Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • The 2025 Sugar Market Domestic Supply and Outlook 

    The 2025 Sugar Market Domestic Supply and Outlook 

    On May 12, 2025, the USDA released its World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (2025) report which provides the first 2025/26 fiscal year (FY) estimate of United States sugar production. United States domestic sugar production, which consists of sugar extracted from both sugarbeets and sugarcane, is estimated at 9.285 million short tons raw value (STRV) for the 2025/26 FY (USDA WASDE, 2025). Domestic beet sugar production is estimated at 5.180 million STRV, or 56% of total domestic production, and domestic cane sugar production is estimated at 4.105 million STRV, or 44% of total domestic production (Figure 1). 

    Total domestic use of sugar is predicted to be 12.355 million STRV which includes estimated domestic sugar production of 9.285 million STRV, U.S. sugar imports of 2.475 million STRV, and net stocks usage (beginning stocks minus ending stocks) of 0.596 million STRV (USDA WASDE, 2025). Thus, net stocks usage plus domestic sugar production is estimated to account for about 80% of the domestic use of sugar.  

    The estimated FY 2025/26 domestic sugar production (9.285 million STRV) represents a 26,000 STRV reduction from last year’s total domestic production of 9.311 million STRV (Figure 1). The 2025/26 FY has an estimated slight increase in cane sugar production that is offset by a decrease in beet sugar production, ultimately resulting in the slight year-over-year decrease in overall domestic sugar production. 

    Beet sugar production is estimated at 5.180 million STRV, a 154,000 STRV decrease (2.9%) from the year prior. Sugarbeets are produced in the Upper Midwest, Great Lakes, Great Plains, and Far West regions of the country. United States estimated 2025/26 FY sugarbeet planted area (1.104 million acres) is based on the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (2025) March Prospective Plantings report. The estimated harvested area (1.081 million acres) is derived using a 10-year average of harvested-to-planted ratio. The sugarbeet shrink (6.76%) and recovery rate (14.78%) are both projected based on the 10-year national average.

    Sugarcane is now produced in only two states- Florida and Louisiana. Cane sugar output is forecast at 4.105 million STRV, up 128,000 STRV (3.2%) from the year prior. Louisiana’s output is projected at 2.088 million STRV, reflecting six consecutive years of increase, and four years of surpassing Florida sugar production. Sugarcane acres in Louisiana have been increasing due to the attractiveness of sugar compared to other alternative crops, availability of custom harvest groups, and acreage expansion northward in the central region of the state. Florida’s cane sugar production is projected at 2.017 million STRV (USDA WASDE, 2025). 

    Figure 1. United States sugar production by source, 2016/17 FY through estimated 2025/26 FY.

    Source: USDA WASDE (2025). Notes: Parentheses show cane and beet sugar production as a percentage of total domestic sugar production. 

    Like many other agricultural sectors, the sugar sector has faced challenges. Namely, the tightening of operating margins due to rising costs of production (Deliberto and DeLong, 2024a) and flat or falling prices (Deliberto, DeLong, and Fischer, 2024b). This is most evident in the recent closures of sugar processing facilities in several states. Since 2000, roughly 40% of United States sugar mills, refineries, and sugarbeet factories have closed (i.e., 29 closures with 42 remaining open) (American Sugar Alliance, 2025; Louisiana Sugarcane Industry, 2025; Fischer, Outlaw, Raulston, and Herbst, 2022). 

    Most recently, there have been three notable closures. In 2023, the Sidney Sugar Company in Montana closed due to falling prices for sugarbeets (Western Ag Network, 2023).  Next in 2024, the Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Incorporated ceased operations (Food Business News, 2024). The facility terminated operations due to Mexico’s failure to comply with the provisions of the 1944 Water Treaty between the U.S. and Mexico that governs water sharing between the two nations on the Colorado River and the Lower Rio Grande. Most recently, it was announced that the last remaining sugarbeet processing facility in California will be decommissioned at the end of this season – the Spreckels Sugar Company, Incorporated in Brawley, California (Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative, 2025). 

    In recent months, U.S. wholesale prices for beet and cane sugar have been falling (USDA Economic Research Service, 2025). Coupled with the rising costs of producing sugarbeets and sugarcane and processing them into sugar, this has created very tight operating margins for sugar producers (Deliberto and DeLong, 2024a). Looking ahead to the next growing season, farmers are optimistic that a new Farm Bill will strengthen the farm safety net and that growing conditions will be favorable for sugarbeets and sugarcane. 

    References

    American Sugar Alliance. (2025). Sugar’s Coast-to-Coast Reach. Retrieved from: https://sugaralliance.org/us-sugar/sugars-coast-to-coast-reach. 

    Deliberto, M., and K.L. DeLong. (2024a). “Examining Sugarcane and Sugarbeet Production Costs.” Southern Ag Today. Retrieved from: https://southernagtoday.org/2023/12/11/examining-sugarcane-and-sugarbeet-production-costs/.

    Deliberto, M., K.L. DeLong, and B. Fischer. (2024b). “Analyzing World and U.S. Sugar Price Dynamics.” https://southernagtoday.org/2024/05/20/analyzing-world-and-u-s-sugar-price-dynamics/.  

    Fischer, B.L., J.L. Outlaw, J.M. Raulston, and B.K. Herbst. (2022). “Economic Impact of the U.S. Sugar Industry.” Retrieved from: https://sugaralliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Sugar-Report.pdf. 

    Food Business News. (2024). Retrieved from: https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/25615-last-sugar-cane-grower-in-texas-to-close.

    Louisiana Sugarcane Industry. Production Data 1984-2023. Retrieved from: https://amscl.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Production-Data-1984-to-2023.jpg. 

    Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative. (2025). Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative to Decommission Spreckels Sugar Company, Inc. in California. Retrieved from: https://www.smbsc.com/ourstory-2/SMBSCMediaReleaseReSpreckelsSugarCompany2025.04.22.pdf.

    USDA Economic Research Service. (2025). World, U.S., and Mexican Sugar and Corn Sweetener Prices. Tables 5 and 5a. Retrieved from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables.

    USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). (2025). Prospective Plantings. Retrieved from: https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/x633f100h. 

    USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. (2025). Retrieved from: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/staff-offices/office-chief-economist/commodity-markets/wasde-report.

    Western Ag Network. (2023). “Sydney Sugars to Begin Closure Procedures in April.” Retrieved from: https://westernagnetwork.com/sidney-sugars-to-begin-closure-procedures-in-april. 

    Deliberto, Michael, and Karen L. DeLong. “The 2025 Sugar Market Domestic Supply and Outlook.” Southern Ag Today 5(22.3). May 28, 2025. Permalink

  • From Grass to Gains: Why Stockpiling Bahiagrass Pays Off

    From Grass to Gains: Why Stockpiling Bahiagrass Pays Off

    In the southeastern U.S., cattle producers are continually seeking sustainable grazing strategies that will support their cattle herd for a greater number of days and into the winter months.  One method producers use to extend the grazing season is forage stockpiling. This practice involves suspending the use of a grazed pasture for a period to allow the accumulation of the forage in the fall until a killing frost. Stockpiling ensures that there is enough mature pasture available to support the cattle herd, ideally for a month or more, bridging the gap until cool-season forages are grazable and reducing the reliance on supplemental feeds and hay.  

    We conducted a two-year on-farm demonstration evaluating the nutritive value and yield of stockpiled bahiagrass across two Alabama locations and stockpiling seasons. In 2023, forage yield in Montgomery County differed significantly from that in St. Clair County (Table 1). The St. Clair producer applied 60 lb N/ac of nitrogen at the onset of stockpiling and stocked fewer cattle (3 head/ac), which likely contributed to greater forage yield and plant height. While no significant differences were observed between locations for neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), acid detergent lignin (ADL), or total digestible nutrients (TDN); crude protein (CP) was significantly higher in Montgomery (Table 2). This may be attributed to the Montgomery forage remaining in a more vegetative state, whereas bahiagrass at the St. Clair site was more mature and undergrazed.

    In 2024, both locations experienced warmer fall temperatures and reduced rainfall during the early stockpiling period. Unlike the previous year, the St. Clair site did not receive fertilizer, and as a result, forage yield was not significantly different between the two locations (Table 1). NDF was significantly higher in Montgomery, indicating reduced dry matter intake potential due to elevated fiber content. ADL levels were also higher in Montgomery, suggesting an increased proportion of indigestible material that can negatively impact forage digestibility. Additionally, TDN were significantly higher in St. Clair, while CP concentrations were greater in Montgomery (Table 2). These findings emphasize how both environmental factors and fertility management influence the yield and quality of stockpiled bahiagrass.

    Stockpiling forages provides a cost-effective strategy for winter feeding by reducing the need for hay and supplements while supporting cattle performance. A comparison of feeding systems shows that stockpiled Tifton 85 bermudagrass costs $174.18 per cow, whereas feeding hay and whole cottonseed costs $506.53 per cow, which is nearly three times more (Carol et al., 2022). The higher cost of providing harvested forages is due to expenses of hay, supplements, labor, and machinery (Table 3). In contrast, stockpiling relies on pasture management, with lower input costs aside from nitrogen fertilization and grazing setup. Although this data is based on bermudagrass, similar economic benefits are expected with stockpiled bahiagrass

    Table 1. Forage yield (lb DM/ac) and forage heights (in) of stockpiled bahiagrass grown in Montgomery County, AL and St. Clair County, AL

     MontgomerySt. Clair
    2023202420232024
    Heights (in)10.914.412.815.1
    Yield (lb DM/ac)2345.53989.33232.23797.5

    Table 2. Nutritive values (% DM basis) of stockpiled bahiagrass grown in Montgomery County, AL and St. Clair County, AL

     MontgomerySt. Clair
    2023202420232024
    NDF (%)51.144.851.039.7
    ADF(%)25.623.726.423.5
    ADL (%)6.27.25.16.1
    TDN (%)62.666.362.769.3
    CP (%)7.37.76.96.5

    Table 3. Comparison of stockpiled Tifton 85 Bermudagrass and Hay and Cottonseed Supplementation on Cow-Calf Winter Feeding

    InputStockpiled T85Hay + Supplement
    Labor$16.97$32.50
    Hay$0$237.27
    6 lb whole cottonseed/head/day$0$146.16
    50 lb N/acre$23.91$0
    Grazing cost$108.80$0
    Machinery costs$24.50$90.63
    Total expense/cow$174.18$506.53

    Hurst, Ashlyn, Kim Mullenix, Leanne Dillard, and Josh Elmore. “From Grass to Gains: Why Stockpiling Bahiagrass Pays Off.” Southern Ag Today 5(22.2). May 27, 2025. Permalink

  • Deer Impact on Crop Producers: A Buck’s Buck Effect

    Deer Impact on Crop Producers: A Buck’s Buck Effect

    There are many ways that crop yield can be impacted throughout the growing season, including too much rain, not enough rain, wind, hail, insect pressure, herbicide drift, and even deer. Deer damage is routinely brought up in producer meetings as a major area of concern, especially for corn, cotton, and soybean production. Crop insurance indemnities can provide data on the prevalence of this issue. Wildlife indemnity payments have been increasing in southern states, but make up less than 1.5% of total insurance indemnity payments (Duncan et al., 2023). Additionally, wildlife indemnities includes damage caused by all animals, therefore the portion of wildlife payments that can be attributed to deer is unknown. However, there can be significant losses without an insurance payment, so indemnity payments don’t show the full damage picture. 

    Surveys of producers typically show deer as a significantly worse problem compared to what is shown by insurance payments. Producers in Georgia reported that 19,535 acres were damaged by deer with losses of $153.85/ac (Mengak and Crosby, 2017). More broadly (Hand et al. 2024), respondents across the southeastern U.S. reported that 33-41% of cotton acres were affected by deer annually, with yield losses of 34-42%. Respondents considered deer to be the most significant pest to cotton, with damages of $152 million in 2023.

    A survey was sent out to Mississippi row crop producers to determine the impact of deer[1]. Producers reported yield losses in 12 different crops, with the majority of losses coming in corn, cotton, and soybeans. In total, 13 respondents reported damage in corn, 21 reported damage in cotton, and 90 reported damage in soybeans. Respondents reported damage occurring in 45 different counties in Mississippi. Economic loss was calculated given the reported yield loss and any replant costs. 

    For corn, cotton, and soybeans, 17,830 total acres were reported to be affected by deer damage with a total economic impact of $4.6 million (Table 1). The acres damaged accounted for 17% of the total acres planted by the respondents. Soybeans were by far the most impacted, with 90 respondents reporting damages on 14,204 acres, of which 4,013 acres of soybeans had to be replanted. Total economic loss for soybeans was $3.68 million or $258.91/ac. Cotton had the second most acres impacted at 2,066 acres, with 597 acres being replanted. Total economic loss for cotton was $640,733 or $310.21/ac. Lastly, producers reported 1,561 acres of corn damaged with 171 acres of replant. Economic loss for corn was $294,109 or $188.46/ac. 

    Producers were also asked a series of questions on what actions they took to reduce deer damage on their land. The most common method (48% of respondents) used hunting to control deer. This was followed by allowing other hunters on the land, 23%, and securing a deer depredation permit, 21% (Figure 1). Similar to producer surveys in other states, the results show that deer damage is a substantial issue for row crop producers. The results don’t show the full impact of deer damage, as not all producers filled out the survey. However, producers who were more severely affected by deer damage would be more likely to fill out the survey. The economic loss also depends on the year; if crop prices were higher, the economic loss would be greater and vice versa. Furthermore, there are other costs outside of yield and replant that impact producers from this issue, such as not planting the desired/most profitable crop, carcass disposal where applicable, and machinery downtime from flat tires. More work is needed in this area to determine the true impact of deer and to evaluate optimal mitigation techniques. 

    [1] Funding for the survey was provided by the Mississippi Soybean Promotion Board.

    Table 1. Reported Economic Loss Due to Deer Damage for Mississippi, 2024
    ItemCornCottonSoybeans
    Respondents132190
    Acres Planted9,2229,50784,243
    Acres Damaged1,5612,06614,204
    Acres Replanted1715974,013
    Average Yield Loss38 bu/ac416 lbs/ac24 bu/ac
    Total Economic Loss$294,109.90$640,732.63$3,677,496.10
    Average Loss Per Acre$188.46$310.21$258.91
    Average Loss Per Respondent$22,623.84$30,511.08$40,861.07

    References

    Duncan, H., Boyer, C., and Smith, A. (2023). Soybean Indemnity Payments for Wildlife Damage. Southern Ag Today3(29.1). July 17, 2023.

    Mengak, M. and Crosby M. (2017). Farmers’ perceptions of white-tailed deer damage to row crops in 20 Georgia counties during 2016. University of Georgia Extension.

    Hand, L.C., Roberts, P., and Taylor, S. (2024). Growers, consultants, and county agents perceive white-tailed deer to be the most economically impactful pest of Georgia cotton. Crop, Forage & Turfgrass Management. Volume 10, Issue 2. 

    Mills, Brian E., and Brianna Croft. “Deer Impact on Crop Producers: A Buck’s Buck Effect.” Southern Ag Today 5(22.1). May 26, 2025. Permalink

  • EPA Publishes Final Insecticide Strategy

    EPA Publishes Final Insecticide Strategy

    On April 29, 2025, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released its Insecticide Strategy, the most recent component of EPA’s effort to revise how the agency meets its Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) responsibilities while taking actions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”). Like the final Herbicide Strategy that EPA released last September, the final Insecticide Strategy works to reduce pesticide exposure to protected wildlife by implementing mitigation measures to curb pesticide spray drift and runoff. 

    EPA first announced its new policy to address pesticide exposure to species protected under the ESA in April 2022. That month, EPA announced a plan to create different strategy documents to address herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides. According to EPA, the new approach was necessary to address what the agency has described as a “decades-old challenge” to satisfy the agency’s obligations under both the ESA and FIFRA.

    The ESA is the primary federal wildlife protection law in the United States, while FIFRA serves as the nation’s primary federal statute regulating pesticide use. Under the ESA, all federal agencies, including EPA, are required to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) to ensure that the actions that federal agencies fund, authorize, or carry out will not “jeopardize” the continued existence of species protected under the ESA. Since the ESA was enacted, EPA has struggled to fully satisfy its consultation responsibilities when carrying out FIFRA actions. As a result, the agency has faced numerous lawsuits filed primarily by environmental groups seeking to compel EPA to complete ESA consultation on FIFRA actions. EPA’s new policy is aimed at resolving this on-going challenge.

    Under its new approach, EPA has sorted all registered pesticides into broad groups and developed mitigation measures for each group designed to reduce pesticide exposure to protected species that occurs via pesticide spray drift and runoff or erosion. In 2024, EPA issued its draft Insecticide Strategy, outlining the various mitigation measures the agency was considering for insecticides. Following a 60-day public comment period that ran from July to September, EPA has officially released the final Insecticide Strategy. 

    The final Insecticide Strategy outlines various mitigation measures designed to reduce pesticide exposure to protected invertebrate species by limiting pesticide spray drift and runoff/erosion. As in the draft Insecticide Strategy, the final Insecticide Strategy lays out a three-step framework that EPA will use to determine what additional mitigation measures to include on an insecticide label. Under step 1, EPA will establish the likelihood that a particular insecticide will have population-level impacts to protected wildlife species as either “not likely,” “low,” “medium,” or “high.” In general, mitigation will be lower when the potential for population-level impacts is lower and higher when the potential is higher. 

    During step 2 of the process, EPA will determine which mitigation measures to apply. To reduce spray drift, the Insecticide Strategy relies on buffer zones and application equipment with the size of the buffer zone depending on the insecticide’s expected population-level impacts and the method of application. The largest buffer zone identified in the Strategy is a 300 foot buffer for aerial applications. All other buffer zones are identified as 100 feet or less. 

    To reduce insecticide runoff and erosion, the Insecticide Strategy employs a so-called “menu” of mitigation measures. Each mitigation measure is assigned a point value from 1 to 3 with high efficacy mitigations receiving 3 points, medium efficacy mitigations receiving 2 points and low efficacy mitigations receiving 1 point. Based on the degree of population-level impacts EPA identified during step 1 of the Insecticide Strategy framework, the agency will identify the number of runoff/erosion mitigation points needed to apply a particular insecticide. Insecticides identified as having a low population-level impact will need 3 points, insecticides with a medium impact will need 6 points and insecticides with a high impact will need 9 points. 

    Additionally, EPA has assigned counties different mitigation points based on how prone the fields in each county are to runoff. Counties with medium runoff potential will receive 2 mitigation points, counties with low runoff potential will receive 3 mitigation points and counties with very low runoff potential will receive 6 mitigation points. An applicator in a county with very low runoff potential applying an insecticide that requires 9 mitigation points will only need to achieve 3 extra mitigation points, while an applicator in a county with a low runoff potential applying the same insecticide would need to achieve 7 extra points.

    In response to comments it received on the draft Insecticide Strategy, EPA has said that it is working towards certifying voluntary conservation programs the participation in which would automatically count as 9 mitigation points. Additionally, EPA will grant mitigation points to farmers and applicators who do not participate in a conservation program but use a qualified technical expert to plan insecticide applications.

    Finally, during step 3 of the Insecticide Framework, EPA will determine where in the contiguous United States the spray drift and runoff/erosion mitigations will be required. Mitigation measures that are considered necessary across the entire contiguous United States will be included on an insecticide’s general label. Those mitigation measures that are only required in certain geographic areas known as Pesticide Use Limitation Areas (“PULAs”) will be posted as bulletins on EPA’s website Bulletins Live! Two. The insecticide’s label will instruct users to check Bulletins Live! Two prior to making an application to determine if there are any relevant PULAs with which the applicator needs to comply.

    Most of the mitigation measures identified in the Insecticide Strategy are intended to reduce exposure to protected species that are not located on agricultural fields. However, EPA has identified 4 protected species that can be found on agricultural fields and would require additional in-field mitigation measures. EPA notes that mitigation measures for those species would be both geographically limited and limited to certain times of the year. Any on-field mitigations would be required through PULAs on Bulletins Live! Two.

    EPA will begin implementing the Insecticide Strategy as it registers new insecticide products for use and conducts registration review of existing insecticides. 

    Despite being dubbed the “final” Insecticide Strategy, EPA notes that it will continue to seek engagement on and develop certain aspects of the Strategy such as identifying additional conservation programs that would count as 9 mitigation points and further refining species maps to create more accurate PULAs. Overall, EPA believes that implementing the Insecticide Strategy will result in both more efficient ESA consultations with FWS and insecticide labels better equipped to withstand judicial review.

    Rollins, Brigit. “EPA Publishes Final Insecticide Strategy.” Southern Ag Today 5(21.5). May 23, 2025. Permalink

  • Much Needed Producer Assistance in the House Reconciliation Bill

    Much Needed Producer Assistance in the House Reconciliation Bill

    While far from over, the House version of the President’s reconciliation package—referred to by the President as the “One Big, Beautiful Bill”—contains significant improvements to the farm safety net.  We have previously discussed in Southern Ag Today the dire need for an improved farm safety net for this crop year, either from a farm bill or through this process.  As we write this, House leadership is still working to secure votes for passage.  Once that happens, the Senate will need to pass their version of the bill.  Assuming the House and Senate pass different bills, the differences would need to be reconciled and the conferenced bill would need to again be passed by both the House and the Senate before going to the President to be signed into law.  This sounds daunting, but one of the key elements of reconciliation (and why it has been used by both parties) is that the Senate only needs a simple majority (51) to pass the bill, whereas a normal bill would require 60 votes. 

    The House reconciliation bill includes quite a few changes to the current 2018 Farm Bill that has been extended through September 30, 2025.  In terms of the farm safety net, the two primary commodity programs—Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC)—are extended through the 2031 crop year.  Most importantly, reference prices are increased 10% to 20% depending upon the commodity.  Reference prices would also increase 0.5% annually beginning in 2031, recognizing the need to keep up with inflation in the future.

    The ARC coverage guarantee would be increased from 86% of the benchmark to 90%, and the payment band would increase from 10% to 12.5%.  The first change would make payments trigger sooner, and the second change would increase the amount of the payments.  Loan rates for most commodities would also be increased.

    Combined payment limits for ARC and PLC would be increased from $125,000 to $155,000 and would be adjusted annually for inflation. The bill would also eliminate the LLC penalty (i.e., eliminate the payment limit on pass-through entities while maintaining the payment limit on owners of the entity) as previously highlightedin Southern Ag Today.

    Premium assistance for crop insurance would see increases for individual yield or revenue coverage across all coverage levels.  The Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) would also see an increase in premium subsidy from 65% to 80%.

    The House bill also contains language to allocate a maximum of 30 million additional base acres to producers who have been planting more acres than they have base acres on farms. 

    The bill has many other agriculture related provisions, but those listed above—if enacted—would strengthen the producer safety net beginning with the 2025 crop.

    Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. “Much Needed Producer Assistance in the House Reconciliation Bill.” Southern Ag Today 5(21.4). May 22, 2025. Permalink