This differs from the cash (or spot) market, where commodities are bought and sold for immediate delivery.
While futures markets have existed in various forms throughout history, the modern agricultural futures market began in Chicago in the late 1800s. It developed to address a core challenge in agriculture: sharp seasonal price swings. At harvest, abundant supplies pushed prices lower, while tighter supplies later in the marketing year drove prices higher. This made planning difficult for both producers and buyers. Early forward contracts helped, but still carried risk, as they were customized and depended on both parties honoring the agreement. Standardized futures contracts, traded on exchanges such as the Chicago Board of Trade, created a more reliable system with greater certainty of performance.
In simple terms, a futures contract is a standardized agreement to buy or sell a specific quantity of a commodity at a set future date. Each contract defines the delivery time, quantity, and quality of the commodity. For example, a December corn futures contract represents 5,000 bushels of #2 Yellow corn for delivery in mid-December. The only element not specified is price, which is determined through trading on the exchange.
Because price is determined through trading, futures markets play a central role in price discovery. Prices in these markets reflect the collective expectations of buyers and sellers for future supply and demand conditions. New information, such as changes in weather, yield expectations, exports, or policy, are quickly incorporated into futures prices. As a result, futures markets provide a transparent and forward-looking estimate of commodity values. For producers, these prices serve as a key reference point when making marketing decisions and evaluating potential profitability.
One important point is that trading a futures contract does not involve the exchange of the physical commodity. Instead, what is being traded is the obligation to deliver or receive the commodity at a future date. These obligations can be offset prior to delivery. For example, a producer who sells a futures contract is guaranteeing delivery at a future date. The producer can then offset that position by later buying that same futures contract. Because positions can be offset, most futures trades do not result in physical delivery. This structure also allows individuals without direct access to the commodity to participate in the market. These participants, known as speculators, play an important role by providing liquidity and taking on the price risk of hedgers.
Hedgers are individuals who buy or sell the underlying commodity and use futures markets to manage price risk. Row-crop producers fall into this category, as they produce the commodities underlying these contracts. For them, the futures market is a risk management tool rather than a speculation tool.
Consider a soybean producer in May who plans to sell at harvest. That producer faces the risk of prices falling before October. By selling a November soybean futures contract in May, the producer can establish a price level. At harvest, the producer sells soybeans in the cash market and buys back the futures contract. Gains or losses in the futures position offset changes in the cash price, helping stabilize revenue. While the details of hedging are beyond the scope of this article, many Extension resources across the Southern Region provide additional guidance for using futures markets to manage price risk.
For producers, the key is understanding how futures prices relate to local cash prices and how those signals can be used in a marketing plan. While no strategy guarantees the best price, using futures alongside tools such as forward contracts, crop insurance, and storage can help reduce downside risk and create more consistency in revenues. Taking time to understand how these markets work can put producers in a stronger position to make informed marketing decisions throughout the year.
