The first forecast of corn yields by the USDA is expected to be released with the Crop Production report on August 12, 2026. However, most southern corn has passed through silking, the crop’s most critical yield-determining period. One can then look at the USDA Crop Progress and Condition Layers current condition ratings to gain a meaningful signal of likely yield outcomes. According to crop condition data for the week ending July 26, most southern corn entered the second half of July in fair-to-good condition—3.56 on a scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average masks a sharp divide between the mid-South and the Carolinas. While weather can still affect kernel weight, much of the crop’s yield potential, and damage from June and early-July heat and moisture stress, has already been determined.
As shown in Figure 1, conditions were near good from Arkansas through Mississippi and into northern Alabama and Tennessee. Alabama was good (4.18), while Tennessee and Arkansas were near good (3.98 and 3.96, respectively). The strongest county ratings clustered in northern Alabama and the Tennessee Valley. Conditions weakened farther east. South Carolina was below fair (2.88), and North Carolina had the region’s lowest rating, between poor and fair (2.81). The lowest-rated counties were concentrated in eastern North Carolina’s Coastal Plain, where much of the state’s corn acreage is located.
Figure 2 shows the corn condition by state throughout the growing season. Both Carolinas were near the middle of the regional range in late spring before deteriorating during June and early July amid repeated heat and limited, uneven rainfall. Because the decline overlapped silking, the Carolinas are increasingly likely to experience below-trend yields and reduced production, especially in eastern North Carolina. In contrast, stronger mid-South conditions point to comparatively favorable yields.
These lower expected yields may matter more for local markets than for national corn prices because Southern production is small relative to the Corn Belt. The Carolinas, like many other southern states, have livestock and poultry sectors and often rely on corn shipped from other regions. A smaller local harvest could increase demand for imported grain, strengthen local basis, and raise delivered feed costs. Mid-South producers, by contrast, head toward harvest with a near-good crop and no comparable supply concerns.
Figure 1. County-average corn condition for the week ending July 26, 2026, and 2025 corn acreage across the South.
Figure 2. Acreage-weighted state corn condition through the 2026 season.
Authors: Matthew Marchant, Ph.D. Student, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness
Jada Thompson, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness
Ryan Loy, Assistant Professor and Extension Economist, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness
Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), commonly called bird flu refers to the H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b strain of avian influenza, which was detected in the United States in 2022. The term “highly pathogenic” refers to the virus’s ability to spread quickly and destructively, killing more than 75% of birds it infects (World Organisation for Animal Health, 2026). Because the virus is so deadly in commercial poultry, best practice requires the depopulation of flocks in which the disease is detected. Primarily, this is the humane response, as the entire flock will perish if given enough time. Depopulation also stops the reproduction of the virus, protecting farmers, consumers, and the public. Additionally, it allows farmers to minimize down time, returning farms to production as soon as possible, after appropriate cleaning and disinfection. Though necessary, these population losses lead to economic consequences which extend well beyond just individual farms, contributing significantly to elevated egg prices (Mitchell et al., 2024).
Bird Flu in the Flyway
The U.S. poultry industry encountered H5N2 HPAI in 2014, which was mostly spread house-to-house through contaminated materials, trucks, and laborers. This prompted sweeping changes in biosecurity culture that still exist today. These changes, along with a single warm summer, helped to end the outbreak by June 2015. Since the 2022 introduction of a host-adapted H5N1 virus, poultry growers in the Mississippi Flyway have faced increased disease risk, despite the wide adoption of these enhanced biosecurity measures. This most recent outbreak has spread instead by external introduction, rather than in the same fashion as in 2014. In this case, “host-adapted” refers to the virus’s ability to persist in wild bird populations. Whereas previous HPAI events ravaged both poultry and wild birds, the current H5N1 2.3.4.4b classification is less likely to kill wild bird species (Patyk et al., 2023; Thompson et al., 2025). This means that waterfowl can become infected and still survive migration, spreading the disease across the flyway.
What is the Mississippi flyway?
Migratory birds follow predictable migratory corridors, called flyways. The Mississippi flyway is an economically important flyway, covering parts of more than fifteen states and two Canadian provinces which include commercial broiler, turkey, and egg production. Migratory fowl spend the warm summer months in the breeding grounds of the northern Midwest, leaving in the fall to ride cold fronts south towards over-wintering habitat in the Gulf States. For southern states like Arkansas and Louisiana, the regularity of this migration is a large source of off-farm income, as waterfowl hunters flock to the Mississippi Delta. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that migratory bird hunters in Arkansas spend nearly $300 million annually on lodging, equipment, food, and transportation, over the state’s 72-day waterfowl season (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2022). Birds begin moving north again in the spring, often returning to the same breeding region year after year. Aside from its incredible biodiversity during migrations, the wetland habitat along the Mississippi River acts as a natural flood barrier year-round, holding surplus water as it drains towards the river.
Examining the geographic distribution of HPAI detections over time reveals a clear seasonal pattern that mirrors waterfowl migration. Figure 1 shows the number of detections, by county, for each month over the course of the outbreak. During the summer months, detections are sparse and concentrated in the northern reaches of the flyway, where birds spend the breeding season. As fall migration begins, HPAI’s geographic footprint expands southward, spanning nearly the entire flyway from October through May.
Figure 1: Mississippi Flyway HPAI Detections by Month, 2022-2025, with fitted latitudinal mean and IQR
What does this mean?
Understanding seasonality affords producers a predictable window each year to prepare before peak exposure periods arrive.
Before Peak Season
Inspect and repair perimeter fencing, netting, and housing gaps that could allow wildlife to access farm premises. Evaluate water and feed delivery systems to ensure they too are isolated from outside contact. Review all available extension publications, updating biosecurity protocols where necessary while maintaining coverage status with livestock indemnity programs. Conduct training and review these protocols with all farm workers and establish relationships with your veterinarian and state animal health officials before an emergency arises. Budget for increased biosecurity expenditures and most importantly, ensure you have a financial emergency plan, should you face depopulation.
During Peak Season
Vigilantly adhere to enhanced biosecurity protocols without exception. Monitor flocks closely for behavioral changes, decreased feed and water consumption, or sudden mortality. Limit all non-essential personnel traffic and enforce strict entry and exit biosecurity for all visitors and vehicles. Report any unusual mortality to your veterinarian or the USDA at 1-866-536-7593.
Year-Round
Stay current with USDA APHIS detection reports to understand active disease pressure in your region. Participate in state and federal livestock indemnity programs and know your coverage.
The Big Picture
A host-adapted virus in a migratory population means recurring seasonal risk for the foreseeable future. However, that seasonality also gives producers, researchers, and communities time to plan ahead. Understanding when and where the disease is likely to appear turns an unpredictable force into a manageable calendar of preparation and vigilance. Extension agents and agricultural educators can use these materials to help producers understand local risk windows and connect with available resources. Community preparedness, which begins at the farm level, remains the most effective tool available against this disease.
References
Mitchell, J. L., Thompson, J. M., & Malone, T. (2024). Biological lags and market dynamics in vertically coordinated food supply chains: HPAI impacts on U.S. egg prices. Food Policy, 126, 102655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102655
Patyk, K. A., Fields, V. L., Beam, A. L., Branan, M. A., McGuigan, R. E., Green, A., Torchetti, M. K., Lantz, K., Freifeld, A., Marshall, K., & Delgado, A. H. (2023). Investigation of risk factors for introduction of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 infection among commercial turkey operations in the United States, 2022: A case-control study. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1229071
Thompson, J. M., Patyk, K., Fields, V., Branan, M., Delgado, A., & Roesler, K. (2025). Biosecurity investment impacts on highly pathogenic avian influenza control in United States commercial turkey operations. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2025.106624
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2022). Economic Analysis of the Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations for the 2022-2023 Season. U.S. Department of the Interior.
World Organisation for Animal Health. (2026). 10.4 Infection with Highly Pathogenicity Avian Influenza Viruses. In Terrestrial Animal Health Code (33rd ed.).
The U.S. row crop sector is currently under significant economic pressure. Lower commodity prices, high input costs, policy uncertainty, and ongoing trade disruptions have combined to create a challenging operating environment for producers. It is clear that all producers are currently facing a challenging farming environment. However, we also observe meaningful differences in outcomes and performance within this same difficult environment. Some farms remain relatively stable. Others experience severe financial stress. Some adjust quickly, while others struggle to respond.
Why? Traditional discussions of agricultural risk tend to focus on external shocks such as price volatility, drought, policy changes, or broader economic downturns. These factors certainly matter. They shape the environment in which farms operate. However, identical shocks do not produce identical outcomes. The difference is often not the shock itself, but the decisions that are made in response to uncertainty.
Risk, by itself, does not generate outcomes, decisions do. Between an external shock and its eventual outcome lies a chain of decision processes. Producers must recognize emerging risks, interpret available information, evaluate alternatives, and choose a course of action. These decisions ultimately shape whether a farm remains resilient or experiences distress.
Consider a decline in commodity prices. Two farms may face the same market conditions. Yet one farm may recognize the threat earlier, have stronger financial reserves, or possess better market information. Another may have limited flexibility or delayed responses. The result is different outcomes despite facing the same shock.
This perspective suggests a shift in risk management away from simply identifying threats. Equally important is understanding how individuals and organizations process uncertainty and transform information into action. Rather than asking only, “What risks exist?” we should also ask, “How are decisions made in the face of risks as well as when the shocks emerge?”
The future of agricultural risk management will not be determined solely by better tools available to producers, such as better forecasting tools, insurance products, policy tools, or market information systems. It will also depend on improving the decision processes that connect uncertainty to outcomes. In the next article, I will walk through what I call Liu’s 5Rs of Risk Management Model to explore how information systems, risk perception, behavioral factors, and structural constraints interact to shape real-world agricultural decisions and outcomes.
Figure 1. Same Risk, Different Outcomes: Where Is the Missing Link? (Designed with ChatGPT)
Most farmers and rural residents know that agricultural cooperatives are farmer-owned but don’t think much more about their structure or how they are financed. While all businesses are financed by a combination of debt and owner equity, there are fundamental differences in financing a cooperative relative to a typical investor-owned business.
Typical Business Financing is Separate from Operations
Most businesses in the U.S. are owned by one group of individuals, the investors, and do business with another group, the customers. Under this structure, it is logical to separate financing from operations. If the business is generating, or projected to generate, adequate profits, there should be a pool of outside investors willing to provide equity capital. This structure allows for business financing to be separate from operations and marketing.
Profits from typical businesses are returned to their owners and investors in the form of retained earnings, dividends, and stock buy-backs. Those profit distributions create the incentive for equity investment. Customers of these businesses (who are not investors) do not receive a share of the profits.
Cooperative Financing is Combined with Operations
Under the cooperative business model, cooperative customers are also owners. Due to this structure, identifying financing for a new cooperative cannot be separated from the process of identifying its customers. New cooperative organizers must simultaneously identify individuals to be both cooperative users and investors and established cooperatives must obtain all the capital they need for future expansion through their user-investors.
Cooperatives distribute profits to its owner-customers in proportion to use. Therefore, there is no direct benefit from owning equity in a cooperative, rather the rationale for equity ownership is related to the use of the cooperative. In traditional, open membership cooperatives, a portion of the profits are distributed in the form of equity, often called “stock patronage”. That equity is typically redeemed into cash by the cooperative at a later date and is thus referred to as “revolving equity”. Under this cooperative structure, equity ownership is accumulated as a by-product of using the cooperative. In other situations, such as processing cooperatives which are more capital intensive, the cooperative stock is combined with a usage right. Under that structure the equity investment is a prerequisite to use.
Understanding Cooperative Equity Financing
Agricultural cooperatives are an important part of our rural landscape, with many of our legacy cooperatives having been in business for over 100 years. Understanding cooperative structures for acquiring and managing equity is key for continuing the cooperative business model. Merging the roles of users and investors has major implications for cooperative operations and planning. Groups who are interested in forming a cooperative must not only analyze the customer base, but they must also determine whether potential customers are interested in investing in a user-owned business. Established cooperatives must create systems to match use and investment on a long-term basis.
Having two stakeholder groups, investors and customers, sounds complicated while merging those two groups sounds simple. In reality, the ownership element of the cooperative business model is more complicated relative to other firms. Agricultural cooperatives create great benefits in keeping markets competitive and improving the financial results of their farmer-owners. I view cooperatives as a better, but not necessarily simpler, business structure.
Last week, the USDA announced it would resume Mexican cattle imports under a phased reopening beginning in August. This is a somewhat controversial, but scientifically sound choice. When the United States suspended imports of live cattle from Mexico, the objective was straightforward: keep New World Screwworm (NWS) out of the country for as long as possible. The policy accepted significant economic costs in exchange for delaying one of the livestock industry’s most damaging pests.
That question looks very different today. With NWS now confirmed inside the United States (USDA APHIS, 2026), policymakers are no longer deciding whether the border closures prevent introduction; they are deciding whether the restrictions provide enough benefit to justify their economic costs. Our previous research estimated the economic cost of the border closures and how much delay in pest establishment would be required for those costs to be worthwhile (Sumner et al., 2026). Those findings provide a framework for evaluating today’s policy debate.
Border Closures Significantly Tightened Feeder Cattle Supplies: Mexico has long served as one of the largest suppliers of feeder cattle to U.S. feedlots, with roughly 1.2 million head imported annually before the restrictions (Sumner et al., 2026). When the border closed, those cattle disappeared from the market. At the largest point of disruption, monthly imports were more than 150,000 head below what historical market relationships would have predicted (Sumner et al., 2026).
Feeder Cattle Prices Climbed Well Above Expected Levels: With fewer feeder cattle entering the United States, domestic supplies tightened quickly. Our analysis shows that the border closures pushed feeder cattle prices much higher than expected. Prices initially followed normal market trends but increased rapidly, reaching nearly $100 per hundredweight above what would have been expected by July 2025 (Sumner et al., 2026).
Border closures put substantial upward pressure on feeder cattle prices. Changes in Mexican cattle imports had lasting effects on feeder cattle prices, demonstrating how closely U.S. and Mexican cattle markets are connected (Sumner et al., 2026).
Figure 1. Impacts of the import ban on U.S. Feeder Cattle Markets
Source: Authors’ calculations using LMIC and USDA AMS data.
With confirmed cases of New World Screwworm now detected within the United States (USDA APHIS, 2026), policymakers face a different decision. The question is no longer whether the border can keep the pest out entirely, but whether continued restrictions on Mexican cattle imports meaningfully slow its spread, reduce the likelihood of reinfestation from neighboring regions, or provide enough additional time for response efforts to outweigh the ongoing costs on the cattle industry.
Over nine months, the border closures reduced feeder cattle imports, tightened supplies, and increased feeder cattle prices (Sumner et al., 2026). Those impacts continue to accumulate with restrictions in place.
Policymakers must weigh the market disruptions against the biosecurity benefits that the restrictions provide. If the remaining benefits are limited, the economic case for prolonged border closures becomes weaker. If, however, the restrictions significantly reduce additional introductions, protect infestation-free regions, or improve the effectiveness of eradication efforts, continued restrictions may still generate benefits.
Biosecurity policies are rarely static. As conditions change, so should the economic questions used to evaluate them. The challenge is no longer asking “Did the border closure buy enough time?” It is asking “How much additional protection does the closure provide today and is that protection worth its continuing economic cost?”
REFERENCES
Sumner S., Jones S., Islam T., and Schaefer K.A. (2026) “Delaying the Inevitable? U.S. Screwworm Closures and Feeder Cattle Market Dynamics,” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.70111.
