Cattle prices have continued to push higher over the past few months. Auction prices for feeder steers are up 5 to 10 percent since mid-April, depending on location. Live steer prices averaged $238.68 last week – another record and 13 percent above mid-April prices. Prices across feeder cattle and live cattle are 20 to 25 percent above year-ago levels.
Beef values are also pushing higher. The Choice boxed beef cutout value was $382.11 per cwt on Monday, June 16. This is a 19 percent increase above year-ago levels. The weekly choice cutout has been increasing each week since mid-April. The continued weekly increases have already pushed past when many would normally expect the seasonal peak to occur ahead of summer grilling season. For reference, the only other time the cutout has been higher than $380 per cwt was a COVID-driven three-week period during May 2020. The chart above shows the cutout value over the past 5 and ½ years. The considerable increases in the loin and brisket are noteworthy.
Looking at the primal level, the increases vary. The rib primal value was $538.29 (up 10 percent from a year ago), chuck value up 21 percent (to $316.32), round value up 20 percent ($311.73), loin value up 19 percent ($541.41), brisket value up 30 percent ($324.36), short plate up 29 percent ($270.75), and flank up 26 percent ($211.57). Each of these changes show how important the markets for individual primal (and cuts) are to the overall carcass and animal value.
Tight supplies of cattle and beef are supporting record high prices. It has been particularly interesting this year to see these continued increases in the cutout value push into June. April and May are the more common months for the choice cutout to peak, although the past few years have differed. In 2024, the choice cutout peaked the first week of July, and in 2023 it peaked in mid-June. 2025 is shaping up to be more similar to the past two years.
For upland cotton producers, missing critical dates for their federal crop insurance can limit the effectiveness of their risk protection and reduce potential benefits. Our previous article in Southern Ag Today (Chong, Liu, and Biram, 2023) discussed the crop insurance policies available for upland cotton. This article focuses on the essential dates that upland cotton producers must track to effectively manage their coverage and protect their investments.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Risk Management Agency (USDA RMA) provides key crop insurance dates and definitions for upland cotton. Figure 1 below outlines the timeline related to upland cotton crop insurance. If a listed crop insurance deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, the actual due date shifts to the next business day.
Key crop insurance dates for upland cotton include the Projected Price and Harvest Price Discovery Periods, Sales Closing and Cancellation Dates, Final Planting Date, and the End of the Late Planting Period (See references below for definition and dates from previous SAT articles).
The remaining key crop insurance dates and their definition are discussed below.
Acreage Reporting Date. Producers must annually report the number of acres planted, insurable and uninsurable, to the insurance provider on or before this date or within three days if they abandon their intentions to plant. If crops are planted after the final planting date, producers must report the number of acres planted each day. Additionally, all acres of an insurable crop must be reported. Other required information includes: producer’s share in the crop, acreage location, farming practices used, types or varieties planted, planting dates (if after the final planting date), and any acres unable to be planted. Failure to file the acreage report by the applicable crop acreage reporting date may result in the denial of coverage by the insurance provider. The acreage reporting date for upland cotton is July 15.
Premium Billing date. Although premiums are payable as soon as the crop is planted, producers will not receive a bill until this date. Interest charges begin to accrue on unpaid balances 30 days after the premium billing date at a rate of 1.25% per month. If an indemnity is issued, any outstanding premiums will be deducted from the payment. For upland cotton, the premium billing date is August 15.
Contract Change Date: The RMA may adjust the insurance program from year to year. If any modifications occur, the changes will be available on the RMA website no later than the contract change date. The insurance provider is required to inform the policyholder in writing about updates to the policy, actuarial documents, or Special Provisions of Insurance not later than 30 days prior to the cancellation date. The policyholder has the option to review these updates and choose to maintain coverage for the next crop year, modify the policy by the sales closing date, or cancel the insurance by the cancellation date. For upland cotton, the annual contract change date is November 30.
End of Insurance Date. Following the End of Insurance Date, the farmer no longer has any production or revenue guarantee on the crop. This date is the earliest of the following: the date the crop is harvested, abandoned, or destroyed; the date the final adjustment on losses is made; or a specified calendar date for each crop determined by the RMA. For upland cotton, the end of insurance dates vary by region are (1) September 30 in Val Verde, Edwards, Kerr, Kendall, Bexar, Wilson, Karnes, Goliad, Victoria, and Jackson Counties, Texas, and all Texas counties lying south thereof; (2) January 31 in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and all other Texas counties; and (3) December 31 in all other states.
Termination Date. If premiums remain unpaid by this date, insurance coverage for the following crop year will be terminated. If a crop insurance policy is going to be terminated, the insurance provider will provide written notice to the producer at least 30 days before the termination date. The termination date varies by region but falls on the same date as the sales closing date and the cancellation date of the next year.
Production Reporting Date. Producers must submit their most recent crop production records by this date to recalculate their Actual Production History (APH) yield. This deadline is typically 45 days after the termination date or sales closing and cancellation dates for the following year.
Final Yield Release Date: For area policies, like STAX and SCO, RMA typically determines final county yields and revenues by mid-July following the crop year. Specifically, for upland cotton, these figures are finalized before August 1.
Indemnity Payment Date: For area policies, like STAX and SCO, any indemnity payments due to policyholders are issued no later than 30 days after the release of the final area yield or revenues. All other indemnities for the underlying cotton policy are paid at least 30 days after the claim has been finalized.By staying informed about key crop insurance deadlines, upland cotton producers can ensure they maximize their risk protection. Tracking these important dates and seeking guidance from crop insurance agents can help safeguard investments and maintain effective coverage.
Figure 1. Key Dates Producers Need to Know for Cotton Crop Insurance Plan
Disconnected youth, individuals aged 16 to 24 who are not in school or working, have become a growing concern in the U.S. over the past two decades (Crockett & Zhang, 2023). Disconnection from both education and employment can lead to long-term consequences, including delayed life milestones, reduced productivity, and a weakened workforce.
While disconnected youth are shaped by a complex mix of influences, community programs offered by local organizations, including nonprofits, Cooperative Extension Service, workforce development agencies, and youth-serving groups, may provide a promising pathway to engagement. Many of these programs offer mentorship, job training, educational support, leadership development, and connections to local networks that help young people build confidence, develop skills, and find direction for sustained engagement in education or the workforce.
To explore this possibility, a nationwide online survey was conducted from March 7th to 17th, 2025, with 1,031 randomly selected individuals aged 18 to 24 (those under 18 were excluded to avoid the need for parental consent). The survey focused on respondents’ experiences and perspectives regarding participation in community programs that support education and career development, which are areas they are often disconnected from.
Figure 1. A map of the Survey Responses (n = 1,031)
Note: The survey employed equal quota sampling to ensure balanced representation from the four regions: West, Midwest, Northeast, and South
First, the survey asked respondents how often they had received support from community programs, including mentorship, job training, youth development, education, or tutoring (Figure 2). Approximately 29.2% reported never receiving such support, while the remaining 70.8% indicated some level of participation. Most respondents said they received support either “sometimes” (32.7%) or “rarely” (25.4%), suggesting limited but notable engagement. A smaller portion reported more frequent involvement, with 10.1% selecting “often” and just 2.6% selecting “very often.”
Figure 2. Frequency of Support Received from Community Programs (Unit: %)
More notably, respondents who participated more frequently in community programs were more likely to perceive them as highly beneficial for their education and career, suggesting a substantial positive impact of such programs (Figure 3). But what exactly are young adults looking for in these programs? When asked to rank six types of community programs based on their perceived impact on education and career outcomes, the majority of respondents chose “Access to job opportunities or career advice” as the most helpful, while “Financial support or assistance” received the lowest ranking (Figure 4).
Figure 3. Perceived Helpfulness Levels by Frequency of Program Participation (Unit: %)
Note: Pearson χ² = 237.90, p = 0.000
Figure 4. Average Importance Ratings of Community Program Benefits by Perceived Impact on Education and Career
(1 = Least Important; 6 = Most Important)
Note: Participants ranked six benefits of community programs from most (6) to least (1) important. The Friedman test indicated statistically significant differences in rankings (χ² = 601.45, p < 0.001)
What about accessibility to community programs? The survey asked whether respondents had access to local initiatives such as mentorship, job training, youth development, or tutoring services (Figure 5). Only about 33% reported having “Good” or “Excellent” access, while roughly 27% indicated “No access at all” or “Limited access.” The majority selected “Moderate access,” suggesting that while some programs are available, they may not fully meet participants’ expectations.
Figure 5. Access to Community Programs in Respondents’ Areas (Unit: %)
Note: 1. No access at all – There are no community programs available to me. 2. Limited access – There are a few programs, but they are hard to reach or not useful. 3. Moderate access – Some programs are available, but they are limited or not always helpful. 4. Good access – I have access to useful community programs with some limitations. 5. Excellent access – I have easy access to a variety of helpful community programs.
The findings from this survey highlight both the potential and limitations of current community programs in addressing the needs of disconnected youth in the U.S. Results suggest that these programs can positively influence education and career development outcomes, particularly when young adults receive consistent support and perceive the programs as helpful. However, many respondents reported limited or no access to such programs, revealing gaps in availability and effectiveness. These insights point to a clear opportunity for targeted policy action to expand access, improve program quality, and ensure that support reaches the youth who need it most.
Reference Crockett, A., & Zhang, X. (2023, April 6). Young adults are disconnected from work and
United States (U.S.) pecan production totaled 120 thousand metric tons (TMT) in 2024. Exports of pecans from the United States in 2024 totaled 53.7 TMT, worth a total of $381 million. In-shell pecans accounted for 32.2 TMT and $169.2 million; the remaining 21.5 TMT and $211.8 million of exports were shelled. In-shell exports to Mexico and China accounted for $94.5 million in 2024, representing 75.8 percent of the total volume of in-shell exports. The export market for shelled pecan exports is less consolidated.
Due to the ease of access to low-cost labor in Mexico, a significant portion of the in-shell pecans exported to Mexico will be shelled and then imported back to the United States, where they will be sold domestically or packaged for export elsewhere. This makes Mexico far and away the largest market for U.S. pecan imports. Mexico accounted for 99.7 and 99.5 percent of in-shell and shelled imports, respectively.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) worked to lower trade barriers and was renewed recently in 2020 as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). One such barrier addressed was tariffs on pecan trade between the United States and Mexico, which were set at zero percent. This does not account for non-tariff barriers to trade. Non-tariff measures (NTM) have a major impact on trade that is difficult to quantify. Since 2004, the NTMs for all WTO countries have nearly quadrupled from 5.3 thousand measures to 19 thousand. The largest NTM category is sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) restrictions.
The pecan weevil quarantine is one such SPS issue that has arisen. Arizona, California, New Mexico (except for Otero County), and six counties near El Paso, Texas, are all that fall outside of the pecan weevil quarantine zone. While the Texas Department of Agriculture also has a quarantine on pecan weevils for many eastern states, once one of the four approved treatment options has been completed, the product is free to travel from a non-quarantine zone. That is not the case with exports to Mexico, which requires non-quarantined pecans to be treated and will not allow any pecans from quarantine areas.
In February, it was announced that a 25 percent tariff would be placed on both USMCA partner countries; this applies to all products, including agricultural imports. Thus, the tariff rate on imported pecans from Mexico, which is primarily shelled, would increase from zero percent to 25 percent. U.S. pecan imports coming from Mexico account for over 99.5 percent of the total for both shelled and in-shell; thus, other new import tariffs have little impact comparatively. It is very difficult to predict the actual impact of the 25 percent tariff, but somewhere along the supply chain, the extra cost will have to be paid, and oftentimes the lion’s share falls onto the consumer.
References
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS). Online database. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx. Online public database accessed August 2025.
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Phytosanitary Export Database (PExD) with Requirements by Country. https://pcit.aphis.usda.gov/PExD/faces/ViewPExD.jsf Online public database accessed May 2025.
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Quick Stats. https://www.nass.usda.gov accessed May 2025.
World Trade Organization. WTO Stats. https://stats.wto.org/. Online public database. Accessed April 2025.
Agriculture is inherently risky, with producers facing a complex array of production, market, and financial risks. These risks can significantly impact farm profitability, necessitating robust risk management strategies. Risk management in agriculture has become a complex system of financial instruments and strategies, with crop insurance and forward contracting serving as two key components.
Forward contracting allows producers to mitigate price risk by securing a predetermined price and buyer for their grain. This approach can be especially attractive due to the potential weather risk premium embedded in forward contract grain prices. Buyers are often willing to pay higher prices to hedge against weather-related uncertainties affecting crop production, which allows farmers to lock in favorable prices and potentially increase their revenue. However, it’s crucial to note that while forward contracting addresses market risk, it does not directly mitigate production risk. Aggressive use of forward contracting can expose farmers to unexpected yield risk as farmers may be unable to meet contracted quantities, leading to non-delivery penalties imposed by elevators and potentially substantial financial losses.
Farmers can also purchase crop insurance as a complementary risk management tool to address the production risk associated with forward contracting. The federal crop insurance program offers various products, with yield (YP) and revenue protection (RP) accounting for 71% of the $158.6 billion of liability in 2024 (USDA-RMA, 2024). YP provides production risk management using a farm-specific Actual Production History (APH), while RP additionally provides price risk management using futures prices. Pairing forward contracting with either insurance product could potentially help offset non-delivery penalties and reduce the financial burden on farmers who experience yield shortfalls. The combination of forward contracting and insurance protection allows farmers to confidently engage in more aggressive marketing strategies. By protecting against both price and yield risks with RP and yield risk with YP, this integrated approach could potentially lead to a more stable farm income and improved overall risk management.
We provide a visual example of how these two risk management tools can work together in Figure 1 below. The red bar is the potential revenue generated from corn production by locking in a price of $4.50/bushel via a forward contract at a farm yield expectation of 200 bushels/acre. If a farmer booked 80% of expected production, the expected revenue from forward contracting would be $720.00/acre. The blue bar behind the red bar shows an RP crop insurance policy at 80% coverage that is layered underneath the expected revenue from forward contracting which guarantees $744.00/acre.
Figure 1. Layers of Protection Provided by Simultaneously Using Revenue Protection (RP) Crop Insurance and Forward Contracting in the Local Cash Market
NOTE: The purpose of this figure is to show two different “layers” of revenue coming from two different revenue risk management tools: forward contracting and RP crop insurance. The forward contracted revenue is in red while the crop insurance revenue guarantee is in blue behind the forward contracted revenue.
To illustrate the importance of this “layering” strategy, consider when a yield shortfall occurs leaving only 150 bushels/acre to sell at the forward price of $4.50/bushel rather than the 160 bushels/acre promised for delivery. This leaves a 10 bushel/acre shortfall. The local grain elevator is offering a cash delivery price of $4.00/bushel with a $0.05/bushel non-delivery penalty resulting in a non-delivery price of $4.05/bushel, and therefore, a total penalty of $40.50/acre. The resulting harvest revenue is about $635.00/acre (see table 1). Despite the penalty, the RP policy – which is in blue underneath the forward priced grain – provides an indemnity of $121.00/acre at a producer-paid premium of $56.00/acre. This results in a final cash revenue of about $700.00/acre rather than $635.00/acre, showing how the RP policy was able to pull crop revenue almost completely back to the expected amount of $720.00/acre despite the inability to fully deliver the promised amount (see table 2). This finding highlights the benefit of locking in prices during spring time as part of a pre-harvest marketing plan.
Table 1. Calculating Crop Revenue Using a Forward Price and Non-Delivery Penalty
Expected Yield (a)
200 bpa
Booked Yield (b = 80% x a)
160 bpa
Realized Yield (c)
150 bpa
Yield Shortfall (d = b – c)
10 bpa
Forward Price (e)
$4.50/bushel
Harvest Price (f)
$4.00/bushel
Non-Delivery Fee (g)
$0.05/bushel
Non-Delivery Price (h = f + g)
$4.05/bushel
Forward -Priced Revenue (i= c x e)
$675.00/acre
Non-Delivery Penalty (w = d x h)
$40.50/acre
Revenue with Penalty (i– w)
$634.50/acre
Note: bpa = bushels per acre
Table 2. Including Crop Insurance in the Crop Revenue Using a Forward Price and Non-Delivery Penalty
