Blog

Market Showdown: U.S. Beef Faces New Challenges in Japan Amid Brazilian Reentry

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.

Figure 1. Beef and Veal Exports (Top Countries): 2000 – 2025(F)

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, FAS PSD Database

References

Aquino, Camila. (2024). Livestock and Products Semi-annual: Brazil. Report Number: BR2024-0001. USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service.

USDA. (2025a). Production, Supply, and Distribution Online (PSD Online). Foreign Agricultural Service. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/home

USDA. (2025b). Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS). Foreign Agricultural Service. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx

Muhammad, Andrew, Charles Martinez, and Md Deluair Hossen. “Market Showdown: U.S. Beef Faces New Challenges in Japan Amid Brazilian Reentry.” Southern Ag Today 5(10.4). March 6, 2025. Permalink

March 6, 2025

Changes in Relative Financial Risk for Corn, Cotton, and Soybeans in 2024 and 2025

Compared to last year, pre-planting relative financial risk between corn, cotton, and soybean production has changed for many mid-south crop producers. The change in pre-planting financial risk can be illustrated using projected crop insurance prices and crop budgets for 2024 and 2025. Crop insurance prices in this analysis were determined February 1-28 and crop budgets were University of Tennessee Crop Budgets for non-irrigated production. For ease of comparison, actual production history (APH) is unchanged between years and is equal to the target yield in the crop budgets.

Table 1 shows the difference between the crop insurance revenue guarantee for corn, cotton, and soybeans at a 75% buy-up coverage in 2024 and 2025. The crop insurance coverage per bushel or pound is the revenue guarantee divided by the APH. The crop insurance coverage level for corn increased slightly from $3.50/bu to $3.53/bu; however, coverage was reduced for cotton ($0.62/lb to $0.52/lb) and soybeans ($8.66/bu to $7.91/bu). At the same time, from 2024 and 2025, cost of production changed by +/- 2-3% depending on the commodity (Table 2). Cost of production will vary based on geographic location, targeted yield, and production practices.

Cost of production should be estimated for two separate measures—cash costs and economic costs. Cash costs are expenses that need to be paid during the production and marketing year, while economic costs include cash costs as well as ownership and other non-cash costs. In the short run, farms can operate covering cash costs, however, economic costs need to be covered for the operation to remain viable in the long-term. The cash and economic cost per bushel or pound are calculated by dividing cost by target yield (breakeven cash and economic cost per bushel or pound).

The crop insurance coverage per bushel or pound divided by the cash or economic cost provides an estimate of the relative financial risk by year and commodity. The analysis in Table 2 shows that in 2024, 74-75% of the economic cost of production for corn, cotton, and soybeans was covered by Revenue Protection crop insurance, compared to 76% for corn, 65% for cotton, and 67% for soybeans in 2025. For the start of the 2025 crop year, the financial risk mitigated by crop insurance favors corn over soybeans and cotton.

Calculating relative cash and economic risk exposure between commodities produced on a farm can help guide crop insurance purchasing decisions (buyup coverage, unit structure, and companion policies) and guide a marketing and price risk management strategy to secure prices beyond crop insurance protection.

Table 1. Revenue Protection Crop Insurance for Corn, Cotton, and Soybeans, 2024 and 2025

	2024 Crop Insurance
Commodity	Projected Crop Insurance Price($/bu or $/lb)	APH(bu or lb)	Coverage Level (%)	Revenue Guarantee ($/acre)	Crop Insurance Coverageper bu or lb
Corn	$4.66	175	75%	$612	$3.50
Cotton	$0.83	1,150	75%	$716	$0.62
Soybeans	$11.55	50	75%	$433	$8.66
	2025 Crop Insurance
Commodity	Projected Crop Insurance Price($/bu or $/lb)	APH(bu or lb)	Coverage Level (%)	Revenue Guarantee ($/acre)	Crop Insurance Coverage per bu or lb
Corn	$4.70	175	75%	$617	$3.53
Cotton	$0.69	1,150	75%	$595	$0.52
Soybeans	$10.54	50	75%	$395	$7.91

*Crop insurance coverage per bushel or pound is calculated as the revenue guarantee divided by the APH.

Table 2. 2024 and 2025 Estimated Cost of Production for Non-Irrigated Corn, Cotton, and Soybeans and Relative Crop Insurance Coverage

	2024 Cost of Production
	Cash Costs ($/acre)	Economic Costs ($/acre)	Target Yield(bu or lb)	Cash Cost ($ per bu or lb)	Economic Cost ($ per bu or lb)	Crop Insurance Coverage divided by Cash Cost (%)	Crop Insurance Coverage divided by Economic Cost (%)
Corn	$697	$825	175	$3.98	$4.71	88%	74%
Cotton	$777	$958	1,150	$0.68	$0.83	92%	75%
Soybeans	$464	$579	50	$9.28	$11.58	93%	75%
	2025 Cost of Production
	Cash Costs ($/acre)	Economic Costs ($/acre)	Target Yield(bu or lb)	Cash Cost ($ per bu or lb)	Economic Cost ($ per bu or lb)	Crop Insurance Coverage divided by Cash Cost (%)	Crop Insurance Coverage divided by Economic Cost (%)
Corn	$696	$817	175	$3.98	$4.67	89%	76%
Cotton	$760	$932	1,150	$0.66	$0.81	78%	64%
Soybeans	$477	$587	50	$9.54	$11.74	83%	67%

*Cash and economic cost per bushel or pound are calculated as cash/economic cost divided by target yield

References and Resources:

University of Tennessee Crop Budgets. 2024 and 2025. https://arec.tennessee.edu/extension/budgets/.

USDA Risk Management Price Discovery. https://public-rma.fpac.usda.gov/apps/PriceDiscovery.

Smith, Aaron. “Changes in Relative Financial Risk for Corn, Cotton, and Soybeans in 2024 and 2025.” Southern Ag Today 5(10.3). March 5, 2025. Permalink

March 5, 2025

UPDATED March 4, 2025…..End of the Line for Corporate Transparency Act Requirements?
The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a federal law aimed at combating financial crimes like money laundering and tax evasion. Under the CTA, most corporations, limited liability companies (LLCs), and similar entities were required to disclose their “beneficial owners”—individuals who own or control at least 25% of the business or exercise significant decision-making authority.

Numerous court actions were filed challenging the requirement.  The rulings since that time have gone back and forth, with a series of injunctions from some courts prohibiting the enforcement of the law while other courts allowing it.  After the most recent injunction was lifted, the Department of Treasury announced a mid-March, 2025 deadline for compliance.

However, on March 2, 2025, the Department of Treasury announced that it would no longer be enforcing any penalties or fines associated with the beneficial ownership reporting requirements.  Further, the Department will “be issuing a proposed rulemaking that will narrow the scope of the rule to foreign reporting companies only.”  As of today, March 4, 2025, entities are not required to disclose their beneficial owners or comply with the existing CTA regulations.

Background on CTA & Reporting Requirements

On January 1, 2024, the CTA’s rules went into effect. Entities created before that date were given until January 1, 2025 to comply, while companies formed during 2024 were given 90 days to report the beneficial ownership information.

CTA regulations for reporting entities required they:
1. Identify Beneficial Owners: Determine who qualifies as a beneficial owner within your company. Consider factors like ownership percentage and decision-making power.
2. Collect Required Information: Gather key details about each beneficial owner, including their full legal name, date of birth, residential address, and an identification number (e.g., from a passport or driver’s license), as well as a scan or picture of that identifying document.
3. Submit Information to FinCEN: File the information securely with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) through its online reporting system. Detailed instructions are available on the FinCEN website.
Noncompliance had significant consequences, including fines of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 2 years. CTA requirements were separate from and in addition to any corporate paperwork that is filed with a state agency. It is an additional, and new, federal requirement.  Entities also had an ongoing requirement to update the report if information changes.

Highlights of previous legal challenges:

As noted, several court actions were filed in 2024 challenging the new requirement.  For example, a federal district court in Alabama ruled early in 2024 that the CTA was unconstitutional. Plaintiffs in that case were granted summary judgement, and CTA enforcement was suspended only for the named plaintiffs and members of the National Small Business Association.

However, rulings with larger effect came about at the end of 2024.  One of those began on December 3^rd, 2024 when Judge Amos Mazzant, a federal judge in Texas, issued a nationwide injunction. This injunction paused the reporting deadlines and prevents enforcement of the regulations. The ruling in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland was in response to a request for a preliminary injunction, where the court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. It was not a final determination of the case itself. The case was appealed, and the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals was asked two things: to decide based on the merits of the case, and to decide whether the injunction was issued appropriately.  And this is where the road zigzagged!

On December 23^rd, the 3-judge panel (the “motion” panel) responsible for considering the injunction decided that it was not issued appropriately and suspended enforcement of the injunction, reinstating the reporting requirements.  Then, on December 27^th, a 3-judge panel responsible for deciding the merits of the case (the “merits” panel) overturned the motion panel and reinstated the injunction.  The foundation of the ruling, according to the court, was “to preserve the constitutional status quo while the merits panel considers the parties weighty substantive arguments”.  Arguments for the appeal have been scheduled for April 1st in New Orleans.

The government chose to appeal the ruling of the merits panel to the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”), arguing that the injunction should be lifted.  On January 23, 2025, SCOTUS issued a ruling on the government’s “application for stay,” agreeing that the injunction should be lifted (and reporting requirements reinstated) until the litigation ends.

In the meantime, another district court judge had considered the issue.  In that case, plaintiffs Samantha Smith and Robert Means challenged the constitutionality of CTA.  On January 7^th, Federal District Court Judge Jeremy Kernodle agreed with their contentions for the purposes of a preliminary ruling, which acted as a second nationwide stay.

This was only a temporary hold however, because in light of the SCOTUS ruling Judge Kernodle lifted the stay on February 17^th.  While this effectively re-imposed CTA requirements, the Department of Treasury soon announced that it would no longer enforce the regulations.

What’s next?

The Department of Treasury has announced that it will be issuing an interim final rule to narrow the scope of the rule.  It expects to have that rule completed and issued by March 21^st, 2025.

Further, there is also movement in Congress that may affect the future of the CTA.  On February 10, the House of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 736, which would modify the CTA by extending the filing deadline until January 1, 2026.  That proposal has now moved to the Senate for consideration.  A companion bill, S. 505, is also being considered in the Senate.  Both the House and Senate versions would postpone the deadline, but leave the reporting requirements intact.

Other legislation, introduced together as H.R. 125 and S. 100, the “Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act,” would repeal the CTA entirely.  They are under committee consideration in their respective chambers.

Changes could be made based on further developments in this court case (or others), changes in the regulations or guidance or even further Congressional action.  Because of that, it is important to stay aware of future developments.

If you have additional questions, please reach out to a legal or financial professional.

Information on finding an attorney in your area is available here. Further, the FinCEN website

provides additional resources and information to clarify requirements and future changes.

Rumley, Elizabeth. “Corporate Transparency Act Deadline Upcoming.” Southern Ag Today 4(48.5). November 29, 2024. Permalink
March 5, 2025
Can Broiler Eggs Help Table Egg Prices?

There have been over 20 million commercial table/shell egg laying hens lost already in 2025 alone due to High Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). Losses have impacted egg supply and prices have spiked. At the time of this writing, nationally, large white shell eggs are over $8.00 per dozen. Discussions over HPAI vaccination have been going on at some level from the beginning of this outbreak in 2022, but just recently a conditional approval has been given for a vaccine to be used here in the U.S. While vaccination holds some promise, it has its own set of problems and costs that must be balanced with the potential gains from controlling the virus.

As a stopgap measure to boost egg supplies, it has been suggested that surplus eggs from broiler hatcheries could be transferred into the egg products market, replacing shell eggs that could then be sold as fresh, helping lower prices. Eggs that go into egg products are used for things like dressings, sauces, etc. or for powered egg products like cake mixes. These products are pasteurized and considered some of the safest egg products available for human consumption. The surplus broiler eggs come from the occasional over-supply of hatching eggs not being able to be set to hatch. They are currently used for animal feed products or often simply disposed of. At one time, they were allowed to enter the edible egg products market. Using surplus broiler eggs stopped in 2009 when a law specifically targeting normal table egg handling and storage was passed requiring ALL eggs, whether sold fresh or used for egg products, be handled in such a way that precludes the surplus broiler eggs from the process. Now, some are asking the law be rescinded or modified to allow broiler eggs to again be used to help relieve the current egg shortage.

To analyze this question, we must look at a few big numbers. First, it is estimated by the National Chicken Council that there would be an annual surplus of “…almost 400 million broiler eggs (going) into the egg breaking supply each year…” That is a lot of eggs, but would it affect the price of table eggs? According to the USDA-Economic Research Service, total table egg production for 2024 was 7,751 million dozen, or over 93 billion eggs. If we assume an even distribution, that’s 7.75 billion eggs being produced per month! If we evenly distribute the surplus broiler egg supply, it could provide an additional 33.6 million eggs per month, or about 0.4% of the monthly total – an amount not likely to make any appreciable difference in the current prices. Still, there is no reason not to add these eggs into the market, but there should be no expectation of any significant price impact for doing so. It would however benefit the broiler companies as a market outlet for eggs that are often a loss. And if a few more eggs hit the store shelves, that’s not a bad thing.

Fig. 1 – Egg prices declined and stayed close to the recent annual average of around $2.00/dz for a couple of months after the most recent spike in January 2023. The current spike far outweighed that spike and will likely not abate for some time.

March 4, 2025
Death and …

Several articles have been written for Southern Ag Today on how farms can manage their tax obligations. This time of year, farm management specialists begin to receive questions of all kinds regarding taxes, especially for farms that try to meet the March 1 filing deadline available for qualifying farmers. Tax management is only one part of managing a farm but can be crucial. We wanted to relay a handful of resources that producers and other agribusiness specialists may find useful this time of year.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) website, www.IRS.gov, is often the first and best place to begin looking for information. The site contains a vast amount of information and resources, which can also make it a bit daunting. You can find copies of individual tax forms, form instructions, news updates, and educational resources such as Publication 225 – Farmers Tax Guide. The Interactive Tax Assistant (ITA) is designed to answer many basic questions that a taxpayer may have. It includes basic tax return information like filing status, dependents, due dates, and so on, but it can also answer questions regarding tax deductions, credits, income, and payment-related questions. Typically, the assistant will ask questions related to your situation that will help determine which rules may impact you.

The other section of the IRS website that farm owners may find helpful is the Small Business Self-Employed Tax Center. This section provides information for self-employed individuals with Schedule C (small business) and/or Schedule F (farming) activities relevant for most farm owners. One of the best sections is the IRS Video Portal and Small Business Virtual Tax Workshop, which includes short video explanations on various tax rules. Other tools within the IRS website help taxpayers and preparers, including free filing options, year-to-date withholding amounts, payment options, and finding transcripts of a taxpayer’s account.

Outside of the IRS, there are several other sources of information. The USDA website, www.farmers.gov, has a section specifically on tax education. On this website, you will find webinars on timely topics, frequently asked questions regarding farm taxation, and other resources to help farmers (especially newer farmers) navigate some of these issues.

Another site, www.RuralTax.org, is maintained by land-grant university professionals throughout the country who work in farm management and tax education. There are dozens of articles available on newer, timely topics, as well as archived information and a small farms tax guide producers may find helpful. Other sources of local help include lenders, fellow producers, your local Extension office, and certainly a designated tax professional. If you need to find a tax preparer, there are guides available through the IRS and Rural Tax. This article is not intended as professional tax advice but general knowledge for agricultural businesses who may benefit by having a bit more information and resources at their disposal. We encourage you to work with a professional who knows you and your farm and can best advise you on your situation.

Burkett, Kevin. “Death and …” Southern Ag Today 5(10.1). March 3, 2025. Permalink

March 3, 2025