Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • Variety Selection Resources

    Variety Selection Resources

    Choosing the best variety of seed has always been important for producers, but in 2025 this decision will likely carry more weight. With the squeeze of lower commodity prices and higher input prices, variety selection that is best suited for each producer’s growing conditions is a factor that affects the bottom line. Time spent evaluating the numerous varietal choices this time of year will be worth the time and effort.

    There are numerous sources to gather information about the varieties for an individual grower’s situation. It’s worth pointing out that there isn’t a “one size fits all” strategy to select the best variety. Utilizing more than one source is recommended but be cautious not to seek too many sources as this may add to the confusion.  Here are some resources that can be utilized in making a varietal selection.

    The variety selection process should start and end with your knowledge and experience with your fields and growing conditions.  Good records help to provide valuable information and fill in some details that may be forgotten over the growing season. It’s important to try to match varieties to your fields. For example, low lying fields may have more fertile soil but could have wet areas, and fields on hillsides may not have the yield potential of other fields.

    Other sources of information for variety selection are neighbors that have similar growing conditions, seed company representatives, and farm supply stores. Keep in mind that some of these resources may focus heavily on the products they represent or profit from and, therefore, could be biased in their recommendations. Developing productive relationships with all of these individuals can lead to better and more confident variety decisions.

    The most important source of information is from the variety testing programs at land grant university systems. Most land grant university research and extension programs have variety testing trials that provide unbiased results. These variety tests are usually in strategic locations across the state to provide growing conditions that are similar to growers in the area. While not all growing conditions can be represented in official trials, they could provide valuable information. Check with your state’s land grant research/extension programs to find out about variety trial information in your area.

    There are two kinds of trials that universities may be involved with, as seen in Figure 1 Variety Tests. 

    Figure 1. Variety Tests*Official Variety Trial (OVT) Small PlotsOn-Farm
    Conducted by:OVT ProgramExtension 
    LocatedResearch StationsGrower Fields and Research Stations
    Plot SizeSmallLarge
    # of Varieties More (up to 50+)Fewer (less than 15)
    TypesReleased & Experimental Mostly Released
    ReplicationAlwaysNot always
    Statistical Analysis AlwaysNot always
    EquipmentResearch Commercial 

    There are advantages and disadvantages to both the Official Variety Trial (OVT) Small Plots and On-Farm trials. The replication and statistical analysis, along with more experimental varieties, are advantages of the OVT Small Plots. The On-Farm plots are larger and managed on a scale closer to commercial production practices.  It’s also important to consider multiple years of results and not base the decision on one year’s performance. Also, look at as many details of the trial as possible. What were the fertility levels of the plot, and how much fertilizer was applied? What other pesticides were used and at what rate? What were the growing conditions? Were the climatic conditions stressful, if so, how did that affect yields?

    In summary, variety selection is crucial as we are looking at an economically challenging growing season in 2025. Match the varieties to your growing conditions as best as possible. Time and effort spent now in selecting varieties for your farm is one of the best investments that a producer can make. 

    Resources: 

    *Figure 1. Adopted from OVT Small Plots vs On-Farm FAQ https://aaes.auburn.edu/variety-tests/ovt-frequently-asked-questions/

    Auburn University Official Variety Testing – https://aaes.auburn.edu/variety-tests/

    Runge, Max. “Variety Selection Resources.“ Southern Ag Today 5(4.1). January 20, 2025. Permalink

  • Duty to Child Trespassers

    Duty to Child Trespassers

    Landowners often wonder what steps need to be taken to prevent injuries to people that come onto their property. In legal terms, this area of law is referred to as premises liability. Landowners owe persons on their property a duty based on the status of the visitor. Visitors can generally be divided into the categories of invitee, licensee, and trespasser. This article focuses on a special, and controversial category of visitors, the child trespasser. While this article lays out a general description of the law, the details may differ by state.

    Our civil law system is built upon a system of duties owed by people and companies to others. For a successful civil lawsuit, an injured party (the plaintiff) must show that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach of the duty caused injury to the plaintiff.

    For trespassers generally, a landowner owes the trespasser a duty to not willfully or wantonly injure the trespasser. Invitees and licensees are owed higher duties. For example, a landowner who sets up a spring gun at their storage shed, which fires when someone attempts to enter the building, would be liable to injuries to a trespasser attempting to break into the building. Booby traps, even when aimed at criminals on the property, subject the landowner to liability.

    But what about a child that trespasses onto your property? A child may not appreciate certain hazards. Where the landowner has no reason to believe that a child would be on the property, the duty generally remains the same – no willful or wanton injury. However, if a landowner knows or should know that a child may come onto the property, the landowner has a duty to take reasonable care to avoid injury to the child and to warn the child of dangers known by the landowner.

    In addition, if a dangerous instrumentality is on the property, the landowner has a duty to barricade the property or warn of the danger. A farm pond is not necessarily a dangerous instrumentality, but may become so if unique circumstances exist, such as a steep side slope or sudden drop off. A rope swing is not necessarily a dangerous instrumentality. Note that if a local ordinance requires, for example, a fence around a pool, the pool may be a dangerous instrumentality if no fence exists.

    Finally, most states recognize the doctrine of attractive nuisance. The attractive nuisance doctrine states that where the landowner maintains a condition on their property that attracts children, the child is no longer a trespasser but is an invitee. Consequently, the landowner owes a higher duty to take ordinary care to keep the condition in a reasonably safe condition to protect the child. Natural conditions on the property cannot qualify as attractive nuisances.

    For the farm owner or operator, the related so-called “unguarded dangerous conditions” present the biggest threat. For example, the landowner leaves the key in the tractor and the tractor is left outside. The farm is located in a suburban area, with families living nearby. If a child trespasses onto the property, starts the tractor, and is injured, a court may find the farm owner liable for injuries. Similarly, although a swing rope or farm pond with a dock does not necessarily qualify as a dangerous instrumentality, those types of conditions may qualify as attractive nuisances or unguarded dangerous conditions.

    The lesson from these often-confusing legal doctrines is that the farm owner or operator should use an abundance of caution to be safe rather than sorry. Take keys out of tractors and store them in a safe area. Lock barns and sheds. Barricade areas that you do not wish the public to access. Inspect the property regularly and think about what areas may be dangerous to a child trespasser, then take steps to make the area off-limits or safe for trespassers. Finally, maintain adequate liability insurance.

    Richardson, Jesse, and Paul Goeringer. “Duty to Child Trespassers.” Southern Ag Today 5(3.5). January 17, 2025. Permalink

  • ARC and PLC Enrollment Starts Next Tuesday

    ARC and PLC Enrollment Starts Next Tuesday

    On Monday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that enrollment for the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs will begin next Tuesday (January 21) and run through April 15. Even if you plan to keep the same elections, make sure to reach out to your local Farm Service Agency (FSA) office about signing your annual enrollment contract…preferably well before the deadline.

    As you start to think about program election, the Effective Reference Prices for the 2025 crop year can be found in Table 1. The 2025 ARC-County benchmark yields and revenues as of January 6, 2025 can be downloaded here. While adjustments are being made to incorporate the latest data from FSA, the Agricultural & Food Policy Center’s (AFPC) 2025 ARC-CO/PLC Decision Aid will soon be available at https://afpc.tamu.edu. While we are more than a year away from knowing whether either program will trigger for the 2025 crop year, AFPC’s decision tool can be used to explore a variety of potential outcomes, including those based on the latest macroeconomic projections from our sister center, the Food & Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri. If you have questions about the enrollment decision, don’t hesitate to reach out to us or a member of our team. We are happy to be a resource.

    Table 1. Effective Reference Prices (ERPs) for the 2025 Crop Year

    Covered CommodityUnits2025 ERP
    WheatBushel$5.56
    BarleyBushel$4.95
    OatsBushel$2.76
    PeanutsPound$0.2675
    CornBushel$4.26
    Grain SorghumBushel$4.51
    SoybeansBushel$9.66
    Dry PeasPound$0.1163
    LentilsPound$0.2297
    CanolaPound$0.2054
    Large ChickpeasPound$0.2477
    Small ChickpeasPound$0.2190
    Sunflower SeedPound$0.2015
    FlaxseedBushel$11.53
    Mustard SeedPound$0.2317
    RapeseedPound$0.2015
    SafflowerPound$0.2275
    CrambePound$0.2100
    Sesame SeedPound$0.2317
    Seed CottonPound$0.3670
    Rice (long grain)Pound$0.1400
    Rice (med/short grain)Pound$0.1400
    Rice (temperate japonica)Pound$0.1990

    Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. “ARC and PLC Enrollment Starts Next Tuesday.” Southern Ag Today 5(3.4). January 16, 2025. Permalink

  • Corn Price Reaction to Changes in USDA WASDE Projections 

    Corn Price Reaction to Changes in USDA WASDE Projections 

    The January USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report provided more revisions to the U.S. corn balance sheet. Revisions to USDA domestic corn estimates have been mostly positive for corn prices since the USDA’s September WASDE projections. This month’s revisions propelled March corn futures 20 ½ cents higher in two trading days, from $4.56 to $4.76 ½. Since the September WASDE, March corn futures have increased from $4.04 ¾ to $4.76 ½, a $0.71 ¾ increase. 

    Was the price increase justified based on the revised information? Yes. 

    Table 1 compares the USDA WASDE estimates in September to January for corn. The two primary changes were a decrease in the national average yield of 4.3 bu/acre (183.6 to 179.3 bu/acre), a 2.3% decrease, and an increase in exports of 150 million bushels (2.3 to 2.45 billion), a 6.5% increase. Driven by these two adjustments, projected 2024/25 marketing year ending stocks in the United States decreased 517 million bushels, from 2.057 billion to 1.54 billion bushels. A 25.1% decline in ending stocks, combined with the change in use, resulted in a decline in stocks-to-use from 13.7% to 10.2%. Small percentage adjustments to supply and demand can result in relatively large changes in stocks-to-use and the marketing year average price.

    Table 1. September and January USDA WASDE Projections for Corn for the 2024/2025 Marketing Year

     2024/25 Marketing Year Projections
     SeptemberJanuaryChange% Change
    Planted (million)90.790.6-0.1-0.1%
    Harvested (million)82.782.90.20.2%
    U.S. Avg. Yield (bu/acre)183.6179.3-4.3-2.3%
    Beg. Stocks 1,8121,763-49-2.7%
    Production15,18614,867-319-2.1%
    Imports252500.0%
    Total Supply17,02216,655-367-2.2%
    Feed and Residual5,8255,775-50-0.9%
    Ethanol5,4505,500500.9%
    Food, Seed & Industrial1,3901,39000.0%
    Exports2,3002,4501506.5%
    Total Use14,96515,1151501.0%
    U.S. Ending Stocks2,0571,540-517-25.1%
    Foreign Stocks 10,08210,008-74-0.7%
    U.S. Mrk. Year Avg. Price ($/bu)$4.10 $4.25 $0.15 3.7%
    U.S. Stocks/Use13.7%10.2%-3.6%-25.9%

    Stocks-to-use is one of the better predictors of the corn marketing year average price. In September, the USDA projected stocks-to-use at 13.7% and estimated the marketing year average price at $4.10, higher than the predicted value of $3.68 (Figure 1). In January, stocks-to-use were projected at 10.2% and the marketing year average price at $4.25, lower than the predicted value of $4.73. The muted response in the USDA WASDE price and the stocks-to-use predicted price can be partially attributed to the crop marketed between September and January.

    The key takeaway from the USDA revisions to projected corn supply and demand estimates and the futures market reaction:, the revisions justify the increase in prices. Based on current information, a reasonable nearby corn futures price trading range is $4.60-$5.10.   

    Figure 1. Corn U.S. Stocks-to-Use Ratio and Marketing Year Average Price 2006/07 to 2023/24

    References

    USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report. January and September. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/staff-offices/office-chief-economist/commodity-markets/wasde-report.

    Barchart.com. March 2025 Corn Futures Contract. Accessed at: https://www.barchart.com/futures/quotes/ZCH25/interactive-chart.

  • Fed Cattle Weights and Herd Expansion

    Fed Cattle Weights and Herd Expansion

    Recent SAT articles on the cattle market have mentioned the surge in fed cattle dressed weights as an important factor in boosting fed beef production in 2024.  This article puts 2024’s dressed weights into some historical context and looks at some factors that will influence dressed weights this year. Since 1964, federally inspected steer dressed weights have increased from 662 pounds to 931 pounds in 2024.  That is a 41 percent increase over that time period.  A simple average of percentage change per year equals 0.68 percent, or 4.75 pounds per year increase in steer dressed weights.

    The chart of steer dressed weights illustrates this trend in increasing weights.  It also illustrates that this growth is not a straight line of increasing weights every year.  There are many examples of year-to-year declining steer weights.  Many of these years with large weight changes correspond to years with interesting challenges.  For example, steer dressed weights declined 28 pounds from 1974 to 1975 and rebounded 23 pounds from 1975 to 1976.  Other examples might be 2001-2003 or 2014-2016. The 23 pound increase in annual average dressed weight from 2023 to 2024 is significant, but is not the largest year-over-year increase.  Even larger annual increases were recorded in 1985, 1994, 1998, 2002, and 2020.  

    Large annual increases are often followed by declining weights.  Could weights decline in 2025?  There are several factors that could lead to a decline in weights including winter storms that pull down weights.  As cattle numbers further tighten, the need to run packing plants at efficient levels could pull cattle out of feedlots faster and lighter.  However, good beef demand will create an incentive to try to produce more beef per head pushing weights higher to offset fewer cattle.  Continued lower corn prices lowers the cost of gain which is an incentive to feed to heavier weights.  

    We might consider the effect of increasing weights and the implied increase in production per cow on beef cow inventory in the future.  Heavier weights implies fewer beef cows are needed to maintain level beef production.  The 23-pound increase in dressed weight multiplied by the approximately 15.1 million head of federally inspected steers slaughtered in 2024 is the equivalent of about 371 thousand steers.  Put another way, increased dressed weights offset the need for 371,000 steers suggesting the need for fewer cows.  This is a rough example that could use some refinement, but the point remains that increased weights likely impact the cow herd expansion.

    This article used only steer dressed weights.  Heifer dressed weights have increased at an even faster rate and cow weights have increased, too.  Heavier weights are not limited to cattle as hog and poultry weights have increased over time but, those weights are for another article.  There is little reason to expect weights to stop their long-term growth.  But the data shows it’s a bumpy ride to heavier weights with fits and starts along the way.

    Anderson, David, and Josh Maples. “Fed Cattle Weights and Herd Expansion.” Southern Ag Today 5(3.2). January 14, 2025. Permalink