Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • Fewer Marketings, Tighter Beef Supplies

    Fewer Marketings, Tighter Beef Supplies

    USDA released the latest Cattle on Feed report amid record high cattle and beef prices.  While the report did not have any big surprises compared to analyst’s pre-report estimates there were some noteworthy data points.  Marketings were 10.1 percent fewer in May 2025 than last May.  Some of that was attributable to one less working day in the month, but the rest was due to fewer fed cattle slaughtered.  An earlier SAT discussed fewer fed cattle being processed on Fridays over the last couple of months.  

    Fewer cattle were placed into feedyards in May, with placements 7.8 percent below last year.  But, placements in Texas and Oklahoma feedyards were down 16.8 and 21.6 percent compared to last year, likely reflecting the continued border closing restricting the supply of Mexican feeder cattle.  Fewer placements and marketing left the total number of cattle on feed down 1.2 percent compared to last year.  

    Fewer cattle marketed from feedlots means reduced fed cattle slaughter and beef production.  Beef production over the last 8 weeks has been 5.5 percent below the same period last year.  A smaller percentage of the beef graded has been grading Choice indicating tighter supplies of Choice beef in addition to lower overall supplies.  While a lot has been made of continued good demand for beef pushing prices higher, certainly reduced supplies are helping higher prices too.

    On the price side, the Choice cutout surged to $390 per cwt on Friday June 20th.  That was a record except for May 2020.  All of the Choice primal cuts have been racing higher except for the rib which has been declining, as it often does this time of the year.  Of note, just as Texas Monthly’s Top 50 BBQ joints edition hit the mailbox primal Choice briskets kept climbing to almost $3.40 per pound.  This would be a record brisket price except for May 2020 when the pandemic closed packing plants and a surge of buying depleted supplies.  

    While not one of the primals that make up the boxed beef cutout value, 50 percent lean beef has skyrocketed in value to almost $190 per cwt, compared to about $1.00 per pound last year.  This beef is largely the product of fed cattle and makes up part of the supplies of ground beef.  Fewer fed cattle marketed and slaughtered in recent weeks has likely cut into supplies while the demand for ground beef remains good.  

    The marketings side of the cattle on feed report highlights today’s tight supplies of cattle and beef.  Reduced production is part of the story of record beef prices.

    Anderson, David. “Fewer Marketings, Tighter Beef Supplies.” Southern Ag Today 5(26.2). June 24, 2025. Permalink

  • Historic and Current Rice Planting Progress in the Southern United States

    Historic and Current Rice Planting Progress in the Southern United States

    Planting rice in a suitable timeframe is critical for profitable rice production. Planting rice too early or too late can result in significant losses in grain yield and milling quality. The timing of rice planting is strongly impacted by weather, particularly excessive precipitation. Too much precipitation can delay rice planting and can also trigger rice replanting and levee repairs in rice fields. In extreme instances, excessive and persistent precipitation can lead to prevented planted rice acres. For example, prevented planted rice acres in Arkansas reached a record high of 512 thousand acres in 2019 due to flooding and excessive precipitation occurring throughout the growing season (Watkins and Gautam, 2021). The initiation and completion of rice planting in a growing season also varies by geographic location. 

    This article evaluates historic and current rice planting progress for the southern United States (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas) using weekly crop progress data from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA, NASS 2025). Historical and current weekly rice planting progress curves are presented for each southern rice-producing state in the accompanying figures. Historic rice planting progress is defined as the 10-year average percent of rice area planted by week for the period 2015 – 2024, while current rice planting progress is defined as the percent rice area planted by week for the 2025 growing season. The early and late planting timelines are based on how much land is usually planted each week, adjusted to show either earlier-than-normal or later-than-normal planting by using a typical range of variation. Dates in the figures represent the ending dates for each week evaluated. For example, 20-Apr represents the week of 14-Apr through 20-Apr.

    A few things stand out when looking at the charts of the five states. First, rice plantings begin and end earlier for the more southerly states (Louisiana, Texas) relative to the more northerly states (Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri), as would be expected. Second, rice planting progress becomes more variable moving south to north. The gaps between early and delayed rice planting curves are wider for Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri than for Louisiana and Texas, implying weather variability has a stronger impact on rice plantings in the more northerly states. Third, the timing of variability in rice planting progress is different when moving south to north. The gaps between early and delayed planting curves for Louisiana and Texas are widest during the beginning of rice planting and become narrower thereafter, implying weather variability is more of a factor for both states when rice planting begins. In contrast, gaps between early and late planting curves in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri expand after rice planting starts and are widest during the second week of April through the second to third week of May. Thus, mid-spring weather can greatly accelerate or greatly delay rice plantings in the northern states.Rice plantings in 2025 have concluded or are very close to completion for all five southern rice states as of this writing. How did rice plantings in 2025 compare with historic 10-year averages? The answer of course varies by state. Arkansas and Mississippi experienced intermittent precipitation throughout the 2025 planting season, leading to rice plantings tracking early and behind the 10-year average for both states at different times in the season. Heavy rain events occurred in both states, resulting in planting delays, flooded fields, washed-out levees, and the need for replanting. In Missouri, rain events slowed rice planting during the first three weeks of April, but planting eventually accelerated thereafter to track closely with the 10-year average. Louisiana and Texas rice plantings were at or ahead of the 10-year average during much of the 2025 planting season. 

    References and Resources

    USDA-NASS (2025). United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Crop Progress. https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/8336h188j

    Watkins, K.B., and T.K. Gautam (2021). An Overview of Rice Prevented Planting Acres in Arkansas, 2011 to 2020. In: J. Hardke, X. Sha, and N. Bateman (eds.) B.R. Wells Arkansas Rice Research Studies 2020. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Series 676:317-321. Fayetteville. https://scholarworks.uark.edu/aaesser/200/

    Watkins, Brad. “Historic and Current Rice Planting Progress in the Southern United States.” Southern Ag Today 5(26.1). June 23, 2025. Permalink

  • Who Needs Attorneys When You Have AI?

    Who Needs Attorneys When You Have AI?

    Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a powerful and accessible tool to solve a multitude of problems. Increasingly, people turn to AI to solve matters previously entrusted to professionals, including legal matters. This article briefly summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of using AI to address legal issues and suggests a role for AI in the legal needs of individuals and businesses. The authors acknowledge that AI was used to research this article.

    In many ways, using artificial intelligence to provide professional services is not new. Commercial companies offer legal document drafting (particularly simple wills and trusts) and tax preparation services and have done so for years. Early will forms used very primitive artificial intelligence to draft simple wills.

    The most compelling reason to use AI for legal needs is affordability. Lawyers are expensive and that cost can prevent people from seeking any legal help. AI is also fast, convenient, and easily accessible. An hour or so on the computer can provide a lot of information. No need to make appointments weeks in advance and brave traffic to drive to the appointment. Costs are generally minimal, especially compared to attorneys’ fees.

    On the other hand, AI cannot make legal judgments. Law often involves gray areas and uncertain outcomes. Attorneys, unlike AI, have experience and education that aid in interpreting laws and advising clients based on particular circumstances. Legal systems are complex, nuanced, and evolving. Humans, although far from perfect, are better able to deal with legal systems. With respect to litigation, only licensed, human attorneys may represent a client in court. Although individuals may represent themselves and use AI as a support tool, that strategy may backfire. Finally, AI does not offer attorney-client privilege. Information shared with AI systems may not be kept private and confidential.

    When the authors searched AI, the results suggested that AI could handle “routine or low-stakes legal matters.” Tasks that AI described as ideal for AI included “filing a business formation, applying for a trademark, or writing a simple contract.” In addition, AI can “quickly help someone generate a will, draft a lease agreement, or respond to a landlord dispute.” 

    As an experiment, one of the authors had AI draft a will for them. The author responded to the prompts and then asked for a will compliant in the author’s state of residence. The will produced complied with state law and was a legally valid will. However, the will did not name an alternate executor (AI did not ask!), but had the court appoint an alternate executor, if necessary, a costly and time-consuming process. The named executor is about the same age as the author, meaning that they may well predecease the author, necessitating the naming of an alternate. In addition, the named executor lived out-of-state, likely meaning that the executor would have to post bond, adding more expense. 

    The will also did not name alternate beneficiaries (AI did not ask!). Since the author named their 86-year-old mother as the sole beneficiary, odds are that she would predecease him, meaning that intestacy law would apply, thereby essentially negating the purpose of having the will drafted in the first place.

    AI also failed to ask about special requests as to burial or cremation or other wishes at death. Most egregiously, the AI generated will failed to include a self-proving affidavit, meaning that the witnesses to the author signing the will would have to be tracked down after the death of the author to swear that the author was competent at the time the will was made. Any licensed attorney would likely include a self-proving affidavit, eliminating the need to have witnesses file affidavits at a later time, saving time and money. In summary, the will would be valid but lacking in many respects. A will drafted by an attorney would include the vital provisions that were missed and, in the long run, save money.

    In conclusion, AI promises to revolutionize law practice. More importantly, individuals and businesses can use AI in meaningful ways to assist in legal matters. AI can analyze data quickly and efficiently, can do research, and compose draft documents. Individuals and businesses can use AI to learn about the law in a particular area and become aware of different options. If the alternative is no legal representation at all, AI may be the better option. However, AI is not a substitute for legal advice. In the words of ChatGPT, after being queried by the authors, “[u]se AI to learn, explore, and prepare – but when it comes time to make real legal decisions, always consult an attorney.”

    Richardson, Jessie, and Tiffany Lashmet. “Who Needs Attorneys When You Have AI?” Southern Ag Today 5(25.5). June 20, 2025. Permalink

  • Dealing With Uncertainty in Agriculture

    Dealing With Uncertainty in Agriculture

    We often are asked by the media about the size of and need for government assistance that is provided to U.S. farmers when something goes wrong (e.g., bad prices, yields or both). The first thing we do is highlight that the safety net provided for by Congress is designed to offset some – but not all – of the risks faced by farmers.  It might sound like semantics, but in the policy world…words matter.

    The rest of the conversation generally involves talking about uncertainty in U.S. agriculture.  Rather than provide an exhaustive list here, let’s just focus on the three primary determinants of profitability: prices, yields and costs.

    • U.S. farm prices are determined by world supply and demand for the crop, the price of its substitutes, and policy.  What type of policy?  First, U.S. producers must compete against producers that are heavily subsidized by the governments of our competitors around the world.  Second, the trade policies of those countries (such as tariffs or other non-tariff barriers to trade) impact prices received by U.S. producers as well. Third, monetary policy in the U.S. impacts interest rates that farmers have to pay to finance their crops, land and equipment and exchange rates that tend to make our exports relatively more expensive than our competitors.  Other types of policies that can impact U.S. crop prices are conservation, biofuels, taxes, and more recently health regulations such as those listed in the MAHA report that questions the health impacts of certain agricultural products (e.g., sugar) or bi-products (e.g., vegetable oils).
    • U.S. farm yields are primarily impacted by weather…enough said about that.
    • U.S. crop production costs are impacted by the supply and demand of each of the individual inputs, from seed, fertilizer, and chemicals to equipment, farmland, and labor, among others. Increasingly, for many producers, these purchases also must be financed at elevated interest rates. In addition, all of the policy areas discussed under farm prices above can also impact crop production costs.  

    These conversations usually conclude with an explanation that, even though there is a lot of uncertainty, U.S. farmers understand how the forces of supply and demand impact crop prices and input costs and are accustomed to dealing with erratic weather. However, it’s the uncertainty that comes from policy that keeps them up at night.  In our minds, the government safety net helps reduce some of their and their lender’s uncertainty regarding the ability to remain viable and able to try again next year in search of profits.

    Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. “Dealing With Uncertainty in Agriculture.” Southern Ag Today 5(25.4). June 19, 2025. Permalink

  • June WASDE Delivers Sharp Reduction in U.S. Rice and Cotton Crops

    June WASDE Delivers Sharp Reduction in U.S. Rice and Cotton Crops

    The USDA’s June Supply and Demand report (WASDE) is generally characterized as a “quiet” report with few, if any, changes from the previous month.  That held true for the U.S. corn and soybean outlook.  The only adjustments USDA made to the 2025/26 corn balance sheet included a 50-million-bushel reduction in beginning stocks.  This reflected an increase in exports for 2024/25. With no demand changes for 2025/26, ending stocks were lowered 50 million bushels to 1.75 billion. The season-average farm price received by producers was unchanged at $4.20 per bushel. There were no changes this month to the U.S. 2025/26 soybean outlook, with new crop ending stocks remaining at 295 million bushels. The U.S. season-average soybean price is forecast at $10.25 per bushel.  On the World balance sheet, Brazil’s production estimate was unchanged at 169 million metric tons and Argentina’s was also unchanged at 49 million metric tons.

    One of the big surprises in the June WASDE was the aggressive cut to 2025 long-grain rice production.  Not waiting for the June Acreage survey, USDA made note of “the excessive spring precipitation in the Delta” and anticipated this would result in lower rice acreage in the region compared to the March Prospective Plantings. On the long-grain balance sheet, production was lowered by a sizeable 7.5 million cwt. (-4.5%) this month to 159.7 million cwt (see Table 1).  Partially offsetting the sharp production cut was a 1 million cwt. increase in imports and a 3 million cwt. reduction in domestic and residual use.  The net result was a 3.5 million cwt reduction in 2025/26 ending stocks to 34 million. This is slightly below the 35.3 million ending stocks of 2024/25.  The projected 2025/26 long-grain season-average farm price was increased by $0.50 per cwt to $12.50 or $5.63 per bushel.

    In another surprise move, USDA wasted no time lowering their expectations for the 2025/26 U.S. cotton crop.  Pointing to the excessive rain and planting delays in the Delta, harvested acreage was lowered 2 percent this month to 8.19 million acres (see Table 2). The national average yield for 2025/26 was reduced more than 1 percent from last month to 820 pounds per acre, also because of the conditions in the Delta. As a result, the production forecast was reduced 500,000 bales to 14.0 million, below the 14.4 million bales produced in 2024/25 and the second smallest crop in the past decade. Beginning stocks for 2025/26 were reduced 400,000 bales following a corresponding increase in projected exports for 2024/25. The net result being a 900,000 bale reduction in 2025/26 ending stocks to 4.3 million bales, very close to the 4.4 million bale 2024/25 carry-over. The projected season-average price for 2025/26 was unchanged this month at 62 cents per pound.

    As a reminder, USDA will release its Acreage report on June 30. It will provide survey-based indications of planted and harvested area.  The acreage findings of the survey will be used in the July 11th WASDE. A link to the June 2025 WASDE report may be found here.

    Table 1. U.S. Long-Grain Rice Supply and Demand
    2025/26Monthly Change 
    unit: million cwt.2024/25MayJune
    Beginning Stocks19.335.335.30.0 
    Production172167.2159.7(7.5)
    Imports4243.044.01.0 
    Total Supply233.3245.5239.0(6.5)
    Domestic Use133140.0137.0(3.0)
    Exports6568.068.00.0 
    Total Use198208.0205.0(3.0)
    Carry-Over35.337.534.0(3.5)
    stocks-use %17.8%18.0%16.6%
    Avg. Producer Price ($/cwt.)$     14.20$           12.00$       12.50$     0.50
    Avg. Producer Price ($/bu.)$       6.39$              5.40$          5.63$     0.23
    PLC Reference Price ($/bu.)$       6.30$              6.30$          6.30$          –
    Proj. PLC Payment Rate ($/bu.)$             –$              0.90$          0.68$ (0.23)
    Source: USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, June 2025
    Table 2. U.S. Cotton Supply and Demand
    2025/26Monthly Change
    unit: million 480# bales2024/25MayJune
    Beginning Stocks3.154.804.40(0.400)
    Production14.4114.5014.00(0.500)
    Imports0.010.010.010.000 
    Total Supply17.5719.3118.41(0.900)
    Mill Use1.701.701.700.000 
    Exports11.5012.5012.500.000 
    Total Use13.2014.2014.200.000 
    Carry-Over4.405.204.30(0.900)
    stocks-use %33.3%36.6%30.3%
    Avg. Producer Price ($/lb.) $     0.63  $                  0.62  $          0.62 $   0.000 
    Avg. Seed Cotton Price ($/lb.) $0.3401  $            0.3299  $    0.3279 $ (0.002)
    PLC Reference Price ($/lb.) $0.3670  $            0.3670  $    0.3670 $   0.000 
    Proj. PLC Payment Rate ($/lb.) $0.0269  $             0.0371  $    0.0391 $   0.002 
    Source: USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, June 2025

    Stiles, Scott, and Hunter Biram. “June WASDE Delivers Sharp Reduction in U.S. Rice and Cotton Crops.” Southern Ag Today 5(25.3). June 18, 2025. Permalink