USDA released the latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report on March 11, 2025. The most significant item presented was a clarifying “note” at the beginning of the report that is important for users of USDA WASDE estimates to understand.
“The WASDE report only considers trade policies that are in effect at the time of publication. Further, unless a formal end date is specified, the report also assumes that these policies remain in place.”
In other words, the effects of tariffs that are to be implemented in the future, even if already announced, are not included in the report estimates. This includes the Canada and Mexico tariffs that have been suspended until April 2. Alternatively, retaliatory tariffs from Canada, along with U.S. tariffs on China and China’s retaliatory tariffs are all currently in effect and are reflected in the current WASDE estimates as if they will continue indefinitely into the future. Users of these estimates need to consider this factor in their interpretation.
The effects of trade policy on markets are particularly important given the large percentage of exports that are reflected in crops contained in the WASDE report. Table 1 shows the March 2025 WASDE estimates of supply, use, stocks, and prices of four major row crops produced throughout the southern region. Total exports are reported, along with calculated exports as a percentage of total use. Corn has the smallest estimated exports as a percentage of total use at 16%, followed by wheat and soybeans at 42% and cotton at 87%. Thus, when and if tariffs are implemented, the USDA estimates have the potential to change with the inclusion of trade impacts in the WASDE report.
Beyond this note, there was very little movement in current estimates. The average price of wheat at $5.50 per bushel is 5 cents lower than a month ago, continuing a downward trend. Ending stocks of wheat increased to 819 million bushels. For U.S. corn, the USDA is projecting no change in ending stocks from the prior month, staying at 1,540 million bushels and maintaining a $4.35 per bushel marketing year average price for 2024/25. Soybeans were also stable at the prior month’s estimates; however, the USDA revised the marketing year average price down 15 cents to $9.95 per bushel. Meanwhile, the balance sheet for cotton remained unchanged from last month, while the marketing year average price was adjusted down a half cent to 63 cents per pound. The next potential market mover from the USDA comes at the end of the month with the release of the Prospective Plantings report.
Table 1. 2024/25 Wheat, Corn, Soybean, and Cotton Supply, Use, Stocks, and Price Estimates, March 2025 WASDE
Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) has been in the news regularly due to high egg prices and limited quantities of eggs on grocery store shelves. These effects have mostly been driven by large numbers of table egg layers depopulated due to HPAI (see Figure 1). Depopulation is “the rapid destruction of a population of animals in response to urgent circumstances with as much consideration given to the welfare of animals as practicable” (USDA APHIS, 2022). Depopulation is a key response to HPAI and other highly contagious diseases for two reasons. First, HPAI is deadly to poultry, causing high rates of death within a matter of days and rapid spread through a flock given even minimal contact. Second, when HPAI is allowed to circulate in poultry populations it can easily spread to other farms and potentially to farm workers. Despite rapid depopulation of farms where HPAI is detected, ongoing exposure threats exist due to virus circulation in wild bird populations.
Currently, HPAI circulates in all four wild bird flyways (Pacific Flyway, Central Flyway, Mississippi Flyway, and Atlantic Flyway) that extend across the Western Hemisphere and overlap into the Eastern Hemisphere. For example, the Pacific Flyway overlaps the East Asian and Australasian Flyway. This overlap created the origins of the 2014-2015 Eurasian H5N8 HPAI outbreak in the U.S. from migratory birds moving along the Pacific Flyway (USA APHIS, 2016). HPAI strains mutate rapidly, and most recently in 2024 H5N1 HPAI spilled over into dairy cattle. However, dairy cattle are less susceptible with much lower rates of inflection within herds (<10% of cows), less significant clinical signs, and very low rates of death (AVMA, 2024). This has allowed dairies to isolate and quarantine infected dairy cows until they recover and can be cycled back into production, barring any complications in the cow’s recovery. As a result, depopulation has not been pursued for HPAI control in dairy production. Rather there is a greater interest in the use of vaccination, which is still in the development process and is not commercially viable at this time.
There are other highly contagious diseases for which depopulation would likely be used to reduce disease spread. The first example is foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), which has not been found in the U.S. since 1929 but circulates in wildlife and livestock populations in other parts of the world. Unlike HPAI, FMD has a low rate of mortality. However, FMD has a very high (almost 100%) rate of infection from relatively low exposure and rapid spread through herds. FMD is also a hardy virus that lingers in an environment for some time. For that reason, FMD is another disease for which the baseline response is depopulation of infected animals.
The second example is African swine fever (ASF), which is also highly contagious with high rates of spread, as well as serious clinical signs and high rates of mortality among young pigs. ASF response would also likely involve depopulation of infected herds. The danger of ASF to swine industries was highlighted by the outbreak in China in 2018. China is the largest swine producer in the world, and also the largest pork consumer. The estimates of the Chinese swine herd that died or were depopulated due to ASF were reported as 40.5% with a 39.3% decline in the breeding herd (Ma et al., 2021); for perspective, the 12.3 million head death loss in China’s breeding herd was roughly twice the size of entire U.S. swine breeding herd in that same year (6.17 million head). In the following 2 years, as the herd was rebuilt, China depended heavily on imported pork from a variety of trading partners. Neither FMD nor ASF are zoonotic diseases, with the potential to spill over into humans, and neither FMD nor ASF is currently in the U.S.
Depopulation is expensive, with depopulation costs associated with the destruction of animals, the disposal of contaminated carcasses, and the indemnities to compensate producers for depopulated livestock or poultry. However, this is offset by some benefits, mainly associated with maintaining consumer confidence in the safety of the food supply as well as maintaining access to international markets. For an industry that exports a significant amount of meat or animal product into the world market, the loss of export market share can be very expensive. However, if outbreaks can be constrained geographically export losses can be minimized through the application of regionalization. Regionalization is a general term for allowing trade to continue from disease free areas. Regionalization requires transparent reporting of the disease and eradication measures, which typically includes extensive quarantine, movement restrictions, depopulation of infected premises, and surveillance. Bilaterally, trading countries can place regionalized trade bans of different extents and durations, which could be a control zone within 20 km of an infected herd, a county, or a state or multi-state region. A national trade ban can occur, but is used by fewer countries where proof of geographic containment can be provided.
Most recently, there is discussion of investing in vaccination strategies for highly contagious animal diseases in order to reduce spread and consequently reduce the need to depopulate. There are a few considerations for vaccination to think about. First, a vaccine needs to match the circulating virus well to be effective. This is why viruses that are fairly stable can be effectively eradicated through vaccination. The highly contagious animal diseases mentioned here mutate quickly. A viable vaccine is available for FMD, and the U.S. has invested in a FMD vaccine bank that can be quickly deployed in the event of an outbreak. However, no approved vaccine is currently available for ASF. The threat of HPAI in both poultry and dairy cattle has accelerated the development of vaccines, and the ability to match an HPAI vaccine is improving even with a quickly mutating virus. Licensed HPAI vaccines are not commercially available and there are aspects of an HPAI vaccination policy that are yet to be worked out. For all of the potential benefits, vaccination will likely come at a high cost also.
Trade partners generally will treat eradication or prevention through vaccination campaigns with similar trade bans to outbreaks. This is because vaccination can prevent signs of clinical illness but may not prevent infection. As a result, extensive surveillance requirements are needed to assure that infection is not being spread to areas outside of the vaccination zone through the movements of animals or products. Bilateral discussions with trading partners will be needed to agree to protocols for ensuring disease freedom status. This can be expensive, both in terms of budget and also in terms of trained personnel to track vaccinated animals. If vaccination is expected to be ongoing due to external disease pressure, as is the case with HPAI in wild bird reservoirs, costs will accrue on an annual basis. The logistics of applying a vaccine may be challenging. FMD and HPAI vaccines require two doses to be fully effective, requiring animals to be handled multiple times. In long lived species like cattle, the vaccination must be repeated for protective immunity. Vaccination is unlikely to ever be used to prevent a disease from entering a country due to these expenses and complex policy implications. However, for a disease like HPAI where risk of introduction is ongoing via wild bird exposures, vaccination may well be a viable response strategy.
Figure 1. Table Egg Layer Inventory (left axis) and Real Egg Price Per Dozen Egg (right axis) from 2013 to 2024, with HPAI Outbreaks Highlighted In Each Box
Data Source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service; Outbreak Dates: USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
References:
United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS). 2022. “HPAI response: Response goals & depopulation policy” Available online: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/depopulationpolicy.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA APHIS). 2016. “Final report for the 2014–2015 outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in the United States.” Veterinary Services Surveillance, Preparedness, and Response Services Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Available online: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/media/document/2086/file
Ma, M., H.H. Wang, Y. Hua, F. Qin, J. Yang. 2021. “African swine fever in China: Impacts, responses, and policy implications.” Food Policy, 102(102065).
While it is hard to dispute the overall strength of the recent cattle market, it is also important to note that during the last 26 months there have been multiple times when markets saw significant downward swings. The most recent of these occurred since the end of January and was likely sparked by the resumption of live cattle imports from Mexico, continued talk of trade disruptions, Avian Influenza, and any number of other factors. The market also fell by more than $40 per cwt from September to December 2023 and more than $30 per cwt from late May to early September 2024. For producers who sold cattle during those pullbacks, the impact on returns was significant.
There are a lot of potential strategies to manage price risk, and the simplest one may be a forward contract. By forward contracting cattle, price risk is largely eliminated as the seller and buyer agree on a purchase price prior to delivery of the cattle. A similar strategy would be selling cattle through an internet auction and specifying delivery at a later time. In both cases, the seller entering the forward contract still has production risk as they must meet the specifications of the contract (weight, quality, etc.), but market swings are no longer a concern.
Finally, I have talked more about Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) insurance than any other risk management strategy recently. It works almost exactly like a put option but is much simpler and has the advantage of flexibility on scale. Unlike several other price risk management tools, LRP insurance can be purchased on any number of head, which is much easier for smaller operations to utilize. LRP has been made more attractive over the last several years through increased premium subsidies and allowing producers to pay premiums after the ending date of the policy.
The specific tool or strategy that cattle producers utilize to manage price risk is less important than their overall risk management plan. I encourage producers to know what risk management tools are available to them, understand how changes in sale price impact their profits, and plan to cover themselves from downside price risk. I still feel good about the fundamentals of the cattle market, but I think the first couple weeks of February have been a good reminder that price risk always exists, even in a bull market!
The number of breweries has grown substantially over the past decade, becoming a ubiquitous establishment in communities nationwide. However, many of these breweries are small craft producers that lack resources for in-depth market research, creating a need for localized consumer insights—especially in the Southeast where growth of the beer sector has been slower. This synthesis of our case study on the consumption and purchasing habits of Florida beer consumers provides insight into how breweries can effectively market their products to specific segments.
We find that craft beer has broad appeal with 72% of those surveyed reporting regular purchases. As expected, millennials lead in both purchase frequency and spending, with the highest median monthly beer expenditure at $50 (see Figure 1 and Table 1). Though spending is less ($25 median) among baby boomers, it is not negligible, and, in some areas, they represent a sizable market when aggregated. Women spend nearly the same amount and purchase craft beer at close to the same frequency as men, in-line with national trends towards gender parity and a sign that inclusive marketing is an increasingly important consideration as breweries look to expand their consumer base in a competitive market.
Table 1. Median monthly beer expenditure by gender and generation
1st Quartile
Median
3rd Quartile
Gender
Female(n = 325)
$15
$25
$50
Male(n = 257)
$15
$30
$75
Generation
Millennials (n = 127)
$20
$50
$100
Gen X (n = 141)
$15
$30
$60
Baby Boomers (n = 298)
$13
$25
$50
Notes: Data from our survey of 582 Florida beer consumers.We exclude Gen Z due to the small number of responses from this segment.
Regarding where consumers drink and shop, beer is most frequently consumed at home (68%) and purchased from grocery stores (66%). This presents two significant challenges for small breweries with goals of tapping into broader marketing channels: (1) acquiring and maintaining canning or bottling equipment and facilities is a major capital investment decision which cannot be easily reversed, and (2) grocery stores dedicate limited shelf space to beer and favor widely recognized brands. To successfully expand into packaged beer, breweries should consider developing a targeted marketing strategy for off-premises retail sales.
Brazilian beef was first banned in Japan in 2012 due to concerns over Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as Mad Cow Disease. Brazil is currently in talks with Japan to begin beef shipments once again. Although Japanese imports of Brazilian beef were negligible prior to 2012, the possible reentry of Brazilian beef into the Japanese market could pose a significant challenge to U.S. beef exports.
The importance of Japan to global beef trade and U.S. beef exports cannot be overstated. Japan is the third largest beef importing country in the world and the second largest market for the U.S. In 2024, U.S. beef exports reached $10.5 billion. That year, exports to Japan accounted for 18% of the total (USDA, 2025a, 2025b). While Japan is important to U.S. export disappearance, the U.S. is especially important to Japan as its leading supplier. In 2024, for instance, Japan imported $1.8 billion worth of U.S. beef. This was 43% of Japan’s total beef imports, exceeding imports from Australia ($1.7 billion and 39%), and significantly larger than countries such as Canada, New Zealand, and Mexico. Despite the current strong position of U.S. beef in Japan, this could be challenged by the reentry of Brazilian beef into the Japanese market.
Around the time of the U.S.-China trade war in 2018, Brazil emerged as the leading global beef exporter, surpassing the U.S., Australia, and India (Figure 1). The rise of Brazil as a major beef exporter is largely due to increased demand in China. (https://southernagtoday.org/2023/01/12/chinas-import-of-u-s-beef-continues-to-increase-but-how-does-the-u-s-compare-to-other-competing-countries/). As China emerged as the leading beef importing country (almost $14 billion in 2024), Brazil became its leading supplier accounting for 45% of total Chinese imports in 2024, far exceeding other exporting countries.
With exports already exceeding those of major exporters such as the U.S. and Australia, does Brazil have the capacity to gain a significant share of the Japanese foreign beef market? In 2024, cattle and beef production in Brazil was based on 192.5 million head of cattle (including all beef and dairy cows and calves). Over the past couple of years, Brazil’s national cow herd has been liquidating, leading to higher supplies of slaughter cattle and total production. Last year, Brazil’s national herd was reduced by 2% and was expected to continue shrinking midway through 2025 (Aquino, 2024). Despite the shrinking herd, Brazil has maintained its share of world trade. Given the expectation of rebuilding, Brazil’s herd could rebuild at a higher pace to capitalize on the new demand from the Japanese market.
Future Japanese demand will be based on a combination of quality and quantity. Over the last few decades, Japanese beef consumers have trended more towards the preferences of the typical U.S. beef consumer. Products like ground beef, steaks, burgers, and fajitas have become increasingly popular in Japan. The key question is whether Brazil can match the quality of U.S. beef in Japan. Quantity is a lesser obstacle for Brazil with this potential market opportunity.
