Southern Ag Today

Blog

What WASDE Days Do to Grain Futures: Intraday Volatility Patterns You Can Plan Around
When there isn’t a government shutdown that limits reporting activities, the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report is a once-a-month shock that does more than nudge the average price. On release days, the intraday volatility pattern—its level across the session, its midday spike, and how quickly that spike fades—differs from ordinary days in ways that traders, merchandisers, and risk managers can plan around. A recent research article evaluated the impact of the WASDE report on commodity futures markets’ volatility (Lee and Park, 2024). Here we translate this research into practical guidance for traders when a WASDE report is released.

Most trading plans benchmark a point estimate—an expected move or a single daily volatility number. But markets trade through time. On WASDE days, volatility is comparatively calm into late morning, jumps right after the 11:00 a.m. Central Time (CT) release, and then eases within about an hour. Treating the day like any other misses the timing and the intraday pattern that drives fills, slippage, and margin exposure.

We study corn and soybean futures from January 2013 through April 2023, focusing on regular trading hours (8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. CT) and explicitly comparing three kinds of sessions: the release day itself, the day before, and the day after. Instead of averaging volatility across the whole day, we recover the intraday volatility curve—how volatility evolves minute by minute. We then ask two questions. First, what does volatility look like on WASDE days relative to other days? Second, is volatility the same across the before/after/release-day split?

On release days, volatility is subdued at the open, eases into mid-morning, and then spikes right after 11:00 a.m. CT (see Figure 1 and 2). Figure 1 shows the day before and the day after with a simple fade from the open without the midday surge seen on WASDE release days. The spike is visible in both corn and soybeans and typically fades within about an hour, as shown on Figure 2. Formally, release-day intraday volatility differs from the adjacent days, while the before and after pair are statistically indistinguishable. Another practical detail emerges at the open: on release days, when the market’s early-session volatility often starts lower than on non-release days, consistent with traders holding back risk until the report is released. The result is a day that is quieter than usual in the morning, busier than usual just after 11:00 a.m. CT, and fairly normal again by early afternoon.

There are a few key takeaways from this research. One could use smaller orders just before the 11:00 a.m. CT release, then wait 5–15 minutes afterward to see where prices settle before adjusting. If buying, selling, or hedging, skip those first few minutes after 11:00—quotes and spreads are still resetting, and a short wait often saves money. For risk planning, don’t treat the whole day as high-volatility; expect a short, sharp bump around 11:00 that usually fades within about an hour.

While these patterns describe typical release days across a long sample, individual months will differ with the surprise content of the report and with concurrent macro news. The point is not that every WASDE day looks the same, but that the intraday volatility pattern on those days is predictably different enough to plan around. Remember that all trading comes with risks and the guidance in this article is for educational purposes only and is not a guarantee of outcomes.

Figure 1. Intraday volatility up to 11:00 a.m. (Central Time) WASDE release

Figure 2. Intraday volatility on WASDE release days (corn and soybeans)

Minute-by-minute volatility with a 95% confidence band (gray). The vertical dashed line marks the 11:00 a.m. Central Time release. Both markets are relatively quiet into late morning, show a sharp 5–15-minute spike right after 11:00, and then settle toward baseline within about an hour; the exact height of the spike varies by month.

References
- Andersen, T. G., Su, T., Todorov, V., and Zhang, Z. (2024). Intraday periodic volatility curves. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 119(546):1181–1191.
- Lee, K. and Park, E. (2024). Exploring calendar effects: the impact of WASDE releases on grain futures market volatility. Applied Economics Letters, 1–6.
Park, Eunchun. “What WASDE Days Do to Grain Futures: Intraday Volatility Patterns You Can Plan Around.” Southern Ag Today 5(46.3). November 12, 2025. Permalink
November 12, 2025
Some Special Prices for Turkey Day

It’s turkey time, and a good opportunity to look at turkey prices and supplies as we head towards the big day.  Much higher wholesale prices have been in the news, so it’s also a good chance to examine wholesale versus retail prices and grocery store sales strategies.

Wholesale, national average, 8-16 pound turkey prices are up a whopping 82 percent compared to last year in early November!  The heavier Tom turkeys weighing 16-24 pounds are up even more, 88 percent, compared to last year.  It’s important to recognize that these are spot market, wholesale prices, and that most people are interested in the retail prices they are going to have to pay this year.

USDA publishes a weekly turkey retail feature report.  This report, using data from over 24,000 retail outlets across the country, indicates special and feature prices for turkey.  Whole, frozen turkeys weighing less than 16 pounds and those weighing more than 16 pounds averaged $0.93 and $0.92 per pound, respectively, this week.  Turkeys of those weights were $1.19 and $1.15 per pound last year.  Grocery store featured frozen turkey prices appear to be lower than last year.  Good news for consumers!  If you like a fresh turkey instead of frozen, those retail prices are running higher than last year.

To understand how the wholesale and retail prices can move in different directions it’s worth remembering that most outlets contract their estimated turkey needs early in the year.  Those contracted prices are likely much lower than the current wholesale market.  Actual retail turkey prices that consumers pay often reflect special prices and features.  As a grocery store meat buyer told me a long time ago, “The quickest way to get fired is to run out of turkeys at Thanksgiving!”  The wholesale price reflects buyers spur of the moment additional needs and the available supplies to fill those orders.

For the year to date, total turkey production is about 3 percent less than last year.  But, since mid-year, production is about 2 percent higher than last year.  Total production has caught up after shortfalls early in 2025.  Overall, fewer turkeys have been produced this year, and fewer birds are in cold storage awaiting Thanksgiving.  HPAI is again impacting the spot market for turkeys.  Outbreaks on turkey farms have ramped up in the last 6 weeks in both Canada and northern states like Michigan, hitting those producers especially hard prior to the holiday driven demands.

It looks like wholesale prices are much higher than last year, and retail pricing specials appear to be in full swing heading towards Thanksgiving.  Consumers may find a deal.  While we always talk about turkey price movements this time of the year, it always strikes me that the whole bird provides a lot of value for the dollar.  Most people get several meals from the bird.  If you’re blessed to have Thanksgiving dinner with family and friends, you’ll get a lot more value than can be reflected in money.

Anderson, David. “Some Special Prices for Turkey Day.” Southern Ag Today 5(46.2). November 11, 2025. Permalink

November 11, 2025
Understanding Interval-Based Enrollment Risk in PRF: How Interval Selection Strategies Can Impact Protection Across the South

Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage (PRF) insurance continues to be one of the most widely used federal crop insurance plans nationwide, with the most insured acres of any crop insurance plan in the US. While the program’s design has remained the same, the rainfall patterns that determine its performance have not (Davis et al. 2025). A new analysis comparing baseline loss ratios with recent changes in rainfall inconsistency highlights areas where producers may need to reconsider their insured intervals, and why those adjustments matter.

Figure 1 presents the baseline loss ratios of PRF from 2017 to 2024 across the south, demonstrating how the program would perform without interval choice affecting outcomes. This eliminates the human enrollment bias that happens when producers repeatedly select intervals that paid better in the past, do not follow a consistent enrollment strategy, or do not enroll consistently in general (Davis et al. 2025). Results show a mean loss ratio of 0.79 and a standard deviation of 0.20, indicating that, after controlling for enrollment behavior, most grids in the South maintain a relatively stable loss ratio that is below the national standard of 1. Figure 1 demonstrates that baseline performance and protection received by producers varies by location.

Figure 1. Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage Baseline Loss Ratio Map Across the Southern United States for Policy Years (2017-2024)

Note: For these values, each of the 11 dual-month intervals held equal weight of the policy for each year (2017-2024) and was averaged at the grid level.

Davis et al. 2025 demonstrate that changes in the trend and variance of rainfall over time can be incorporated into an interval selection strategy. With PRF’s Rainfall Index being based on outcomes back to 1948, changes in more recent years in rainfall are less and less impactful on the index. So the strategy is to use the declining impact of each year’s rainfall to identify a gap between the assumed and actual risks, as our research showed. Figure 2 shows the results of such a strategy. The mean loss ratios of these grids increased to 0.83 under this strategy, with a standard deviation of 0.33. There is an increase in the average loss ratio, though not massive, and, more interestingly, a big jump in the standard deviation. This tells us that in certain areas, such as grids where rainfall has been especially uncertain, looking at past Rainfall Index values can help you choose a policy aligned with the intervals that provide the most safety net protection for your situation.

Regions with loss ratios of 1+ are presented as either white or red grid cells. Compared with Figure 1, there are significant visual changes. Except for Kentucky and Tennessee, most southern states show more grids performing at or above the standard loss ratio of 1, suggesting improved outcomes for producers when using this interval selection strategy. Grids that were performing well across all intervals (Figure 1) also seem to perform even better under this strategy.

Figure 2. Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage Loss Ratio Map with Enrollment Selected by Increasing Rainfall Uncertainty Across the Southern United States Averages for Each Policy Year (2017-2024)

Together, these two maps highlight how PRF interval selection is critically important to the insurance outcome and the protection provided to the producer. For producers, the baseline loss ratio map can act as a reference for the expected PRF performance in their grid. However, it is important to investigate the performance of select 2-month intervals and take a more strategic approach, like the example above, to improve the chances of getting dependable coverage. A great place to start is by looking at the PRF Rainfall Index values for your area. Watch for downward trends or times when the index has been more variable. Of course, it is also important to consider interval selection based on the seasons when rainfall is most critical to your forage production cycle. Together, take advantage of all the information available to choose the interval combinations that best add to your farm’s safety net.

References:

Davis, Walker, Lawson Connor, Hunter Biram, and Michael Popp. 2025. “Performance and Feasibility of Pasture Rangeland and Forage Insurance in the Delta Region.” M.S., University of Arkansas. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3255211943/abstract/752CC539274B4F6FPQ/1.

Davis, Walker, Lawson Connor, Michael Popp, and Shelby Ryder. 2025. “Is PRF Profitable in a Wetter State?” Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, 132–46.

Davis, Walker. Understanding Interval-Based Enrollment Risk in PRF: How Interval Selection Strategies Can Impact Protection Across the South. Southern Ag Today 5(46.1). November 10, 2025. Permalink

November 10, 2025
Court Asked to Overturn Registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo

Environmental plaintiffs are seeking summary judgment in a lawsuit they filed in 2023 to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) 2022 decision to register the pesticides Enlist One and Enlist Duo for use through January 2029. Specifically, the plaintiffs have asked the court to revoke the labels for both Enlist products, a move that would make both products unavailable for use.

Both Enlist One and Enlist Duo are herbicide products manufactured and sold by Corteva Agriscience LLC. Both products contain as an active ingredient the choline salt of 2,4-dichlogophenoxyacetic acid, otherwise known as 2,4-D. Enlist Duo also includes glyphosate as a second active ingredient. Enlist One and Enlist Duo have both been approved for use on 2,4-D resistant corn, soybean, and cotton crops in 34 states.

A pesticide may not be sold or distributed in the United States until EPA registers the pesticide for use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). To register a pesticide, FIFRA requires EPA to determine that using the pesticide for its intended purpose will not cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” which is defined as “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of the pesticide.” In other words, FIFRA requires EPA to register a pesticide for use only if the agency has determined that the costs of using the pesticide in its intended manner do not outweigh the benefits.

When EPA registered Enlist One and Enlist Duo for use in 2022, the agency concluded that one of the main benefits of using Enlist products was the products’ effectiveness against herbicide-resistant broadleaf weeds in cotton and soybean crops. EPA also identified certain environmental risks such as potential harm to pollinators, pollinator host plants such as milkweed, and other wildlife species. To address those risks, EPA included additional application requirements on the Enlist labels to reduce the amount of 2,4-D that could travel off target via spray drift or runoff. Those measures included a 30-foot spray drift buffer and a requirement that Enlist applicators select mitigation measures from a “pick list” developed by EPA for the purpose of limiting pesticide exposure to wildlife. Each mitigation measure is assigned a point value, and to apply Enlist One or Enlist Duo, applicators will need to achieve four to six points of runoff mitigation depending on their location. To learn more about EPA’s mitigation “pick list” for herbicides, click here.

The plaintiffs in Ctr. For Food Safety v. Envtl. Protection Agency filed a motion for summary judgment with the court in late August. In that motion, the plaintiffs argue that EPA did not satisfy FIFRA’s “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” standard when registering Enlist One and Enlist Duo because EPA (1) understated or ignored important costs to the environment; (2) overstated alleged benefits; and (3) improperly relied on ineffective mitigation.

First, the plaintiffs argue that EPA’s 2022 registration failed to fully analyze the environmental costs posed by use of Enlist products. According to the plaintiffs, when EPA drafted its 2022 registration decision it failed to evaluate current usage data for Enlist products. Instead, EPA relied on Enlist use data from 2018 and 2019 which the plaintiffs claim was before the widespread adoption of Enlist products. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue that EPA failed to consider the future use of Enlist which the plaintiffs claim will continue to increase during the seven-year registration period. By failing to consider the actual amount of Enlist products that would be applied during the registration period, the plaintiffs claim that EPA understated the environmental costs posed by Enlist.

Next, the plaintiffs argued that EPA overstated the benefits of using Enlist One and Enlist Duo by exaggerating the effectiveness of Enlist products on herbicide-resistant weeds. The plaintiffs claim that although EPA suggests using Enlist with other pesticides or weed management tools to avoid contributing to the likelihood of increased herbicide resistance, evidence indicates that many applicators use Enlist products as their sole method of controlling glyphosate-resistant weeds. According to the plaintiffs, this increases the likelihood that weeds will grow more resistant to herbicides, which EPA failed to address when registering the pesticides.

Lastly, the plaintiffs claim that the mitigation measures that EPA added to the Enlist labels fail to effectively mitigate the adverse effects that Enlist One and Enlist Duo have on the environment. The mitigation measures stem from a new policy that EPA has adopted to limit the impacts of pesticide exposure to species of wildlife protected by the Endangered Species Act. Enlist One and Enlist Duo were some of the first products to have new mitigation measures added to their labels as a result of this policy. The mitigations for Enlist include a 30-foot spray drift buffer and a requirement that applicators achieve four to six points of runoff reduction by selecting one or more mitigation activities from a “pick list” developed by EPA.

According to the plaintiffs, EPA’s reliance on a 30-foot drift buffer is contrary to evidence showing that 2,4-D can drift further off target. The plaintiffs also argue that the runoff mitigation measures identified by EPA do not effectively reduce pesticide runoff. They claim that most farmers that use Enlist products would not have to make any changes to their applications to achieve the required number of runoff points. Therefore, the plaintiffs argue that the spray drift and runoff mitigation measures do not effectively reduce the adverse effects that Enlist One and Enlist Duo have on the environment.

In filing a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs have asked the court to overturn the 2022 Enlist labels. If the court does so, it would likely result in neither product remaining available for use. Additionally, the court’s ruling in this case could have broader implications for EPA’s new mitigation policy. If the court agrees with the plaintiffs that the spray drift and runoff mitigations do not satisfy FIFRA, that could impact other pesticide labels that include mitigation measures based on EPA’s policy. However, should the court disagree with the plaintiffs and find that the mitigation measures meet the FIFRA “adverse effects on the environment” standard, that would suggest that other pesticide labels with similar mitigation measures could also survive a legal challenge. Ultimately, the outcome of this court case could have effects that are felt throughout the agricultural industry. To learn more about this lawsuit, click here.

Rollins, Brigit. “Court Asked to Overturn Registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo.” Southern Ag Today 5(45.5). November 7, 2025. Permalink

November 7, 2025
A Reminder That All Three Parts of the Producer Safety Net Matter

Over the past few months, we have been asked by producers on multiple occasions…since the ARC and PLC programs aren’t going to help very much why don’t we just forget it and use the money on crop insurance that does help?  This article contains the answer we typically give to that question.

First, remember that the producer safety net is made of three parts: ARC and PLC, marketing assistance loans, and crop insurance.  Over the past few years, ARC and PLC have not kept up in trying to offset producer losses that have occurred because of low commodity prices and extremely high costs of production.  The marketing assistance loan program provides a harvest time loan to producers who need the cash flow but do not want to sell at harvest, which is typically the lowest prices of the year.  Not all producers utilize the marketing assistance loan program; however, in the South, cotton producers have routinely used this program.  At the same time, producers have reported that crop insurance programs (especially revenue insurance) have been a very useful safety net for their operations and that crop insurance was the most important part of the safety net.  We cannot disagree with this assertation.

However, going forward, the One Big Beautiful Bill significantly increased reference prices used in both ARC and PLC while changes were made to the ARC program that will trigger payments sooner while covering bigger potential losses.  These changes will help increase the value of ARC and PLC to producers.  At the same time, in the current low-price environment, crop insurance will become relatively less helpful as insurance prices—which are based on a month of futures market daily closing values—are likely to be significantly lower than producers’ costs of production.  Losses will still be covered; however, producers will be indemnified at levels far below recent years because the futures market prices are low.

The good news in all of this is when market prices eventually rise, insurance prices will rise with them.  With higher prices, the ARC and PLC program will be less likely to trigger assistance.  The marketing assistance loan program will still be useful to offer storage loans to allow producers to pay their bills while waiting for prices to increase.  In this situation, what we see is that each of the three parts of the producer safety net are important and are designed to complement one another, but there will be times when each are relatively more important.

Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. “A Reminder That All Three Parts of the Producer Safety Net Matter.” Southern Ag Today 5(45.4). November 6, 2025. Permalink

November 6, 2025