Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • Prospective Ethanol Consumption and Corn Use with Year-Round E15

    Prospective Ethanol Consumption and Corn Use with Year-Round E15

    The sale of E15, gasoline with an ethanol content of 15%, is currently restricted during the summer months (June 1-September 15) under rules of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  However, emergency waivers allowing for year-round sales of E15 have been enacted every year since 2019, under both the Trump and Biden administrations. A nationwide waiver for 2026 summer month E15 sales has not yet been finalized. 

    The EPA revised its rules in 2024 allowing for a permanent waiver for E15 to be sold in summer months in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, beginning in 2025. Some members of Congress have proposed making year-round sales of E15 permanent nationwide. That work is now in the hands of a Congressional Task Force assigned to study and draft legislation.  The February 25 deadline for that legislation to be introduced has passed with no action yet reported.

    ‘Ethanol and by-products’ is the second highest domestic use category in the supply and demand balance sheet for corn. In the 2005/06 marketing year, USDA reported corn for fuel at 1.6 billion bushels, 14% of that year’s 11 billion bushel corn crop. The current estimate of corn for fuel in 2025/26 is 5.6 billion bushels, about 33% of this year’s production of 17 billion bushels.    

    But the landscape of corn for fuel is changing.  According to projections from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), we have likely seen peak gasoline consumption in the U.S. With increased new car fuel efficiency and a growing number of vehicles on the road that do not use any gasoline at all, the EIA projects gasoline consumption to fall from its peak of 143 billion gallons in 2018, to the current estimate of 135 billion gallons for 2026, down to 111 billion gallons by 2035 (Figure 1).

    Figure 1. U.S. Gasoline and Ethanol Consumption, billion gallons

    The blending mandate for ethanol is 10%, however, the actual share of ethanol consumption in the U.S. as a share of gasoline consumption is now 10.4%. The EIA report of ethanol use includes net exports.   If the ethanol blending rate held steady at  10.4%, the projected decrease in gasoline consumption would mean a decline in ethanol fuel consumption from a peak of 14.2 billion gallons in 2025 to 11.5 billion gallons in 2035 (Figure 2).  A decline of that magnitude of ethanol fuel would reduce corn use by about 1 billion bushels of corn in 2035 from current levels (at the current conversion rate of 2.93 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn). 

    However, in its February 2026 release of “USDA Agricultural Projections to 2035”, the USDA held corn ethanol use steady at 5.6 billion bushels throughout the projected time frame.  The report notes the expected decline in U.S. gasoline consumption over the next decade but that increasing ethanol exports will hold corn for fuel use flat. Since 2016, ethanol exports have increased from 1.2 billion gallons (8% of total ethanol production) to 2.2 billion gallons in 2025 (13% of total ethanol production). It is expected that ethanol exports will continue to rise with the increasing blend mandates throughout the world.

    What impact could the widespread adoption of E15 have on U.S. ethanol use? 

    Based on USDA’s long-term projections, we expect corn for fuel and ethanol use (domestic and exports) to hold steady at current levels.  Based on EIA’s projections of gasoline use, if the blending rate were to increase by 1% per year from current levels to 15% in five years and hold steady after that, ethanol consumption would increase from around 14 billion gallons to 19 billion gallons in 2030. Thereafter, if the decline in gasoline consumption continued, ethanol use would decline back down to about 18 billion gallons. 

    To produce the extra ethanol for fuel would require 1 billion bushels over USDA’s current 5.6-billion-bushel baseline by 2028 and over 2 billion bushels in 2030. That increase falls back to 1.7 billion bushels over the current levels in 2035. 

    Figure 2. Ethanol Consumption and Corn for Fuel, E10 and E15

    Widespread and year-round E15 has the potential to significantly impact ethanol use in the U.S., increasing the share of ethanol in overall motor gasoline consumption. This requires both industry providing supply and consumers providing demand. Legislation allowing year-round sales of E15 would give the fuel industry certainty for investment in production and infrastructure to provide the product. Year-round availability provides consumers with a product that they are more familiar with, has wider availability, and is generally a lower cost (Decision Innovation Solutions, 2026).  

    The benefit to farmers is the expansion of a key use category for corn. The U.S. corn farmer has shown the capacity to increase production in the face of rising demand. Building this demand base on stability and consistency in the fuel sector provides a foundation for long-term price support and some certainty during a time of uncertain markets. 

    References

    Decision Innovation Solutions. Cumulative Effect of E15 Sales to Minnesota Consumers, January 2026, accessed March 9, 2026, https://www.mnbiofuels.org/images/pdfs/Cumulative%20Effects%20of%20E15%20Sales%20to%20Minnesota%20Consumers.pdf.

    Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2025, accessed March 4, 2026, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/.

    Energy Information Administration. Short-term Energy Outlook, February 10, 2026, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/.

    USDA, Office of the Chief Economist. “USDA Agricultural Projections to 2035”, World Outlook Board, OCE-2026-1. February 2026, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=113816.

    USDA, NASS. “Grain Crushings and Co-products Production”, March 2, 2026, https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/grain-crushings-and-co-products-production.

    USDA, NASS. “Grain Crushings and Co-products Production, 2024 Summary”, September 2025, https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/grain-crushings-and-co-products-production-annual-summary.

  • A Small Decline in Sheep Numbers

    A Small Decline in Sheep Numbers

    USDA released its annual sheep inventory report at the end of January, along with the cattle inventory report, as discussed in an earlier article.  The report indicated that the slow decline in sheep numbers continued for another year, but there was some flock growth in a few states.

    The ewe flock in the U.S. declined one percent to 2.85 million head, but eight states reported growth.  Iowa, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Kansas, New York, and West Virginia reported slightly larger ewe flocks, but the biggest growth occurred in Texas, where the ewe flock grew 3.7 percent, or 15,000 head.  Texas has seen growing sheep numbers related to grazing solar panel areas and some growth in supplying lamb to non-traditional markets.  In the rest of the South, Tennessee and Virginia reported small, 1,000 head declines in their ewe flocks while Kentucky held steady with 42,000 ewes.  Texas remained the largest sheep-producing state with 420,000 ewes.

    While the ewe flock was smaller, the market lamb inventory on January 1 was 1.2 percent larger than the previous year, suggesting that a few more lambs may go to market in the early part of 2026.  Lamb production normally peaks in the Spring, with spring-time holiday-driven demand.  With Easter falling on April 5th this year, some movement of lambs to market has already occurred.  Lamb and yearling slaughter is up 4.4 percent this year compared to 2025.  

    Lamb prices have been well above year-ago levels throughout 2026.  In San Angelo, Texas, 60-90 pound wool slaughter lambs averaged $414 per cwt in mid-March 2026, while hair sheep of the same weight averaged $423 per cwt.  A year ago, prices were averaging about $311 per cwt.  The auction market in New Holland, Pennsylvania, is a closely watched market for many producers in the South and is often used to gauge the non-traditional East Coast market.  For the week of March 13, 2026, 60-90 pound slaughter lambs averaged $426 per cwt compared to $352 per cwt last year.  

    Lamb meat prices are also well above last year’s.  Leg of lamb at wholesale was reported by USDA to be $5.87 per cwt compared to $5.00 last year at this time.  Medium racks were $12.67 per cwt compared to $10.00 per cwt last year.  

    There is ample evidence of lamb demand growth based on grocery store sales prices and volumes.  It appears lamb is sharing in the protein consumption trend along with beef and other meats.  That growth may need to continue if prices will be supported at these levels.

    Anderson, David. “A Small Decline in Sheep Numbers.” Southern Ag Today 6(12.2). March 17, 2026. Permalink

  • Before Doing Business Together

    Before Doing Business Together

    Joint business agreements, whether a general partnership, an LLC, or a multi-generational business, all require two or more independently minded farmers to work together. A farmer recently told me that partnerships were “the darndest ship you’ll ever ride on.” I like this quote because it reminds us that partnerships and other jointly held businesses can sail through both smooth and rough “seas.” If you are in the early stages of forming a joint business arrangement, what should you consider before signing the paperwork?  

    Consideration #1: Is a joint business arrangement the best solution?

    In general, a joint business arrangement increases the likelihood of success when potential partners understand the problem for which the arrangement is seen as a possible solution. Sometimes a simple contract, such as a lease agreement, may be the best solution.

    Consideration #2: Choosing the right business partners

    Even if you are contracting with another farm, your business arrangement will need to rely on good communication and trust.  Enforcing a contract in court should be a last resort. Keep in mind the traits you are looking for in a business partner, and make your decision rationally, based on facts, rather than making a hurried decision. 

    Consideration #3: Pre-evaluate yourself and your prospective business partners

    Personal relationships are significant to the success of joint business arrangements. The following questions will help you and your potential partners identify and discuss strengths, weaknesses, and expectations before creating any new business arrangement.  

    • Do you prefer to work and make decisions with someone else or work alone?
    • Are you open to change, or would you prefer to “do it like you always have done it?”
    • Can you make suggestions and recommendations instead of giving orders?
    • Are you willing to listen to and accept ideas and suggestions from others with less experience, less training, or less education?  This is especially important when working with the next generation.
    • Are you willing to give others credit for things well done and accept responsibility for your own mistakes?
    • Can you discuss business issues with your potential business partner without getting angry?
    • Are you willing to attend regular business meetings with your partners?
    • Are you willing to develop a written business agreement and update it when necessary?

    Consideration #4: Your Land Grant University Cooperative Extension Service

    If you need personal assistance, Cooperative Extension agricultural agents have experience helping farmers discuss the topics mentioned above and can serve as neutral, third-party facilitators in the business agreement process. If you would like to learn more about doing business together and the numerous options available, please visit https://coopcentersc.org/existing-business/  to download a free “Doing Business Together” workbook. 

    For existing businesses, Cooperative Extension has resources and referrals to help resolve conflicts. The current economic headwinds are making for difficult financial times, straining business relationships. It is an important time to work together and keep that business partner “ship” sailing through choppy seas.

    Richards, Steven. “Before Doing Business Together.” Southern Ag Today 6(12.1). March 16, 2026. Permalink

  • OTT Dicamba Returns, Prompting Lawsuits

    OTT Dicamba Returns, Prompting Lawsuits

    OTT dicamba has returned.

    On February 6, 2026, the EPA approved labels for over-the-top (OTT) dicamba herbicides to be used with dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean varieties.  These labels pave the way for OTT dicamba to be used for the first time since the District Court of Arizona issued an order to vacate the EPA’s labels in February 2024.  

    New Labels

    In addition to retaining legacy restrictions from the older OTT dicamba labels, the EPA added four new restrictions in the latest 2026 labels.  

    The first restriction pertains to the maximum application rate, which has been cut in half.  Under the new labels, a maximum of two applications of 0.5 lbs. of dicamba can be made annually.  The purpose of this restriction is to reduce total dicamba in the environment and minimize potential exposure to endangered species.

    The second restriction requires applicators to add 40 ounces/acre of approved volatility Reduction Agents (VRA) to every application.  This amount is double that from prior labels.

    The third restriction involves mandatory conservation practices, a relatively new concept that arose from the EPA’s incorporation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) into the pesticide regulatory structure created under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  Under this restriction, growers must achieve 3 runoff/erosion mitigation points at a minimum, and 6 points in certain Pesticide Use Limitation Areas (PULAs) where especially vulnerable species maintain habitat.  

    The fourth restriction creates temperature-based limits on applications, as opposed to the previously used date-based restrictions.  Specifically, an applicator may apply OTT dicamba to no more than 50% of their untreated DT cotton and soybean acres in a given county on days when the forecasted temperature is between 85°F and 95°F, either on the day of application or the following day. If the forecasted temperature reaches or exceeds 95°F on the day of application or the following day, OTT dicamba applications are prohibited.

    New Lawsuit

    As expected, the EPA’s decision to register OTT dicamba has created some controversy.  The National Family Farm Coalition, the same organization that previously sued the EPA to de-register dicamba in 2020 and again in 2024, has filed a lawsuit against the EPA to remove OTT dicamba from the market once again.  In this lawsuit, the National Family Farm Coalition alleges that the EPA violated its duties under FIFRA and the ESA by re-registering OTT dicamba.  Of note, these claims are very similar to the claims successfully made in 2020 and 2024.  

    Brown, Nicholas. “OTT Dicamba Returns, Prompting Lawsuits.” Southern Ag Today 6(11.5). March 13, 2026. Permalink

  • U.S. Agricultural Export Trends: Stability, Growth, and a China‑Driven Rollercoaster

    U.S. Agricultural Export Trends: Stability, Growth, and a China‑Driven Rollercoaster

    Now that the December 2025 trade data have been released, we can look back over the past fifteen years to evaluate how U.S. agricultural exports have evolved across major markets and how shifting global dynamics, especially the dramatic rise and subsequent decline of exports to China, have shaped overall performance. U.S. agricultural exports from 2010 through 2025 reveals a story of both stability and notable volatility. Total agricultural exports rose from $119 billion in 2010 to a high of $196 billion in 2022, before settling at $171 billion in 2025. Exports in 2025 were more than $5.0 billion lower than the previous year, driven primarily by reduced soybean shipments, along with declines in coarse grains, beef, wine, and rice. Much of the variation in U.S. agricultural trade can be traced to the dramatic rise and fall of U.S. exports to China, a market that transformed from the leading U.S. destination to a source of sharp decline. Indeed, the widening U.S. agricultural trade deficit, which grew from –$37.6 billion in 2024 to –$41.7 billion in 2025, stems largely from the steep collapse in exports to China (USDA, 2026). 

    Figure 1 shows U.S. agricultural exports to the major destinations—China, Mexico, Canada, the European Union, and Japan. With the exception of China, most major U.S. export markets exhibit steady or gradually increasing demand, even during periods of heightened trade tensions and uncertainty. However, it’s hard to ignore the extremely volatile path of U.S. agricultural exports to China. Beginning at $18 billion in 2010, exports to China climbed substantially, peaking at $38 billion in 2022, primarily due to rising exports from the Phase One Trade Agreement and relatively high commodity prices. However, exports to China have significantly declined since, falling to just $8 billion in 2025, representing a loss of $30 billion in only three years. No other major market exhibits such a rollercoaster pattern. This deterioration also helps explain why total U.S. exports fell from $196 billion in 2022 to $171 billion in 2025, despite persistent exports elsewhere.

    In contrast, exports to nearly every other major destination remained stable or even trended upward. Mexico increased from $15 billion in 2010 to $31 billion in 2025. Canada remained consistently strong, rising from $18 billion to $28 billion over the same period. The EU and Japan both show moderate, incremental increases, with none experiencing sharp swings comparable to China. Overall, recent trends illustrate two simultaneous dynamics: the inherent volatility of U.S. agricultural trade with China and the remarkable stability of U.S. exports to virtually every other major market. While the collapse in Chinese demand resulted in a noticeable drop in total exports after 2022, the resilience of other destinations helped buffer the decline. These trends highlight both the opportunities and the vulnerabilities that come with relying heavily on a single, now‑unpredictable trading partner.

    Figure 1. U.S. Agricultural Exports to the Top Destination Markets: 2010–2025

    Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS) (USDA, 2026)

    Reference

    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2026). Global Agricultural Trade System. Foreign Agricultural Service. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx

    Muhammad, Andrew. “U.S. Agricultural Export Trends: Stability, Growth, and a China‑Driven Rollercoaster.” Southern Ag Today 6(11.4). March 12, 2026. Permalink