Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • Southeastern U.S. Specialty Crop Sector Competitiveness: Moving the Needle

    Southeastern U.S. Specialty Crop Sector Competitiveness: Moving the Needle

    Fruit and vegetable sectors are important contributors to the U.S. agriculture economy. At the same time, they are particularly vulnerable to import competition and recorded a positive annual trade balance in just 18 of the 63 years between 1961 and 2023 (Figure 1). 

    Data Source: FAO Stat

    From an economic perspective, sustainable market competitiveness (whether domestic or international) is driven by a combination of: (1) lower cost throughout the supply chain; (2) prioritized market access – earlier entrance to a market or better market intelligence; and (3) increased value to buyers – differentiated products that consumers can identify, want, and purchase. 

    The Southeastern specialty crop sector comprises hundreds of unique crops and growing situations, with the emergence of new or differentiated crops ongoing. While this creates opportunities for market development and response to consumers, it can create challenges for the development and commercialization of innovative technologies to lower costs. Technology development for specialty crops must either target a relatively small number of potential users or be adaptable over differentiated use cases. Agricultural research and manufacturing interests are more likely to focus on the needs of the almost 300,000 U.S. farms (80.6 million acres) growing corn for grain in 2022 than the needs of the less than 8,500 U.S. farms (73,500 acres) growing strawberries. Additive manufacturing technologies may eventually expand solutions for small-volume agricultural needs as they have in manufacturing sectors of the economy (Lu et al., 2024).

    There is widespread recognition that the cost and availability of labor are one of the leading challenges (IFPA, 2023; Martin 2024). Mechanized solutions such as precision agriculture, remote sensing, mechanical harvesters, and labor-aids offer potential benefits as labor-saving technologies. Concerns over labor availability and affordability are not new, and neither are attempts to develop mechanization. Yet the adoption of such technologies has been uneven, over time and across commodities. Recent policy changes are aimed at the affordability of workers. On October 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued an Interim Final Rule establishing a new, skill-based methodology for calculating the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) for H-2A agricultural workers in non-range occupations, aiming to lower costs for farmers.

    Unique needs among the myriads of commodities, markets, and supply chains that comprise specialty crops makes shifting sector competitiveness challenging, even within seasonal markets. Technologies compatible with large-scale systems may not be feasible on a smaller-scale and vice versa. It is critical to assess technology and information needs for small-scale and regional challenges as well as large commercial farms. 

    References

    International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA). 2023. Future Trends Report. Available online: https://www.freshproduce.com/resources/consumer-trends/2023-future-trends-report/

    Lu, Y., W. Xu, J. Leng, X. Liu, H. Xu, H. Ding, J. Zhou, and L. Cui. 2024. “Review and Research Prospects on Additive Manufacturing Technology for Agricultural Manufacturing.” Agriculture 14(8):1207.

    Martin, P. 2024. Bracero 2.0: Mexican Workers in North American Agriculture. Oxford University Press. 

    Thirnsbury, Suzanne. “Southeastern U.S. Specialty Crop Sector Competitiveness: Moving the Needle.” Southern Ag Today 5(42.5). October 17, 2025. Permalink

  • Can the U.S. Move from Multilateral to Bilateral Trade Agreements?

    Can the U.S. Move from Multilateral to Bilateral Trade Agreements?

    As U.S. trade policy under this administration continues to dominate the news, there seems to be a marked shift from multilateral to bilateral trade negotiations. The current administration’s strategy to use tariffs and the size of the U.S. economy as leverage to change trade relationships bilaterally seems to be the norm lately. There are 166 countries that are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). How realistic would it be for the U.S. to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with each of them? And a follow up question, does the United States need to have a bilateral trade agreement with each country?

    The answer to the first question is probably “no” as the average duration of U.S. trade negotiations from launch date of signing is 18 months and from launch to date of implementation is 45 months (Figure 1.). Therefore, it will take too much time and resources to negotiate or re-negotiate trade agreements with all WTO members. However, to the second question, the answer is probably “no” as well; the top 10 export destinations accounts for 76 percent of all U.S. products exported (Figure 2.). The European Union (EU) is the largest market for U.S. products accounting for 17.51 percent followed by Canada, Mexico and China with 17.07, 14.51 and 8 percent, respectively. The United States has already or is currently negotiating trade agreements with all top 10 countries.

    When the top 10 destination for all U.S. products are ranked by share of agricultural exports, the order of countries changes. China is the largest destination for all U.S. ag products accounting for 17.25 percent. In addition, agricultural products account for 23.98 percent of all U.S. products that China imports from the United States. The second largest destination is Canada where 15.38 percent of all U.S. agricultural products end up, and those agricultural products account for 10.01 percent of all U.S. products exported to Canada. To finish the top three, Mexico accounts for 14.99 percent of all U.S. agricultural products exported while agricultural products account for 11.49 percent of all products the U.S. exported to Mexico. These top 10 countries account for 71 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports.  Due to the latest trade tensions, China is no longer the top destination for U.S. ag exports but is now third behind Mexico and Canada.

    References

    Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS). Online database. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx. Online public database accessed October 2025. 

    Freund, Caroline & Christine McDaniel. “How Long Does It Take to Conclude a Trade Agreement With the US?” Peterson Institute for International Economics. July 21, 2016.

    Ribera, Luis A., Landyn Young. “Can the U.S. Move from Multilateral to Bilateral Trade Agreements?” Southern Ag Today 5(42.4). October 16, 2025. Permalink

  • Potential Market Impacts of Missing a WASDE Report During Government Shutdowns

    Potential Market Impacts of Missing a WASDE Report During Government Shutdowns

    The USDA’s World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report is one of the most influential monthly publications in agriculture. It summarizes and updates projections on global crop production, trade, and consumption—information that agricultural markets rely on to set prices. However, the October WASDE report will not be released due to the ongoing government shutdown. Without this update, the effects ripple across the supply chain, impacting farmers, merchandisers, and financial markets that depend on timely market intelligence to guide decisions.

    Previous government shutdowns have interrupted the release of WASDE reports, and research has shown this has introduced heightened uncertainty into the markets during the short term (Adjemian et al. 2017; Goyal and Adjemian, 2021). Without the monthly WASDE, buyers and sellers lose a crucial reference point on where the market stands. While we can only speculate about what the October report would have shown, its absence means missed opportunities. The numbers could have shifted prices positively or negatively, creating advantages for either sellers or buyers of agricultural commodities.

    The disruption is especially significant during harvest. This is the time when actual yields are measured, contracts are delivered, and elevators manage a surge of grain. Typically, the October and November WASDE reports capture updated harvest conditions, painting a near real-time picture of the national balance sheet. Without those updates, elevators are left to alternative sources of information to estimate supply levels—possibly causing basis moves that may be too high or low. Similarly, demand projections lack clarity, which can swing futures prices in either direction.

    In the short term, private forecasts will likely gain influence, but these estimates often vary widely by source, adding to market volatility. In the longer term, multiple months of projections may be bundled into a single release once USDA reporting resumes, creating larger adjustments in supply or demand estimates that markets must digest all at once.

    In sum, whether the October WASDE would have been bullish or bearish for producers would have depended largely on changes to yield estimates. But the absence of a report is significant in itself. The lack of transparent, standardized market information increases the risk of mispriced grain and market inefficiencies, leaving producers and elevators to make large-scale marketing and storage decisions under heightened uncertainty.

    References

    Adjemian, M. K., Johansson, R., McKenzie, A., & Thomsen, M. (2018). Was the missing 2013 WASDE missed?. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 40(4), 653-671.

    Goyal, R., & Adjemian, M. K. (2021). The 2019 government shutdown increased uncertainty in major agricultural commodity markets. Food Policy, 102, 102064.

    Gardner, Grant. “Potential Market Impacts of Missing a WASDE Report During Government Shutdowns.” Southern Ag Today 5(42.3). October 15, 2025. Permalink

  • A Check in on the Beef Cutout

    A Check in on the Beef Cutout

    The current government shutdown has caused many weekly and monthly reports to not be published. However, USDA-AMS is still generating their daily and weekly reports. The beef industry knows that tight supplies have led to increased price movements over the last couple of years, but beef demand has become a hot topic as of late due to retail beef prices continuing to set all-time highs every month. These market movements have led to a common question, “could demand be decreasing and that’s why the cutout has been decreasing?” One data series that offers valuable insight into the intersection of beef supply and demand is the cutout value.

    Figure 1 shows the weekly choice cutout value for this year, last year, and the previous 5-year average. In mid-September, the choice cutout peaked at $413.60/cwt, has steadily decreased each week, and finished last week at $365.25/cwt. This decline is somewhat expected due to seasonality trends. However, last week’s price was $56.82/cwt (18.4%) and $113.57/cwt (45.12%) higher than last year and the previous 5-year average for the same week. Even though the market has experienced peaks and recent declines in the choice cutout value, year-over-year demand indices suggest historically strong demand as consumers pay higher prices for the smaller amounts of beef available.  

    Consumers make choices not only between cuts of beef but also grades of beef. Figure 2 shows the monthly cutout values by grade for the last 12 months. Since March of this year, each cutout grade has trended upward through September. Interestingly, the last two months have also had increasing spreads between prime and all other grades. To the question posed in the introduction paragraph, there is little data to suggest weakening demand. Tight beef supplies are driving prices higher and consumer demand is holding strong. Consumers will eat less beef overall in 2025 due to less availability, but the higher prices will allocate the various grades and cuts of beef to consumers.  

    Figure 1. Weekly Choice Cutout Value

    Figure 2. Monthly Graded Cutout Values for the previous 12 months

    Martinez, Charley, Parker Wyatt, and David Eli Mundy. “A Check in on the Beef Cutout.” Southern Ag Today 5(42.2). October 14, 2025. Permalink

  • Margin Crop Insurance Available Across the Southern Region 

    Margin Crop Insurance Available Across the Southern Region 

    As harvest progresses and crop prices stay at historical lows, it is difficult to consider risk management for 2026. The federal crop insurance program offers a tool that can currently provide a form of county-level revenue protection. Margin Protection (MP) crop insurance was made available for a variety of crops across the southeast region in 2024. MP is an area-level (i.e., county-level) crop insurance product designed to provide risk protection against the risk of thin margins using a combination of county yields, futures prices, and region-specific input usage. Coverage levels range from 70% to 95% and may be purchased with any individual insurance, such as Yield Protection (YP) or Revenue Protection (RP). It may not be purchased with Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) or Enhanced Coverage Option (ECO) (see Biram and Connor, 2023). Additionally, there is a new product offering similar to ECO and MP called Margin Coverage Option (MCO), which I will provide more details on below.

    For certain crops/regions the sales closing date (SCD) for MP coverage is similar to other traditional products, However, in some cases there is an early SCD and price discovery window. This early window offers the opportunity to lock in prices sooner if you think that might be an advantage to the normal spring price discovery. Check here for MP SCD’s and price discovery windows. The earlier price discovery window offered by MP (August 15, 2025, to September 14, 2025), provides corn and soybean producers with the option to buy MP and lock in futures prices, if they think that might be an advantage over the normal price discovery window (January 15, 2026, through February 14, 2026). For example, the current USDA, Risk Management Agency (RMA) projected price for MP purchased for corn is $4.55/bushel, which implies a price guarantee of $4.32/bushel assuming county yields and costs remain constant.  The risk of cost of production portion of MP provides protection from price volatility for Urea, Diammonium Phosphate (DAP), Diesel, and the Interest Rate on a farmer’s production loan. These prices also face projected price discovery periods similar to crop futures prices but have different windows of harvest price discovery (see Chattha and Biram, 2024).

    Another decision variable in the MP coverage decision is the Protection Factor (PF). The PF ranges from 80% to 120% and offers higher (lower) protection at a higher (lower) premium cost and largely functions as a farm-level production adjustment. That is, if a farmer perceives their yield to be higher than the county average, they may select a PF higher than 100% at an additional premium cost. Alternatively, if a farmer perceives their yield to be lower than the county average, they may select a PF less than 100% and pay a lower premium.

    The University of Arkansas, Cooperative Extension Service offers a fully web-based Margin Protection decision aid. The decision aid allows the user to input information such as state, county, crop, and irrigation practice to determine Margin Losses (i.e., indemnities) net of producer paid premiums across all coverage levels. Additionally, the tool offers a feature that calculates a breakeven price, which is a harvest time crop futures price that results in a Zero Net Indemnity, or a Margin Loss equal to the producer paid premium. Breakeven prices vary by coverage level and harvest county yields input by the user. 

    An example output showing net indemnities across different harvest crop futures prices, including a breakeven price of $4.13/bushel at the 95% coverage level, is provided in Figure 1 below. This figure suggests that Margin Losses at or above the producer paid premium are experienced if the 2026 December corn futures price has a 30-day average below $4.13/bushel at harvest (i.e., from August 15, 2026, through September 14, 2026). You may access the Margin Protection Payment Estimator (2026 Crop Year) at this link. Fact sheets which provide all of the details of MP, including counties eligible for enrollment, may be found at the following links: Margin Protection Crop Insurance and Determining Expected Cost and Premium Rates.

    Figure 1. Example Breakeven Price Figure from Margin Protection Payment Estimator Tool 

    This is an example of net indemnities across various harvest time crop futures prices for corn in Arkansas County, Arkansas assuming county yield remains unchanged. Intuitively, as the harvest price increases the net indemnity decreases.

    Margin Coverage Option (MCO)

    Like MP, MCO provides area-based coverage against an unexpected fall in operating margin. This could be driven by a fall in the county-level yield average, a fall in the harvest-time futures price, or an increase in the futures prices of select inputs or any combination of these perils. MCO faces the same projected and harvest price discovery periods for crop futures and input future prices as MP. MCO uses the same expected and final county-level yields as SCO and ECO and covers a band from 86% to either 90% or 95% of expected county-level revenue. Figure 2 provides a visual comparison of MP and MCO and their eligibility to be enrolled with other federal crop insurance products.  Currently, the subsidy rate for MCO is the same as the updated subsidy rates for SCO and ECO, which is 80% of the actuarially fair premium, meaning farmers will pay 20% of the total premium expense. For a full list of crops and MCO pilot areas, visit www.margincoverageoption.com. The Sales Closing Date (SCD) for the 2026 crop year for MCO on cotton and sorghum is September 30, 2025, while the SCD for MCO on Rice in Arkansas is February 28, 2026, like MP and other major crop insurance plans (e.g., YP, RP, SCO, and ECO). 

    Figure 2. Comparing Coverage Bands of MP and MCO and Eligible with Other Federal Crop Insurance Products

    Source: www.margincoverageoption.com

    MCO Resources

    USDA, Risk Management Agency Frequently Asked Questions on ECO

    USDA, Risk Management Agency Fact Sheet on MCO

    Watts and Associates Website for MP

    Watts and Associates Website for MCO

    References

    Biram, H.D. and Connor, L. (2023). Types of Federal Crop Insurance Products: Individual and Area Plans. University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet No. FSA75.

    Biram, H.D. and Stiles, S. (2022). Margin Protection Crop Insurance: A Way to Manage the Risk of High Input Costs. University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet No. FSA66.Chattha, K.A. and Biram, H.D. (2024). Determining Expected Cost and Premium Rates in Margin Protection Crop Insurance. University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet No. FSA87.

    Biram, Hunter D. “Margin Crop Insurance Available Across the Southern Region.” Southern Ag Today 5(42.1). October 13, 2025. Permalink