Ag Economy

The 180-Million-Acre Lock: Why U.S. Agriculture Remains Anchored to Corn and Soybeans

Fri, 29 May 2026 20:43:35 GMT

On a recent episode of the Business of Agriculture, host Damian Mason, Illinois farmer and consultant Mark Severson, and StoneX market analyst Ryan Moe tackled a question that surfaces frequently in the ag community: Can U.S. farmers realistically transition significant acreage out of corn and soybeans?

By the end of the discussion, the three participants arrived at a straightforward conclusion: under the current rules of the game, they cannot.

While individual operations can successfully integrate niche enterprises, the broader 180-million-acre corn-and-soybean complex is firmly locked in place, the group agreed. It is held there by a powerful combination of global market dynamics, federal policy, risk management infrastructure, and ingrained farmer behavior.

“Producers produce,” Mason observed. “We just produce. And the system we’ve built is designed to keep us producing corn and soybeans.”

The Global Penalty For Unilateral Cuts

The idea of a voluntary, nationwide reduction in acreage to drive up prices is fundamentally flawed in a globalized economy. Ryan Moe noted that any unilateral cut by U.S. growers would simply trigger a supply response from foreign competitors.

“If every American farmer said, ‘let’s plant 5% less corn this year just to show the market who’s boss,’ guess who increases their acreage by 5%?” Moe asked. “Someone else in the world — Argentina, Brazil, Ukraine — they come in and fill that void.”

Moe, who analyzes commodity markets daily, noted that a major corn crop is harvested somewhere in the world 11 out of 12 months of the year. In such an environment, the United States no longer possesses the market leverage to tighten global supply independently without permanently forfeiting export share. In his opinion, once that market share is lost, reclaiming it would be an uphill battle.

Defining True Diversification

Before weighing in on how to alter the current crop mix, Severson said the agricultural industry must first define what it means by diversification.

“When we say diversification, what are we really talking about?” Severson asked. “Are we talking about trying to diversify what’s growing on the acre? Are we trying to diversify our input streams, our economy, the producers? Because there’s a lot of things that can be diversified.”

Mason narrowed the scope specifically to what passes through the planter. Of the roughly 340 to 360 million cropped acres in the U.S. (including Conservation Reserve Program acres), nearly half are dedicated exclusively to corn and soybeans. The remaining half is fractured among every other agricultural product in the country, from wheat and cotton to specialty fruits and tree nuts.

“If we think there’s no profitability in, say, soybeans, can we take the 83 to 85 million acres of soybeans, cut it down to 65, and grow 20 million acres of something else?” Mason asked. “Is that even realistic? Does it pay for itself? Is there a demand for it? Do we have the infrastructure?”

For Severson, those final two requirements — demand and infrastructure — are where most large-scale diversification initiatives fracture. He compared the current agricultural landscape to the U.S. retail sector, where consolidation naturally favors a few massive players.

“You have corn and soybeans, you have wheat and some specialty crops, then it kind of consolidates like box stores: you end up with three big ones and a few niche players,” Severson said. “Maybe this is the right level of diversification the market actually wants, and us trying to tell it we need more is bucking that trend.”

Policy, Ethanol, And The Risk Management Floor

The speakers contend the major reason the market favors a corn-soybean mix is that federal policy heavily subsidizes and de-risks it. Mason said the 90-plus million acres of corn standard in modern American agriculture is a relatively recent phenomenon, driven aggressively by the biofuels mandate. Today, approximately 40% of the domestic corn crop is diverted to ethanol.

While Mason acknowledged that ethanol directly benefits his own operation by propping up local land values and providing regional marketing options, he termed it “artificial demand” born entirely of political lobbying.

Beyond demand creation, federal policy also dictates risk management, according to Severson. He noted that the subsidized crop insurance program and Title I commodities programs (ARC/PLC) provide a predictable financial floor for corn and soybeans that does not exist for minor or specialty crops.

“If you’re a turf farmer, you have none of that protection. The market has to bid all that in, and that’s a lot of risk for a lot of people that can’t carry it,” Severson said.

Moe argued that to observe what a truly “natural” or unsubsidized U.S. crop mix looks like, federal intervention would have to be dismantled entirely—stretching far beyond crop insurance to include the Farm Credit System and Small Business Administration agricultural loans. Such a rollback, the panel agreed, is politically and economically unfeasible.

Agronomics vs. Market Reality: Canola And Hemp

History shows that establishing a new, commercially viable crop is possible, but it requires a rare alignment of long-term margins, agronomic adaptability and infrastructure development.

Mason pointed to canola as the premier modern success story. In the 1970s, rapeseed was largely a specialty product. Following intensive academic research to develop food-grade oil, accompanied by private-sector investment in processing facilities, he said canola grew into a dominant, highly viable crop across the Canadian Prairies and the Northern Plains of the U.S.

However, Moe cautioned that farmers require multi-year proof of profitability before shifting rotations. “It’s got to be a long-term ROI,” he said. “It can’t just be a one-off year when the vegetable oil market is thriving.”

For every success story like canola, the industry faces cautionary tales. Severson raised the recent example of industrial hemp, where thousands of farmers transitioned acres during peak regulatory and media hype, only to watch the market collapse due to a lack of processing infrastructure and demand. Without reliable buyers, growers were left holding unmarketable inventory in storage facilities.

The Infrastructure Barrier Is Real

Even when a new crop shows agronomic promise and strong pricing, the physical infrastructure of the American grain belt acts as a massive barrier to entry. Severson used an aviation analogy to describe the challenge of displacing corn and soybeans.

“It’s almost akin to saying, what if we wanted to diversify away from airplanes at airports and started using blimps? You could probably make it work with blimps at airports, but there’s an awful lot of things that happen at an airport that’s made for 747s — the fuel, the gates, everything else. It would be extremely painful to do so, and in the end you might end up with a blimp that nobody wants.”

The modern logistics network—consisting of high-speed rail loaders, river terminals, specialized processing plants, and commercial fertilizer systems—is custom-built to move billions of bushels of corn and soybeans efficiently. Asking that capital-intensive supply chain to pivot for alternative oilseeds or pulses would require billions of dollars in institutional risk capital, a hurdle far too high for individual farmers to clear on their own.

Micro-Diversification Over Macro Shifts

Given these structural barriers, Moe suggested that the most realistic path forward for producers is not a macroeconomic shift in acreage, but rather micro-diversification within individual farming operations.

Even if federal safety nets were removed, Moe noted that the top tier of farmers are so efficient at growing corn and soybeans that they would continue to maximize output. Instead of chasing new commercial crops, operators looking to diversify income should consider localized, specialized enterprises — such as niche livestock, direct-to-consumer specialty products, or off-farm businesses —that leverage family labor without disrupting the core business.

The critical danger, Moe noted, is allowing a side enterprise to dilute management focus away from the primary commodities that pay the land notes and other bills.

“Where I’ve made the biggest mistakes in my career is when I’ve gone into the diversification track and I’ve gone and tried to revolutionize something,” Moe said. “As soon as you get distracted from the main thing, often it just gets to be a distraction more so than a diversification.”

The Long-Term Outlook

Ultimately, barring massive macroeconomic shocks or radical policy overhauls, the panel said the U.S. crop mix is unlikely to see a dramatic shift in the near term. The financial and structural incentives to grow corn and soybeans remain too powerful.

However, Mason pointed out that external pressures may eventually force the industry’s hand. Emerging political and societal scrutiny surrounding land and water use, alongside growing policy debates over the long-term future of ethanol, could eventually disrupt the status quo.

“I do think there’s going to be an uphill battle on policy that will force a diversification,” Mason said. “It’s going to come with land and water use, and it’s going to have ethanol — and corn — on its bullseye.”

Until those external forces reshape the regulatory landscape, the panel said the most rational economic decision for the vast majority of American farmers remains unchanged: keep growing corn and soybeans.

The program in its entirety is available to watch here .

The 1% Rule: How 14 Minutes a Day Can Help Future-Proof Your Farm

Tue, 26 May 2026 18:46:21 GMT

When Angie Traetow’s father returned to his South Dakota roots to farm in 1984, the U.S. agricultural economy was crumbling. He survived the brutal decade through a combination of grit, hard labor and a good dose of deliberate, intentional planning. Decades later, it’s a lesson Traetow is sharing with the wider agricultural community as she urges today’s farmers to dedicate just 14 minutes a day — exactly 1% of every 24 hours — to strategic thinking and planning.

“When you actually do the math, it’s crazy,” Traetow shared during a recent episode of The Dirt podcast. “Fourteen minutes a day equals 98 minutes a week... that totals to over two working weeks a year.”

As the senior manager of North American learning and development for Nutrien, Traetow challenges growers to step away from daily practices and distractions and repurpose 14 minutes daily toward big-picture planning and decisions that can help support long-term viability.

Tackling Volatility And Other ‘Tough Stuff’

In an industry defined by unpredictable variables, proactive planning is a critical need. Traetow notes that dedicating this daily sliver of time allows growers to focus on things like developing grain marketing plans to mitigate financial risk.

Beyond market logistics, the 1% rule can also help farmers tackle the emotionally charged hurdles that many choose to avoid or are putting off, such as succession planning. For multi-generational operations, the sheer scale of this task can cause paralysis. Traetow suggests using those 14 daily minutes to break massive decisions into manageable, “bite-sized” pieces.

She points to her own father’s success as a prime example of this micro-planning in action. By being intentional and communicating clearly, over time he ensured a seamless transition for the fifth generation of their family farm.

“He’s been very intentional with his succession plan to the point where he has communicated to all of us kids, even those that are off the farm, what that succession plan is, so there are no surprises,” Traetow says.

Breaking The ‘Always Done It This Way’ Cycle

Traetow believes embracing strategic planning and management also requires a fundamental mindset shift regarding technology and tradition. Being intentional means adopting modern tools to maximize every acre, rather than relying on legacy methods just for tradition’s sake.

“Don’t just do what’s always been done,” she encourages. “Utilize technology... to work smarter, not harder.”

Thinking outside the box often requires structural creativity, too. Traetow notes that her husband applies this exact philosophy to their own business. “We know we have to diversify our operation to make our farm work,” she says. “He partners with another farmer, and we also do a lot of custom work to help with that.”

Moving Beyond The Farm Gate

Ultimately, the 1% philosophy extends beyond business logistics. Traetow notes that trading 14 minutes of aimless social media scrolling for personal reflection, reading market reports, or simply being fully present with family can yield massive personal dividends.

It’s a small investment with a compounding return.

“I’d like to challenge our farmers and our customers to take 1%, or 14 minutes, of their day and be more strategic and think about the big picture of their operation and their business,” Traetow says. “The results will follow.”

You can hear the The Dirt podcast featuring Traetow here .

Farmers Voice Deep Frustration Over Disconnect With Washington Ahead of Midterms, New Poll Finds

Tue, 19 May 2026 18:58:13 GMT

From drought plaguing producers in the Plains and South to planters finally getting several uninterrupted days to roll, farmers across the country are focused on growing this year’s crop and weathering the extremes. But with the midterm elections now just six months away, a new survey is offering insight into how farmers and ranchers are feeling politically and financially heading into campaign season.

A Farm Journal poll commissioned by Amato Advisors surveyed nearly 1,000 farmers and ranchers across the U.S., with a heavy focus on swing states. The results point to mounting frustration over rising costs, economic uncertainty and what many producers describe as a growing disconnect with Washington.

“I don’t know if I would say surprise. I think they’re concerning, and I think there are some real alarm bells going off across the countryside,” says Mike Amato of Amato Advisors.

Farmers Say Washington Doesn’t Understand Agriculture Today

One of the most striking findings in the survey was the overwhelming number of farmers who believe elected officials do not understand the realities facing agriculture today.

“I think it also stood out to me that, I think in some ways farmers feel a little not heard in Washington, DC, and this is not a political statement. I think, it’s from both parties,” Amato says. “73% of farmers said that their elected officials don’t understand what it’s like to be a farmer or what’s happening on the farm. Uh and that and that to me was a strong signal that um there’s a disconnect between what’s really happening on the land and what’s happening in Washington DC.”

(Farm Journal)

The poll found nearly three out of four farmers surveyed said elected officials do not understand the realities they face. Only 19% responded that elected officials understood somewhat well, while just under 4% said they felt very well understood.

Global Conflict Adds to Cost Concerns

The survey also examined how geopolitical tensions are affecting producers’ outlooks. When asked how the conflict in Iran could impact their operations, farmers overwhelmingly pointed to concerns over rising fuel and fertilizer costs.

“94% said that it would affect fuel or fertilizer prices. And about 80% said it would effect both. So this is nearly all farmers being hit by this conflict,” Amato says.

When asked about the biggest challenges facing their operations today, 78% of respondents identified machinery and input costs as top concerns.

(Farm Journal)

Tyson Redpath, chairman of the Russell Group, a Washington-area government relations firm, says many of those concerns are tied directly to trade policy and tariffs.

“In the concern about input costs and machinery cost, this cost price squeeze that we hear so much about, I don’t wonder Tyne if a little bit of that, maybe a lot of that in terms of concerns over input costs and machinery costs are tied to tariffs, are tied to tariff policy in our trade policy currently,” Redpath says.

Affordability Becomes the Central Political Issue

Redpath says affordability will likely dominate campaign messaging heading into the midterms.

“Affordability, one way or the other, is the defining buzzword of this campaign,” Redpath says. “The administration, the president, his team, started the year on that note. And so the opposition is all too eager to use that and to call into question that.”

He adds inflation continues to weigh heavily on both rural and urban voters.

“It’s really been the central issue since we pumped $8 trillion into the economy during COVID and post-COVID,” Redpath says. “And when you pump $8 trillion into an economy, as we saw over the last four and a half years, inflation is not transient. It’s not transitory. It’s sticky and it’s stubborn.”

A Mixed Financial Picture in Agriculture

The survey found mixed sentiment regarding farm finances. Nearly 43% of respondents described their farm’s financial condition over the past 12 months as good. However, when asked to compare their current condition to three years ago, 34% said things were somewhat worse, while only 20% said somewhat better.

Callie Eideberg, principal at the Vogel Group, says those results are not surprising given the economic pressures producers have faced.

“It doesn’t surprise me because there have been quite a number of policy decisions over the last year and a half that have put pressure on both cost in raising those costs and the prices that folks are paying for everyday goods,” Eideberg says.

“So if you’re a farmer who is trying to produce a crop, every single line item in your budget is getting more expensive,” she says. “But you’re also seeing the price that you’re getting paid for those crops decrease. And that is not a winning equation.”

Redpath says the survey results also reflect growing divisions within the ag economy itself.

“The thing that stands out foremost is that to quote Charles Dickens, it is somewhat of a tale of two cities,” Redpath says. “It’s the best of times if you’re sort of on the livestock side and it’s not the greatest of times for row crops, though improving.”

He points to improving grain prices but notes overall sentiment remains divided.

“We have seen prices for corn, for wheat especially, and for beans continue to escalate. So moving in a positive direction,” he says. “But I think that’s reflected in just sort of, you know, the 50-50 split that you see between, frankly, the forecast and sentiment for farmers.”

Will Farmers Change Their Vote?

Despite frustrations over policy and economics, Redpath says the survey showed relatively little appetite among producers to dramatically change voting behavior.

“Only 7%, and I go from the bottom of the polling results up, right? Cause it’s easy to say 60% this or 70% this, but take a look at it’s sort of the bottom piece,” Redpath says. “Only seven percent, seven percent single digits said that they were prepared today to vote for someone else.”

The survey found 61% of respondents said they planned to vote for the same party they supported in the last election, while 17% said they were reconsidering switching parties or voting independent.

(Farm Journal)

Eideberg notes that historically, midterm elections often challenge the party in power.

“Usually the midterm election right after the presidential election does not go well for the incumbent presidential party,” Eideberg says. “And in this case, we have what we call a Republican trifecta, where the Republicans hold the White House, the House, and the Senate.”

“So it’s very, very difficult for any incumbent right now, especially an incumbent in the majority, to blame somebody else because all of the policies that farmers, consumers, and all Americans are facing right now are a direct result of policy decisions made by the current leadership in Washington,” she says.

Why E15 Is Gaining Political Importance

Eideberg says one issue gaining traction among rural voters is year-round E15 approval. especially in key swing states.

“E15 has really risen in importance,” Eideberg says. “At least in the DC circles and outside in the heartland too, is being seen as a way to save farmers from bankruptcy at this point.”

She says weakening export markets have increased the urgency around finding additional domestic demand.

“We need, farmers need a secondary market to sell into,” Eideberg says. “And so E15 has really risen in importance.”

But the bigger theme emerging from the poll released this week specifically dissecting the ag vote may be not only the dwindling trust in government among those in agriculture, but also the overwhelming number of farmers who say those in Washington simply do not understand what is happening on farms and ranches across the country.

When asked whether that frustration is actually being heard in Washington, Tyson Redpath says he believes policymakers are paying attention, but structural challenges are making rural voices harder to hear. But for Redpath, the notion of farmers not being heard is something that’s known in Washington.

“I think so,” Redpath says. “As we’re talking about redistricting and the brushfire that has swept the country in terms of trying to redistrict state maps, even this close before an election, you had a landmark ruling on the Voting Rights Act out of the Supreme Court the week before last. You had the Virginia Supreme Court overrule their redistricting effort late last week.”

“Why do I bring all that up?” he says. “The typical congressional district today represents 728,000 people. It was the reapportionment process was never supposed to lead to a House of Representatives where each congressional district represents 720,000. What that means is the voice of the farmer, the voice of rural America gets lost when you have congressional districts.”

https://www.agweb.com/news/policy/ag-economy/paying-1-500-day-fuel-two-tractors-farmer-calls-input-costs-worst-1980s

For Redpath, that raises concerns that farmers and ranchers are increasingly being pushed farther from the center of the political conversation, despite agriculture’s critical role in the U.S. economy.

“We are victims of our own success,” Redpath says. “We are the most incredibly productive system of agriculture and farming that the world has ever known. You combine that with the fact that a congressional district now represents over 700,000 people, and it’s just really hard for Ag’s voice to be heard. More importantly, hard for AG’s voice to be understood.”

Agriculture’s Voice in Washington

That growing disconnect mirrors what political scientist Nicholas Jacobs says has become a decades-long erosion of trust, particularly in rural America.

“Trust in government, trust in what government says, the data that it puts out, the data that informs its policies, and since the 1970s it has just plummeted nationwide in this country,” Jacobs says.

“As fast as it’s fallen nationwide, it has hit rock bottom in rural areas,” he says.

For Jacobs, rebuilding that trust may ultimately be one of the country’s greatest political challenges.

“When I think about our political problems, I sort of end and begin with this question of trust, how we work together and how we solve problems together,” Jacobs says. “You can be conservative, you can be progressive, libertarian, but if you don’t have trust in the people around you, you ain’t getting anything done.”

The Growing Divide Between Rural and Urban America

The growing political importance of rural America has also drawn attention from academics studying voting trends.

Nicholas Jacobs, a professor at Colby College and co-author of The Rural Voter: The Politics of Place and the Disuniting of America , says the divide between rural and urban voters has been building for decades.

“We went all the way back until the early 1820s to understand whether or not this divide between cities and rural spaces is historically unprecedented,” Jacobs says. “You don’t have to buy the book. I’ll just tell you, it is.”

Jacobs says rural voters often prioritize local concerns differently than urban voters.

“Those issues tend to be very different than the issues that are talked about in national media,” Jacobs says. “People are thinking about their local community. I think people are thinking about what’s going on with the local school. Is my town government working? Are small businesses able to succeed?”

He says one of the biggest distinctions is how rural voters define progress.

“What we really need to ask them is, is your community better off than it was four years ago?” Jacobs says. “That is one of the biggest differences that we find between rural voters and urban voters is a different orientation to the political world.”

“What matters is the place, not always just the person,” he says.

Jacobs also notes that while fewer rural Americans work directly in agriculture today, farming still holds enormous cultural influence in rural communities.

“While a small and smaller still number of rural individuals are directly employed in agricultural industries, it’s like these industries are symbolically powerful and culturally meaningful,” Jacobs says.

Seismic Shift Unlikely in Midterms

He cautions against assuming any one issue or candidate will suddenly reshape rural voting patterns.

“This partisan realignment or this growing gap between rural and urban areas predates 2016,” Jacobs says. “It is decades in the making. And I think I’m not ever confident that a single issue or even a single candidate is really going to bring about a seismic shift in what has been a decades long transformation.”

Still, the broader message emerging from the survey may be less about partisan politics and more about trust.

“Trust in government, trust in what government says, the data that it puts out, the data that informs its policies, and since the 1970s it has just plummeted nationwide in this country,” Jacobs says.

“As fast as it’s fallen nationwide, it has hit rock bottom in rural areas,” he says.

For Jacobs, rebuilding that trust may ultimately be one of the country’s greatest political challenges.

“When I think about our political problems, I sort of end and begin with this question of trust, how we work together and how we solve problems together,” Jacobs says. “You can be conservative, you can be progressive, libertarian, but if you don’t have trust in the people around you, you ain’t getting anything done.”

Paying $1,500 a Day in Fuel for Two Tractors, Farmer Calls Input Costs Worst Since 1980s

Mon, 18 May 2026 17:19:46 GMT

Farmer sentiment heading into the midterm elections is being shaped by rising input costs, trade uncertainty and growing concerns about the future of rural communities, according to a new poll of Farm Journal readers .

More than half of the farmers surveyed say federal policies have negatively impacted their operations over the past year. And as input prices, including diesel and fertilizer, continue to climb, one Ohio farmer says these expenses, and the strain they’re shaving on his farm, haven’t been this bad since the 1980s.

Input Costs Continue to Climb

In the recent poll of nearly 1,000 farmers and ranchers, input costs ranked as the top concern among the farmers surveyed, with fertilizer, fuel and machinery expenses all contributing to tighter margins.

Fred Yoder of Plain City, Ohio, says when you break it down between the three, fuel costs are particularly burdensome this season.

“They’re all important this year, but unfortunately right now fuel is really costing us about $1,500 of cash per day to run two tractors,” Yoder says. “That’s a lot.”

(Farm Journal)

He says while diesel prices are causing the biggest concern today, fertilizer prices have also risen dramatically over the course of his farming career.

“I’ve spent many years buying potash for $90 a ton, and now it’s $670 to $700 a ton,” Yoder says. “The same potash, but it’s just a different time.”

Machinery repair costs have become another challenge, he says, because many replacement parts are imported and subject to tariffs and duties.

“A lot of those machinery repair items are made overseas and so they’re subject to tariffs and duties,” Yoder says. “It’s really kind of a perfect storm. You combine all that with inflation. We can blame the administration, we can blame the world economy, we can blame a lot of things, but they are all coming together at once.”

Yoder calls the current environment the toughest he has seen in decades, as the perfect storm of rising input prices are hammering farm operations across the country.

“It’s just ridiculous,” he says. “I’ve never seen anything this bad since the 1980s.”

Young Farmers Feeling the Pressure

Yoder says conditions have worsened over the past year, especially after many farmers delayed fertilizer purchases in hopes prices would decline.

“Why we didn’t book our fertilizer last fall for this year is because we thought it was going to go down,” Yoder says. “Instead we sat around and we booked it for a much higher price this spring.”

He says younger farmers are under increasing financial stress as margins tighten.

“I see a lot of our young farmers that are just struggling,” Yoder says. “We’ve had more dispersal sales planned for this coming year than I’ve seen since the 1980s. And that’s really unfortunate because that’s our future and we have to make sure that they have a way to survive.”

Trade Uncertainty Weighs on Farmers

While input costs are also a concern this year for Kristin Duncanson of Mapleton, Minn., she says uncertainty surrounding tariffs and trade policy are both weighing heavily on producers and contributing to broader economic concerns across rural America.

(Farm Journal)

“It would be easy for me to say that it’s just trade and tariffs and the lack of knowing exactly what’s going to happen when, but that kind of leads into the overall economy,” Duncanson says. “The price of our inputs is high. And I also have huge concerns about the slowing of the ag economy on rural communities. The implications are pretty great. And I’ve not in my 40 years, granted it’s only 40, seen a situation like this.”

Fewer Ag Voices in Washington

The Farm Journal poll also found nearly 74% of producers believe elected officials do not fully understand the realities farmers are facing.

Duncanson says agriculture still has advocates in Washington, but fewer lawmakers have direct ties to farming communities.

“Fred and I both spend a fair amount of time working with elected officials, and there are just fewer champions for us,” Duncanson says. “The members don’t have that much of an ag base anymore. And if they do, they are very caught in a real dilemma between the economy and doing things for the greater economy and really focusing on ag.”

(Farm Journal)

She says agriculture is still being heard, but by a smaller group of policymakers.

“I’m not going to say we aren’t listened to,” Duncanson says. “There’s just fewer people that listen to us.”

Yoder agrees and says the shrinking farm population has also changed public perception of agriculture.

“In my own community, we have so much lesser number of farmers,” Yoder says. “People are asking me, ‘Well, you got your planting done?’ or ‘Groceries are high, so you must be making lots of money.’ But unfortunately, it’s not true.”

He says consumers often do not realize how little producers receive compared to retail food prices.

“You take even beef, the amount you pay in the store compared to what the actual producer gets could be half,” Yoder says. “Everybody adds their cost to it.”

Yoder says farmers no longer receive the same level of understanding and support they once did.

“We’re fewer in numbers,” he says. “We’re still very efficient. But we just don’t have the perception that agriculture or farmers are hurting.”

Healthcare and Tariffs Could Shape Votes

About one in four farmers surveyed say they are open to changing how they vote in the midterms depending on the issues at stake.

Duncanson says healthcare access remains one of the biggest concerns for rural communities.

“I think a big one for us is healthcare, not just the cost, but the accessibility,” Duncanson says. “We’ve seen several rural hospitals and clinics in our area close. It’s tough to attract folks or keep folks out here when there’s not a good healthcare system.”

She says the issue ties directly back to the broader rural economy.

“Those services have closed because of healthcare costs and reimbursement rates, as well as just people not being out here or our ability to attract doctors,” she says.

(Farm Journal)

Duncanson also says renewable fuels and trade policy remain important issues for farmers heading into the election season.

“Just where people are on moving and getting creative of other things we can do with ag products and where we can sell them are also important,” she says. “Trade is a big thing still. NAFTA is up for renewal soon. We’ll all watch those things.”

Yoder says tariffs continue to dominate conversations among Ohio farmers.

“The majority has got a very, very hard line against tariffs,” Yoder says. “We hate tariffs. We want markets, and we want market-oriented programs.”

He says farmers also need policies that encourage innovation and reduce risk.

“There’s a real reason why farmers are raising mainly corn and soybeans because there’s the least risk in there,” Yoder says. “We’ve got to come up with ways that farmers cannot have such a risky time but maybe find a new alternative, a new corn, a new soybean or something to replace some of these things and maybe some of the input costs that we’re having now.”

What else did the new poll reveal? You can read the full results here.

House E15 Bill Could Boost Corn Prices While Pressuring Soybeans, FAPRI Finds

Tue, 12 May 2026 19:37:31 GMT

As the House prepares to vote on year-round E15 , there’s a new study out from the University of Missouri’s Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) , and it’s is giving agriculture and biofuels groups an early look at what expanded year-round E15 sales and changes to Small Refinery Exemptions (SRE) could mean for farmers and rural America. While there are positives for ethanol and corn demand, the report also highlights some clear tradeoffs, especially for soybean oil, biodiesel and even short-term farm income as soybeans could be negatively impacted by the House’s legislation.

According to FAPRI Director Seth Meyer, the study’s clearest takeaway is that year-round E15 alone doesn’t dramatically reshape the farm economy in the near term, but proposed changes to small refinery exemptions could pressure farm income while increasing government spending.

Meyer says the headline is pretty straightforward. The biggest market disruptions in the analysis don’t actually come from allowing year-round E15 sales. Instead, the larger economic consequences show up when the House proposal to reduce SRE reallocations gets layered into the equation.

“The key of the report is that E15 itself is not, at least in the short term, a major disruption to the market in terms of producer incomes or government costs,” Meyer says. “It becomes mostly a tradeoff between corn and soybeans.”

SRE Allocations Changes the Story

Meyer says the study found that if it was just a clean E15 bill, the results would be different. But when you factor in the SREs, and the fact it’s still unknown on how big that volume would end up being, the House version of the bill becomes a negative for the entire agriculture sector very quickly.

“I think what was important was to put out some information that says E15 in and of itself is largely, at least in the near term, a trade-off between corn and beans,” says Meyer. “It’s good for the corn part of the balance sheet, maybe a little harder on the soybean part of the ballot sheet because there are trade-offs. But then the bill also proposes small refinery exemptions that are essentially a reduction in the mandates, and that is a negative overall. That takes what is really a trade-off between corn and beans and makes it an overall negative for both what the government spends and for the farm income for the sector.”

In FAPRI’s modeling, reducing the amount of waived refinery obligations that get redistributed across the rest of the refining sector effectively lowers Renewable Fuel Standard volumes. That shift weakens biofuel feedstock demand and creates more pressure on soybean markets and farm income.

“It is the addition of the small refinery exemptions and the proposal to not reallocate 75% of those obligations that government costs we track begin to rise and farm income begins to fall,” Meyer explains. “Those SREs are the main drivers of government costs and reductions in farm income because they are, in effect, a reduction in the RVOs or mandates.”

The FAPRI analysis looked at three scenarios tied to HR 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act:

E15 expansion alone
E15 plus 600 million gallons of SRE reductions
E15 plus 900 million gallons of SRE reductions

Under the model, E15 adoption gradually grows by 0.25% annually, eventually pushing the average ethanol blend rate to 13% by 2035. That increase would add roughly 2 billion gallons of domestic ethanol use by the mid-2030s, while simultaneously changing the balance between ethanol and biomass-based diesel under the RFS structure.

What Happens to Corn and Soybeans?

FAPRI’s findings show E15 expansion boosts corn demand and corn acreage over time. By 2035, corn prices rise about 14 cents per bushel versus baseline levels, with additional corn acres pulled into production as ethanol demand expands.

But, according to the report, the gains for corn do not translate evenly across the broader crop sector. As ethanol demand rises, biomass-based diesel demand weakens, which directly pressures soybean oil values and eventually soybean prices. That’s especially true under the SRE scenarios, where lower mandated renewable fuel volumes further reduce demand for biodiesel feedstocks.

“So while corn may benefit, a reduction in the RVO has negative implications for soybeans that outweigh those corn benefits,” Meyer explains.

The report projects soybean prices could fall between 38 and 43 cents per bushel by 2035, depending on the SRE scenario. Soybean acreage also trends lower throughout the projection period as acres shift toward corn production.

Meanwhile, soybean oil prices take an even larger hit because biodiesel absorbs much of the downside under reduced RFS obligations. Meyer says that dynamic is rooted in how current mandates are being met today.

“You see bio-based diesel decline in all cases because, at the moment, the majority of the marginal gallons to meet the mandates are biodiesel,” Meyer says. “If you expand the small refinery exemptions, those volume reductions are no longer a tradeoff between ethanol and bio-based diesel, but a reduction in the marginal gallon, which is bio-based diesel.”

Farm Income Turns Negative Before Recovering

One of the more notable findings in the study is that net farm income trends negative for several years under the SRE scenarios before eventually recovering later in the outlook period. While stronger corn demand helps offset some losses, it isn’t enough in the early years to counter the broader drag from weaker soybean and bio-based diesel markets.

Under the larger 900-million-gallon SRE scenario, net farm income falls by as much as $1 billion annually during the early 2030s before improving later in the decade. FAPRI also projects higher government outlays under the SRE scenarios as weaker commodity prices trigger additional farm program support.

Meyer says soybean losses are the biggest driver behind the weaker farm income projections. He also notes that ripple effects extend into livestock feeding costs because of tighter soybean meal supplies and higher corn demand.

“The notable driver in the outcome is the losses for soybeans as the SREs cut mandates,” he adds.

The livestock sector also sees higher feed costs as corn demand rises and soybean meal supplies tighten. Over time, those higher feed costs work their way through animal agriculture and eventually impact consumer meat prices as producers adjust inventories and production decisions.

Key Points From the Study

E15 expansion alone modestly boosts corn demand with relatively limited disruption to overall farm income.
Reduced SRE reallocation lowers effective RFS mandates and creates the largest negative impacts on crop receipts and government outlays.
Biomass-based diesel demand declines more sharply than ethanol demand under the proposed changes.
Corn acreage rises while soybean acreage falls across all scenarios.
The long-term outcome depends heavily on how quickly E15 adoption actually happens — and whether EPA eventually expands the conventional ethanol “gap” above 15 billion gallons.

That final point may be one of the biggest wildcards in the entire discussion, said Meyer. FAPRI’s analysis assumes the conventional ethanol portion of the Renewable Fuel Standard effectively remains capped near 15 billion gallons. If EPA policy or future legislation allows that cap to move higher, the economics for agriculture could look considerably different.

“You call out a very important assumption,” Meyer says. “If the passage of E15 were to drive an expansion of that 15-billion-gallon conventional gap to 16 or 17 billion gallons and raise total mandates by that same amount, this would increase benefits or reduce losses in the ag sector across all the scenarios.”

Corn Growers React, Disagrees With “Two Fundamental Assumptions”

The recent analyses examining the potential impacts of year-round E15 adoption are drawing sharp disagreement from the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA), which says key assumptions in those models undercut the policy’s real-world effects.

In response to the reports, Krista Swanson, NCGA’s chief economist, argued that the studies fail to account for recent federal biofuel policy changes and underestimate how quickly E15 could be adopted in the marketplace.

“We disagree with two fundamental assumptions with recent analyses related to year-round E15 adoption: they do not factor in the historically high final RVO volumes recently set for biomass-based diesel and they assume slower E15 adoption than industry projections,” Swanson says.

Swanson added that NCGA’s own modeling reaches a very different conclusion on the policy’s impact on farm income and fuel markets.

“NCGA has also conducted its own analysis of year-round E15 and all outcomes point in the same direction: E15 strengthens corn demand and farm income for corn farmers, most of whom also raise soybeans. Year-round E15 saves drivers money at the pump, supports America’s corn farmers and improves energy security for our country. H.R. 1346 deserves a yes vote.”

The Biggest Unknowns

Meyer says there are still several major uncertainties surrounding both E15 adoption and how EPA ultimately implements future RFS obligations. Those unknowns could significantly alter how these market impacts unfold over the next decade.

“I don’t think there is a single assumption on this complicated issue, so let me state three,” he adds. “First is the true path of E15 expansion and more importantly, the second is how that might drive changes in mandates as a result. Third, what is the true volume of exemptions that would result from the legislation? Because we don’t have this information, we did two scenarios.”

The pace of actual consumer adoption also matters. While the model assumes gradual E15 growth over time, Meyer says a slower adoption curve would likely soften some of the corn demand benefits while making the negative impacts tied to SRE reductions more apparent.

“If growth in E15 is slower and we look just at the ‘clean’ E15, it just changes the amount of tradeoffs between corn and soybeans,” Meyer said. “But if we had slower E15 growth with SRE reductions, we would show more negative impacts on crop prices and farm income from the SREs.”

Diesel Prices Are Breaking Records Across Multiple States, And Relief May Not Come in 2026

Wed, 06 May 2026 12:53:35 GMT

On Tuesday, President Trump stated that high gasoline prices are a “very small price to pay” for the ongoing war with Iran, arguing they are necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He predicted prices will “come crashing down” once the war ends. But for farmers and ranchers, diesel prices have risen more than gas, putting a further strain on already high input costs for 2026.

Trump on Oil Prices:

I looked today, it's like at 102 and that's a very small price to pay pic.twitter.com/2V8LC93wFj
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 5, 2026

To start the week, diesel prices went on another run with the national average diesel price is just 20 cents away from reaching a new all-time high. And across the country, a growing number of states aren’t waiting to get there. About six states are already seeing the national average price of diesel reach record highs.

From the Great Lakes to the West Coast, roughly a half dozen states have already smashed previous records, as a late-April dip in prices quickly faded and a fresh surge took hold.

“Diesel now averaging about $5.65 a gallon nationally. That is only about 20 cents away from a new all-time record high,” says Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy . “So even though we had that short-lived break, we’re right back knocking on the door of records again.”

That “break” didn’t last long. De Haan says even though diesel prices saw a bit of a respite for April, with even prices starting to trend down in mid-April, those prices re-accelerated in the last week.

New records for diesel in:
Michigan, $6.01
Illinois, $6.01
Wisconsin $5.67
(Indiana 0.2c/gal away), $6.03
(Ohio ~19c/gal away), $5.93 https://t.co/DV0387vvMR
— Patrick De Haan (@GasBuddyGuy) May 5, 2026

Now, the rally is showing up in state-by-state records, especially in the Midwest.

“Looking at it state by state, Great Lakes states have seen some tremendous refining issues that have really caused prices to rise dramatically,” he says. “Michigan has now set a new all-time record high for diesel over $6. Indiana is just a few tenths of a penny away from setting a new all-time record. Illinois has set a new all-time record. Wisconsin has set a new all-time record.”

And it’s not just a regional story. States in the West were some of the first to not just see the highest prices, but now also hit record levels.

“Out on the West Coast, Arizona set a record a couple of weeks ago, and Washington state is at an all-time record,” he adds. “So there are probably about a half dozen or so states that have set new all-time records, and again, the national average itself is just 20 cents away.”

Perhaps the most telling shift, though, is there’s no longer a low-price refuge.

“No states any longer have diesel averaging below $5 a gallon,” De Haan says. “Texas was the last holdout, and it now is above $5 per gallon. So across the board, $5 diesel is now essentially the floor, and in some areas, that’s actually the cheaper end of the spectrum.”

At the high end, prices are reaching extremes with California’s average diesel price now surpassing $8 per gallon.

Global Tensions Cloud Relief Outlook

With prices continuing to climb, farmers are looking for relief. What would it take to reverse course? That answer remains tied to global uncertainty.

“Relief may be a little bit elusive,” De Haan admits. “It really just depends on the daily developments in the situation between the U.S. and Iran—whether the Strait is open or not, or whether we’re in phases of escalation.”

The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical chokepoint for global energy supply, moving roughly 20 million barrels of oil per day.

“Nothing else matters to the oil market more than this waterway,” he emphasizes. “We’ve seen attacks that have pushed oil prices higher, which in turn pushes diesel wholesale prices up. You may get a little bit of day-to-day relief, but there really is no ‘coast is clear’ until there’s some sort of definitive resolution.”

And even then, he says a turnaround won’t happen overnight.

“If there is a definitive signal to the market, if the Strait reopens and both sides are aligned, prices could start falling within 48 hours,” De Haan explained. “But the rate of decline is likely to slow after that initial drop.”

Prices Likely to Remain Elevated Through 2026

Not only is the rate of decline projected to be slow, but De Haan says diesel prices aren’t likely to drop back to pre-war levels by the end of the year.

“Roughly half of the increase we’ve seen over the last couple of months could come down within the first few months of positive news,” he said. “But the other half could take many more months. We may not get back to pre-conflict diesel prices until late this year—or even into 2027.”

For agriculture, that prolonged stretch of elevated prices carries real consequences.

“When you look at what comes out of a barrel of oil, diesel only makes up about 25%,” De Haan explained. “Gasoline is a larger portion, so it’s been less impacted. Jet fuel, which is an even smaller share, has been hit the hardest. So it’s almost inverse to how much is produced.”

Why Diesel Is Climbing Faster Than Gasoline

If it feels like diesel prices are rising faster and hitting harder than gasoline, there’s a reason rooted in how a barrel of oil gets used.

“Diesel has seen more of the sticker shock compared to gasoline,” says De Haan. “And a lot of that comes down to what comes out of a barrel of oil.”

Not all fuels are created equally in supply. Gasoline makes up the largest share of a refined barrel, while diesel represents a smaller slice, making it more vulnerable when supply is disrupted.

“Gasoline is the top product flowing out of a barrel of oil, so it’s been the least impacted,” De Haan explains. “Diesel, on the other hand, only accounts for about 25% of a barrel, so it’s been more impacted when there are supply issues.”

That imbalance becomes even clearer when looking across the full spectrum of refined fuels.

“The most significant impact has actually been to jet fuel, which is only about 9% of a barrel,” he adds. “So if you look at it inversely—the smaller the share of the barrel, the bigger the impact we’re seeing right now.”

For agriculture, that dynamic matters more than most sectors.

Diesel isn’t optional on the farm. It’s essential. From planting to harvest, it powers tractors, trucks and the supply chain that moves commodities across the country.

“Diesel is the fuel that drives agriculture,” De Haan say. “And that’s why these price increases are so impactful, not just at the pump, but all the way through the economy.”

And while prices are already elevated, the full effect is still working its way downstream.

“Consumers really haven’t even seen the full onset of some of these higher prices yet,” he adds. “That’s going to continue to trickle through in the weeks ahead.”

Demand Holding...for Now

Even with these high prices, so far, demand hasn’t shown many signs of slowing.

“We have not seen much meaningful decrease in demand yet,” De Haan says. “We’ve seen very little, if any, diesel demand destruction so far, which tells you the economy is essentially preparing to pay these prices because it still needs the fuel.”

But there are warning signs ahead.

“If diesel nationally hits $6 a gallon, that’s likely when we start to see consumption slow,” he says. “For gasoline, that number is about $5 a gallon. We’re getting very close to those thresholds.”

Until then, the pressure continues to mount. And for farmers heading deeper into the growing season, that pressure is becoming harder to ignore.

Analysts Fear 2027 Could Be The Toughest Year Yet For Farm Margins

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 20:09:43 GMT

The most important tool on many U.S. farms this spring isn’t a tractor or a high-speed planter — it’s a pencil. Faced with climbing fertilizer costs, some growers are still hunched over spreadsheets and notepads as April shifts to May, trying to determine if corn or soybeans can pencil out.

Market analysts Naomi Blohm of Total Farm Marketing and Matt Bennett of AgMarket.net say they believe the current planting season remains in a state of flux as farmers’ input budgets are tightened to the breaking point.

According to a recent American Farm Bureau Federation survey, 48% of Midwest farmers say they cannot afford their full fertilizer needs for this season.

“Farmers who haven’t paid for fertilizer, are running behind, or are stuck out of the field due to weather are having to factor that into their decision-making,” Bennett says.

Blohm is seeing this reality play out in real-time with her clients. “Two of them openly shared this [past] week that they booked some fertilizer early and went with corn on those acres,” she reports. “But for the remaining acres, they had to stop and think it through and ultimately decided to switch to soybeans.”

Bennett notes that while soybean futures aren’t necessarily “explosive,” they could be a safer bet for cash-strapped operations. “If I’m a grower, and I’m sitting here trying to figure out whether I can make money putting $1,000, $1,100 [of nitrogen an acre] into this corn crop, I look over on the board on beans, and you’re looking at a price a lot of growers can make work just with average yields,” he says.

Blohm adds that what farmers decide to plant will be much clearer by USDA’s June 30 acreage report.

A Three-Year Financial Drain

The current financial stress isn’t happening in a vacuum. Bennett points out that consecutive years of financial pressure have taken their toll across the Midwest.

“The liquidity drain over the last three years has made it really tough for people, and we are even seeing an equity drain for some,” Bennett says. “When cash is this tight, it highlights why you might plant soybeans if you don’t have your anhydrous or urea on yet.”

The fertilizer crisis is fueled by global energy markets and geopolitical instability. Blohm points to India’s recent, aggressive moves to secure supply as a sign of things to come.

“I saw that India this week booked what they needed for fertilizer at double the cost,” she says. “But they don’t have a choice really, based on the amount of wheat that they grow in the world. They have to have a good wheat crop there, and they need that fertilizer.”

Bennett adds the issue isn’t just price — it’s access. “India bought 2.5 million tons of urea to front-run a potentially problematic situation,” he notes. “Disrupted natural gas facilities create a cascade effect that impacts anhydrous and urea production globally.”

2027: “It Scares the Daylights Out of Me”

While 2026 is beyond difficult, analysts are sounding the alarm for 2027. During an afternoon AgriTalk segment , host Michelle Rook asked if 2027 will be even worse.

“It scares the daylights out of me,” Bennett replied. “Projected cash flows and breakevens for 2027 don’t look good at all. Even if someone talks about $5 corn, you have to look at what you’ll have invested in it.”

Blohm agrees that the uncertainty is unprecedented. “Producers have to stay on their toes,” she says. “We don’t know if this shock will be a springboard for higher prices or if it will simply compress margins further.”

The Rotation Debate: Markets vs. Agronomics

How will crop rotations look by 2027? Farm Journal regularly reaches out to a vetted list of 80 ag economists from across the industry. Providing directional insights, the latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows almost half of the respondents (seven of 16) to the April survey expect soybeans to gain more acres due to renewable diesel demand.

Northeast Iowa farmer Tim Recker sees some potential for a shift. “Renewable diesel demand underpins my local market,” he says. “I see value in policies that turn surplus crops into fuel, but we have to remember that Brazil is still eating our lunch in the global market.”

Central Illinois grain producer and hog producer Chad Lehman has a more cautious outlook.

“Pigs need corn,” Lehman says. “There are real risks with bean-on-bean rotations, including yield penalties and agronomic challenges. Even with more crush capacity, soybean meal prices remain strong, which reinforces the need for steady corn production.”

University of Missouri Agricultural Economist Ben Brown suggests that while “swing acres” might lean toward soybeans next season, many farmers will stick with their rotations.

“I believe 85% of acreage is determined by rotation,” Brown says. “That leaves only 15% to be adjusted based on outside influences.”

Long-Term Risks Of Changing Rotations

Shifting rotations in 2027 can’t be a financial decision only; it carries long-term agronomic consequences. Connor Sible, associate professor and row-crop field researcher at the University of Illinois, cautions that fertilizer cuts made this season could contribute to nutrient depletion in soils.

“If we pull back on nutrients now, those minerals are going to have to come from somewhere — likely the soil supply,” Sible says. “We want to maintain a healthy system over time, so we can’t go too far with input pullbacks.”

For those farmers already eyeing a move to soybeans in 2027, Sible recommends starting the planning process now.

“Think about what herbicide programs you are putting out this summer,” he advises. “You need to account for potential carryover effects if you switch the rotation in a field that was planned for corn to go with soybeans.”

You can hear more from farmers Chad Lehman and Tim Recker and their thoughts on the year ahead in this discussion on AgriTalk, available at the link below:

Farmers Emphasize Demand, Not Payments, Is The ‘Bridge To Better Times' For Agriculture

Wed, 22 Apr 2026 22:25:36 GMT

Two Midwest farmers are pinning their hopes for the future on stronger demand for corn and soybeans — especially the latter — as they navigate tight margins, high input costs, and an uncertain price outlook.

Northern Illinois farmer Steve Pitstick and south-central Iowa farmer Dennis Bogaards say they have exhausted most cost-cutting options for this season. They believe future profitability now rests on whether demand for both crops — particularly from domestic soybean crush and fuel markets — expands enough to support higher prices.

One silver lining currently, Pitstick says, is his relatively strong position on fertilizer heading into the 2026 planting season.

“We will do pretty much the dry spread program we always do,” he says. “We cut the rates a little bit on the phosphates just because of price. We booked our 32% in September, something we traditionally do. We have all the nitrogen bought, so I feel good about 2026 from that aspect.”

While he believes additional fertilizer is available, he notes it will likely be priced at a premium.

“I believe I can get more if I need it. I may not like the price, but I can get more,” he told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory during the weekly Farmer Forum segment.

Little To No Expansion On The Horizon

As the season begins, both farmers emphasize that the coming years will have farmers focusing on survival and strategic adjustments rather than acreage expansion.

One adjustment Bogaards is making is front-loading some of his nitrogen needs this season while leaving a portion open in case prices break.

“We booked anhydrous early on for this year, back in early fall, and got an OK price,” Bogaards says. “I have a little bit of sidedress that we do. We book about half of that, and I sit open on the rest of it. I’ll wait and see where it goes.”

Bogaards remains committed to sidedressing as long as product is available and prices do not continue ratcheting up. “If I can get it, I’ll put it on, unless it is a crazy, crazy price,” he says.

Like many U.S. growers, both Bogaards and Pitstick say there is virtually no room left to cut fertilizer use without risking yields.

“There is no place to cut back. We are being as efficient as we can be,” Pitstick says.

Bogaards agrees, noting that nitrogen is not the place to skimp. “Maybe a year or so, you can cut back on the P and K a little bit, but you do not want to get caught in three or four years of that.”

He also remains reluctant to drop fungicides. “Fungicides really pay off,” he says. “In the past, we did not use them, but the last few years they really paid, and I would hate to not spray them.”

Uncertainty About The 2027 Crop Mix

While the 2026 crop is largely “business as usual,” both farmers told Flory that 2027 brings real uncertainty—especially regarding nitrogen supplies. Pitstick is concerned about how global demand could impact costs for U.S. producers.

“I am worried about the price of the nitrogen,” he says. “It may not be an issue in the United States from a supply standpoint, but the rest of the world… could export our product because of opportunity cost, and that drives the price up. It is a total wait and see.”

Flory underscored how global trade flows directly shape what American farmers pay, noting that some fertilizer shipments originally destined for the U.S. were recently rerouted.

“Some boats are diverted from the U.S. to other countries,” Flory says. “If you want your share, you have to beat the next guy in line with the price.”

If nitrogen prices soar while corn prices stagnate, Pitstick says his rotation could shift. “That might change how we do things in 2027. We may have to go to more soybeans,” he says.

Bogaards also expects to alter his corn–soybean mix, given the potential demand from domestic crush and renewable fuels.

“In the past, we were probably 60% to 65% corn,” he says. “We have been backing off of that. I still do a little bit of corn-on-corn, but I might try to go to a 50–50 rotation.”

Flory believes this shift could help rebalance supplies and improve price prospects. “If we can pull some acres away from corn and get this thing rebalanced, maybe that is our bridge to a better time,” Flory says. “Our bridge to a better time is more demand across the board and crops competing for acres — not another payment.”

Bogaards says the shifting economics are already evident. “A couple of years ago, people said soybeans are a drag on our financial statements. It looks like almost the opposite right now.”

Even so, Bogaards is cautious about making long-term decisions based on short-term signals. “I can change acres right now, but by next fall, it might be the worst decision. I think you have to go with your rotation and stick with it.”

Pitstick links his long-term outlook to fuel sector growth, noting that both corn and soybeans increasingly function as energy crops.

“Some of the most profitable years of my career were when we had high fuel prices because we were also a fuel crop,” he says. “I have some optimism that these high fuel prices will cause some demand and increase our crop prices.”

For now, both farmers say their immediate job is to manage through 2026 while keeping their options open. With high costs for fertilizer, fuel, and machinery, they see expanded demand as the only realistic path forward.

“It is just survival at this point,” Bogaards says. “We just have to make sure we can survive and keep plugging through it.”

You can listen to the complete discussion between Bogaards, Pitstick and Flory on AgriTalk at the link below:

‘If You’re Still Farming, You’ve Already Done Most of It’

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:26:35 GMT

On Chad Ingels’ northeast Iowa farm, every pass across the field is under the microscope as he fights to keep tight margins from slipping into the red.

“Oh, it’s tough,” Ingels said during an AgriTalk Farmer Forum discussion on Wednesday. “I think we’re going to have to really look at in-season passes that we planned to do. Maybe we’ll have to cut back one or two of those.”

Ingels, who splits his time between the farm and the Iowa Statehouse in Des Moines, says he can’t afford to simply slash expenses without weighing the risk to corn and soybean performance.

“You don’t want to impact yield,” he says. “You really want to take a look at what your return on investment is going to be on those passes.”

Across the Midwest, farmers like Ingels and Wisconsin grower and United Soybean Board director Tony Mellenthin are grappling with what they both describe as an “input price problem.” Corn and soybean prices have improved modestly from their lows, but fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs remain stubbornly high.

“I don’t think we necessarily have a corn or soybean price problem,” Mellenthin told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory. “We really have an input price problem, and until that can kind of get that addressed and fixed, that’s what I’m more concerned about than the price of corn and beans.”

Squeezing More From Every Dollar

On Ingels’ operation, the immediate response to high input costs is a sharper pencil and a more disciplined marketing plan.

In the field, that means reassessing every in-season trip across the crop. He’s eyeballing fertilizer or crop protection passes that might have been routine in good years, but now must clear a stricter bar: Will they pay?

On the balance sheet, Ingels says the focus turns to risk management and pricing discipline.

“Then it’s going to get to the marketing side,” he says. “We need to really do a better job of marketing corn and beans and — if we get a price run up — protect that run up so we can take advantage of it.”

The livestock side of the farm, he adds, is helping stabilize the operation, though it’s no windfall.

“The hog side is better than the crop side, but it’s not anywhere near like the beef side has been,” Ingels explains.

His hogs are sold into a specialty market through Niman Ranch, which ties its base price to grain and input costs.

“They’re setting a good base for us based on the corn and bean prices and our input costs,” Ingels says. “As we look out in the futures, the commercial price last year got higher than our base price, and so they adjusted our contract to say, ‘Hey, you’re going to get the better of the base price or the increased commercial price if the commercial price is higher.’”

That kind of contract flexibility, Ingels suggests, is one way the broader ag industry can help farmers weather volatile cost structures.

‘Not A Whole Lot Left To Do’

In western Wisconsin, Mellenthin says most of the fat has already been trimmed from farm budgets.

“If you’re still farming today, you’ve already done most of it, so there’s not a whole lot left to do,” he says. “There’s a little bit of tweaking to do, but I wouldn’t say there’s really any cuts to do.”

Instead of dramatic reductions, Mellenthin is stretching out capital decisions and switching to lower-cost inputs. That includes extending machinery trade cycles to delay big-ticket purchases and substituting generic fungicides for name-brand products when performance is comparable.

On the fertility side for corn, Mellenthin’s farm has been managing its nitrogen use through smaller, more targeted applications.

“We’ve been doing that for over a decade now,” he says. “There’s some of our ground that gets four passes of nitrogen.”

Recently, he’s begun to lean into alternative nitrogen sources to reduce dependence on high-priced synthetics. He points to biological products as one example.

“We have started utilizing some Pivot Bio,” he notes. “We haven’t seen a yield reduction, while at the same time reducing synthetic nitrogen, but we haven’t seen a yield gain, either. So I think we’re able to maintain there. And this year, that was the cheapest form of nitrogen a guy could buy.”

Policy and Industry: What Farmers Want Next

While individually they work to control what they can, both Ingels and Mellenthin are looking upstream — to input suppliers, processors and policymakers — to tackle what they can’t fix alone.

Regarding policy, Ingels points to the impact of global conflict and trade policy on fertilizer costs.

“There’s still some concerns out there with the war and how that’s impacted fertilizer prices going forward,” he notes. He adds that the greatest worry may lie beyond the current season to 2027, as farmers consider the next round of purchases.

During the discussion, Flory referenced efforts by the National Corn Growers Association and other ag organizations to push the administration to remove countervailing duties on phosphate imports from Morocco — one example of how farm groups are trying to pull down input prices through policy changes.

Ingels says those kinds of structural issues in fertilizer pricing could ultimately have more impact on future acreage decisions than anything farmers can do on their own fields this spring.

Demand, Renewable Fuels and Market Signals

Both farmers also stressed the importance of growing demand for the crops they produce, to help offset stubbornly high costs.

From his seat in the Iowa House, Ingels is backing measures aimed at strengthening markets for corn and soybeans, including renewable fuels. He references the Iowa Farm Act, saying it would increase the cap on the renewable fuels infrastructure fund grants to retailers from $100,000 to $150,000, and also help finance upgrades so more stations can offer E15 and higher ethanol blends.

“Retailers are taking advantage of that,” Ingels says “A few years ago, we had an E15 bill that went through… It certainly incentivized that all retailers handle E15 over time. And so this fund is being utilized all the time, and we’re trying to get to those last bit of retailers that maybe their costs are higher.”

At the federal level, though, Ingels is frustrated with delays on year-round E15 approval.

“This is the most frustrating thing I think the federal government has done to us,” he says. “They just keep kicking this down the road. We need to get it done.”

For soybean growers, Mellenthin is looking for similarly clear, long-term signals on low-carbon fuels.

In Wisconsin, he notes, lawmakers and the governor have already taken a supportive step by promoting “soy-based firefighting foam” to replace PFAS-based products. Nationally, Mellenthin wants to see the same kind of certainty for biomass-based diesel and other soy-driven fuels.

“We’ll take the good news when we can get it,” Mellenthin says of recent positive developments for biomass-based diesel. “Hopefully that could give a little certainty so infrastructure and investments can maintain being used.”

Trump Considers Suspending Moroccan Phosphate Duties Amid Corn Grower Pressure

Wed, 25 Mar 2026 12:53:44 GMT

For corn farmers like Dee Vaughan, the economics of fertilizer aren’t just a simple line item on the balance sheet; they are immediate, seasonal and deeply tied to whether a crop pencils out.

As a corn grower in the Texas Panhandle, Vaughan says rising input costs have forced tough decisions in recent years, particularly when it comes to phosphate, a cornerstone nutrient for crop production. And he says a key factor behind those higher costs is a federal trade policy now under review. At the heart of the issue, Vaughan says, is access, or lack of it.

That’s why just this week more than 50 state grower groups including the Texas Corn Producers Association, are urging the U.S. Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission (ITC) to revoke countervailing duties (CVDs) on imported phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. The groups filed a letter with the Department of Commerce, urging the agency to revoke countervailing duties on imports of phosphate fertilizer as the sunset review begins.

In addition to the letter, corn groups are on Capitol Hill this week, and that push may be gaining traction. On Tuesday, Agri-Pulse reported The Trump administration is weighing temporarily suspending countervailing applied to Moroccan and Russian phosphate.

How the Duties Took Hold

Vaughan says any action to remove those duties wouldn’t just be welcome, it would be a long time coming. He says the current dispute dates back to 2020, when fertilizer manufacturer Mosaic filed a petition alleging Moroccan phosphate imports were being subsidized unfairly. After reviewing the case, the ITC and Department of Commerce imposed countervailing duties on those imports.

“And basically what we have is a situation where The Mosaic Company came to the International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce back in 2020 and asked for a countervailing duty, a CVD, to be placed on Moroccan fertilizer,” Vaughan says. “They were claiming that Moroccan fertilizer was coming into the United States in an unfair manner.”

He says the ruling reshaped the global fertilizer flow into the U.S. market.

“The ITC and the Department of Commerce reviewed that request and they applied a countervailing duty on Moroccan fertilizer, which effectively locked Moroccan fertilizer out of the U.S. market,” Vaughan says.

That outcome, he says, has had lasting consequences, particularly because Morocco represents one of the world’s most significant sources of phosphate.

“Morocco has the largest phosphate deposits in the world,” Vaughan says. “They have the ability to provide a lot of supply to us while our phosphate rock resources are declining here. They’re not capable of meeting the demand for the U.S. market.”

Supply Constraints Meet Rising Demand

For corn growers, phosphate isn’t optional. It’s essential for root development, plant vigor and yield potential. When supply tightens, growers feel it quickly and often adjust in ways that ripple across the entire agricultural economy.

“We need that access to the Moroccan fertilizer, but we’re blocked off from it by these countervailing duties,” Vaughan says.

Now, five years after those duties were imposed, the policy is entering its required “sunset review,” a process that allows regulators to evaluate whether the measures should remain in place.

That review begins in April, and Vaughan says corn growers see it as a critical opportunity to get the duties removed.

“Five years have gone by since those CVDs were applied, and now they are coming up for mandatory review,” he says. “There will be an opportunity to remove those CVDs.”

Measuring the Economic Impact

The push to remove the duties is backed by economic analysis.

Vaughan says conversations with lawmakers last year helped spur a deeper look at the issue. During meetings in Washington, D.C., Texas Corn raised concerns with members of Congress, including Rep. Pat Fallon, who then commissioned a study by the Texas A&M Ag and Food Policy Center. The results, Vaughan says, were significant.

“What they determined is for the program crops — corn, wheat, grains, oilseeds, rice — it had cost about $6.9 billion over the five years that the CVD has been in place,” Vaughan says.

The analysis released in January of this year added to the growing body of evidence that countervailing duties on phosphate imports have significantly impacted U.S. farmers.

The Texas A&M Food and Agricultural Policy Center report specifically found the CVD increased the price of diammonium phosphate (DAP), a commonly used phosphorus fertilizer, by 28.6% during the period when the duty was set at its full initial rate of 19.97%. That price impact, the study notes, aligns with concerns raised by farm groups and lawmakers, as well as previous academic research.

The study also estimates the higher costs have added roughly $6.9 billion to phosphorus fertilizer expenses for U.S. producers of major crops during the 2021 through 2025 growing seasons, further underscoring the financial burden on agriculture tied to the policy.

“It’s not a silver bullet in itself that if it’s removed it’s going to make phosphate fertilizer much more affordable,” he says. “But at the same time, if we can keep a billion dollars in the farmers’ pockets, that’s a small win that we want to take advantage of.”

Fertilizer Companies Respond

Farm Journal reached out to fertilizer companies for perspective on potential action to remove the countervailing duties on phosphate imports.

In a statement, Mosiac said, “American farmers depend on a strong domestic fertilizer industry, which in turn depends on strong enforcement of US trade laws that ensure a level playing field. Mosaic is proud to support U.S. agriculture with high‑quality, reliable products produced here at home.”

Earlier this month, Nutrien told Farm Journal the evolving global supply and demand landscape for phosphate supports reconsideration of the current policy.

“Based on evolving global phosphate supply and demand dynamics since 2021, we believe removing countervailing duties on phosphate imports would be a constructive step that supports U.S. farmer economics, balanced fertilizer application and agricultural productivity,” Nutrien said to Farm Journal. “Farmers and food security are at the center of everything we do, and we continuously engage with our customers and associations on issues that are important to U.S. agriculture.”

A Broader Policy Question

While Vaughan is advocating for the removal of these specific duties, he says he recognizes the importance of trade enforcement tools more broadly.

“You know, we do have situations around the world where governments subsidize their industries, or they do things that are unfair trade practices,” he says. “And we need to protect U.S. industry in those situations.”

However, he argues this case highlights the risk of unintended consequences.

“We don’t want that CVD process abused when it’s not necessary,” Vaughan says. “And that’s the situation we feel like we’re in now.”

In his view, the duties have outlived whatever purpose they may have served — and are now doing more harm than good.

“We felt like they never should have been applied,” he says. “If you read the case, it’s very complicated, but it also makes you scratch your head and wonder why they even granted these CVDs to start with.”

Taking the Case to Washington

With the sunset review approaching, grower groups are mobilizing to make their case. Texas Corn is in Washington this week, meeting with lawmakers and encouraging them to weigh in with regulators.

“During this review period, there’s an opportunity for ag organizations to make comments and to testify at hearings,” Vaughan says. “There’s an opportunity for Congress to weigh in with the Department of Commerce.”

While the ITC operates independently, it does consider input from affected industries and elected officials.

“They’re charged with listening to the affected industries, which would be agricultural producers,” Vaughan says. “And of course members of Congress have an opportunity to weigh in with how it’s affecting their constituents at home.”

The goal, he says, is to ensure decision-makers understand the real-world impact.

Looking Ahead

For Vaughan and other corn growers, the outcome of the review could shape fertilizer markets — and farm economics — for years to come.

Restoring access to Moroccan phosphate, he says, would reintroduce competition, improve supply and help ease cost pressures across agriculture.

“It’s basically just hurting U.S. industry now,” Vaughan says. “It’s not helping.”

And while Morocco has other markets for its fertilizer, U.S. farmers have fewer alternatives when domestic supply falls short.

“It’s not really hurting the Moroccans per se,” he says. “They’re having to send fertilizer to other places in the world. But it’s hurting U.S. farmers.”

As planting season ramps up, Vaughan says the stakes are clear, not just for growers, but for the entire food system.

“We’re very hopeful that ag organizations and members of Congress take advantage of this situation and weigh in,” he says. “This is an opportunity to fix something that’s been costing agriculture for five years.”

Farm Groups Call On Trump and Congress to Include Farmer Aid in Military Funding Package

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 18:56:43 GMT

As Congress considers a military funding package, relief for farmers might become a key component of the legislative equation. More than 50 farmer groups are asking President Trump and Congress to include aid in the package. The letter sites severe weather conditions, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz and sustained market pressure as their reasons for additional funding.

The farm groups also ask for strong Renewable Volume Obligations under the Renewable Fuel Standard, year-round E-15 and opportunities for farmers in the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit. Republican lawmakers are reportedly debating a plan to include $15 billion in relief for producers to mitigate impacts stemming from the conflict in Iran. The proposal, first reported by Politico, appears to be gaining traction in the federal government.

“We appreciate your longstanding commitment to rural America. Now is the time to ensure that American agriculture can weather this period of extraordinary strain. Without timely assistance, continued losses risk accelerating farm closures, reducing domestic production capacity and weakening the ability of farmers and ranchers across this great nation to provide food, clothes and fuel for the American people,” the letter said.

USDA Evaluating Implementation Strategies

Richard Fordyce, USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation, says members of Congress reached out to the department about a month ago to seek technical advice on implementing additional assistance.

“We do hear some signals that there is a desire to offer some additional assistance,” Fordyce said on “AgriTalk” recently. “When I say technical assistance it would be Congress, either the Senate or the House, actually proactively reaching out to us and asking us questions about what would be the best way to implement this.”

For quick dispersal, Fordyce says USDA suggests Congress should model new payments after the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program.

“We’ve had those conversations. I don’t know where they are at this point, but I do hear signals that there’s still a desire to do something. I just don’t know what that number would look like,” he expains.

Economic Concerns Over Ad Hoc Assistance

While the potential for aid is welcomed by many in the industry, some agricultural leaders express caution regarding the long-term effects of ad hoc payments.

Matt Perdue, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, says he supports additional aid because many farmers require the funds to survive the current year. However, he remains concerned about how payments influence the broader agricultural economy.

“I think long-term we have to look at the ways in which ad hoc assistance and the farm safety net are really fueling higher land prices, really fueling higher input costs,” Perdue says.

Perdue notes while farmers are currently battling immediate financial pressures that aid could alleviate, the industry must eventually address these underlying long-term challenges.

“Short-term, the problem is how do we make sure producers have the money they need to get through 2026. The long-term problem is how do we make sure we have a safety net that really reflects the reality that is 2026, 2027 and the years ahead?” Perdue says. “I think both of those are important questions, and we’re wrestling with both at the same time.”

Status of Farmer Bridge Assistance Program Payments

Fordyce says USDA has received close to 400,000 applications for the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program. Of that about an eighth were submitted electronically.

“We’re getting close to $9 billion obligated in that program out of a total of $11 billion,” he adds.

Deadline to apply for the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program: April 17.

USDA Ag Outlook: Farm Economy 'Making Progress' in 2026, But Headwinds Persist

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 22:03:50 GMT

For the first time in several years, the heavy cloud of skyrocketing production costs is beginning to lift, according to USDA chief economist Justin Benavidez. Speaking at USDA’s 102^nd annual Agricultural Outlook Forum on Thursday , Benavidez unveiled a 2026 forecast that suggests “progress is being made,” even as the row-crop sector navigates a significant transition in acreage and a shifting policy landscape.

After his outlook, Farm Journal had the chance to speak one-on-one with the new USDA chief economist. When asked his biggest takeaway from the outlook on the ag economy, he was positive about progress.

“I think the big story for this year is that progress is being made,” Benavidez says. “Obviously, we are not out of the woods in terms of cost of production, in terms of finding higher prices through new sources of demand, but we are making progress.”

USDA Ag Outlook Forum

(Lori Hayes)

Costs: Finally Turning a Modest Corner?

After multiple years of relentless increases, USDA now forecasts production expenses to moderate. Benavidez points to a key inflection point: inflation-adjusted costs.

“We’ll see cost of production moderate for the first time in several years,” he says. “When adjusted for inflation, total cost of production will decline marginally.”

That doesn’t mean every farmer will see lower costs in 2026.

“Certain producers are obviously going to see that nominal cost still go up marginally, in the neighborhood of 1% on average,” he adds.

Behind the recent volatility, Benavidez says, lies a longer-term structural issue.

“We are still working very hard to get out of what is really a 15-year discrepancy in that cost of production and price received for crops,” he says. “We’ve had some black swan events that have masked a long-term gap in cost of production and price received.”

Closing that gap will require more than cost control. Benavidez says it will require more sources of demand.

The Biggest Wild Cards

If there is one factor that could significantly alter the 2026 outlook, Benavidez says it is biofuels policy.

“I’m going to be watching closely to see what happens with the RFS debate as well as [the] 45Z rule,” he says.

The 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit provides tax incentives to refiners, increasing derived demand for feedstocks such as corn, soybeans and potentially canola. USDA is working on flexible feedstock provisions that could further influence farm-level incentives.

“It provides a tax credit to refiners of those biofuels, and then that increases a derived demand for some of the biofuel input products, like corn, beans and canola,” he explains.

At the same time, negotiations around the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and E15 could reshape demand expectations.

“That could really impact both the demand for corn and for beans, depending on where the RFS and that debate over E15 winds up going,” Benavidez says.

However, he notes the timing of these policies is critical, which is why he considers them the biggest wild cards he’s watching.

“If those changes and updates happen prior to planting, we could see a significant change in what the acreage forecast looks like, as well as what the price forecast looks like.”

The ripple effects could extend beyond Washington.

“We know that in some places where you might swap into planting soybeans, you’re more favorable toward cotton,” he says. “We might see that if one of the policies on the biofuels side goes into place that favors soybeans a little bit more, we might see a reduction in cotton acres — or the opposite could be the case for corn.”

The Numbers You Need to Know

USDA Ag Outlook Forum Acreage Projections

(Lori Hayes )

According to Pro Farmer, the highlights from USDA’s Grains and Oilseeds outlook released on Thursday include:

Corn yield is projected at 183 bu. per acre, producing a 15.8 billion bushel corn crop, down about 7% from 2025. USDA says the yield projection “assumes normal planting progress and summer growing season weather.”
Total corn supplies are forecast at 17.9 billion bushels, down from the record of 18.6 billion in 2025/26.
Total U.S. corn use for 2026-27 is forecast to decline about 2% on lower domestic use and exports.
Food, seed and industrial is flat at 7.0 billion bushels.
Corn used for ethanol is forecast at 5.6 billion bushels, based on expectations of essentially unchanged motor gasoline consumption and exports.
Feed and residual use is down about 3% to 6.0 billion bushels on lower supplies.
Exports are down 200 million bushels to 3.1 billion. “U.S. global trade share is expected to decline slightly on larger competitor exports from South America and modest global demand growth,” USDA says.
Ending stocks are projected at 1.8 billion bushels, down 290 million from a year ago and resulting in stocks relative to use at 11.4%, down from 2025-26 but higher than the most recent 5-year average of about 10.8%.
The season-average corn price received by producers is forecast up 10¢ to $4.20 per bushel.

USDA’s projected corn acreage for 2026 released during the 2026 Ag Outlook Forum.

(Lori Hayes )

Soybeans and Stronger Profit Potential?

USDA says the projected rise in soybean acres reflects “stronger profitability compared to other crops, along with expected crop rotations across the Corn Belt and the Delta.”

Assuming normal weather conditions, yields are expected to average 53.0 bu. per acre, leading to a 188-million-bushel increase to production to 4.45 billion bushels.
U.S. soybean crush is projected to rise by 85 million bushels, reaching 2.655 billion, supported by rising soybean meal and oil demand.
Given normal weather, oilseed meal supplies are expected to be ample in 2026-27, keeping soybean meal prices relatively flat with the prior marketing year at $300 per short ton.
U.S. soybean exports for 2026-27 are projected at 1.7 billion bushels, a recovery from the 2025-26 forecast of 1.58 billion bushels (or 42.9 million tons).
Exports for the 2025-26 marketing year are forecast to decline to the lowest level in 13 years. Accounting for a record-low share of just 23% of global soybean trade, USDA says tariff measures curtailed shipments to China, the largest export destination for the U.S., which imported an average 28.7 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans during the 2021-22 through 2023-24 marketing years. Argentina’s temporary elimination of export taxes last September also led to a counter-seasonal surge in exports in November, further impacting U.S. market share globally, USDA adds.
Soybean ending stocks for 2026-27 are projected at 355 million bushels, nearly flat with the 2025-26 forecast.
The season-average farm price is projected at $10.30 per bushel, marginally higher than the prior marketing year.

USDA’s projected soybean acreage for 2026 released during the 2026 Ag Outlook Forum.

(Lori Hayes)

Benavidez says USDA’s price forecast is for marginal improvements, but he notes headwinds are still in the forecast.

Acreage Shifts: Fewer Corn Acres, More Soybeans

One of the more closely watched projections from USDA is a 5 million acre decline in corn plantings and an increase in soybean acreage to 85 million. The corn reduction is roughly 1 million acres larger than some private trade forecasts.

“There’s always discrepancy in forecasts, right?” Benavidez says, noting the projections are early-season estimates.

He says it’s important to note USDA’s World Agricultural Outlook Board evaluates multiple variables when looking at acreage forecasts this early.

“They’re looking into factors, obviously the soy-to-corn price ratio, which is trending toward more bean acres relative to previous years,” he explains. “We’re getting close back to that 10-year average of the ratio between soy and corn price, which trends toward a little bit more bean acreage this year when compared to corn.”

USDA’s projected acreage for 2026 released during the 2026 Ag Outlook Forum.

(Lori Hayes)

Global and domestic stocks also play into the equation. Ultimately, he says it boils down to where producers think they will make the highest net return.

Total principal crop acres are forecast to decline about 1.5 million acres. However, shifts among crops could offset some of that.

“Our principal crops will see about a 1.5 million acre decline in terms of total acres planted,” Benavidez says. “But the mix of other acres is going to moderate some of that acreage decline a little bit.”

He pointed to cotton as one example, but he notes regional impacts are harder to pin down at this stage.

“It will vary across the country,” he says. “But regional specifics — I think this is very early to be talking about regional specifics.”

Cotton: Sustained Headwinds

Among the major crops, cotton faces some of the most persistent structural challenges.

“You know, we do look at the cotton complex as something that is facing sustained headwinds,” Benavidez says.

He acknowledges recent gains in net cash farm income for cotton producers, attributing part of that improvement to policy support. But globally, competition remains intense.

“There’s a lot of increased production in Brazil that is competing with our exports from the United States,” he says. “They have, in some cases, a lower cost of production than our producers here in the United States.”

Long-term consumption trends also weigh on the sector, as he notes the long-term trend toward more synthetic fiber and flat demand for cotton fibers is a headwind the cotton industry is going to face long term.

“The cotton complex is one that I certainly do think that I’ll pay a lot of attention to this year,” he says.

Trade: A Global Balance Sheet Approach

USDA’s outlook also includes China’s commitment to purchase 25 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans annually through 2028. But Benavidez emphasizes USDA does not model trade strategy; it models global supply and demand.

“As an economist, we don’t really focus on what the strategy is in terms of making those decisions,” he says.

Instead, the World Agricultural Outlook Board looks at total global demand and total global supply.

“If China or any other partner has demand for a certain amount of bean imports, that’s going to offset any readjustment in trade with other partners throughout the globe,” he explains. “We balance that with global supply and build a market picture based on those two factors.”

Attendees say some sessions during the 2026 Ag Outlook Forum were standing room only.

(Farm Journal )

Fewer Headwinds — But Not Clear Skies

The overarching theme of Benavidez’s 2026 outlook is cautious optimism.

“We are not out of the woods, but we are making progress,” he says.

With moderating costs, modest price gains and potential demand expansion through biofuels, the farm economy may finally be seeing some easing pressure. Yet structural imbalances, global competition and policy uncertainty remain central forces shaping the year ahead.

Tight Margins, Tough Choices: How Row Crop Farmers Can Weather Today’s Financial Squeeze

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 20:16:39 GMT

Row crop farmers across the U.S. are facing a financial environment that leaves little room for error. Rising production costs, persistently high interest rates and commodity prices that have failed to keep pace are combining to pressure margins at nearly every level of the operation.

From the ag lending perspective, Alan Hoskins, president and national sales director at American Farm Mortgage and Financial Services, says the current cycle is forcing producers to rethink not just their numbers, but how they approach decision-making altogether.

During the 2026 Top Producer Summit, Hoskins says both farmers and ag lenders need to remember there’s a clear differentiation between profit and cash flow. And he says when it comes to cash flow, that’s something farmers should be looking at on a monthly basis.

“There are definitely a fair number of challenges out there,” Hoskins says. “When you look at 2026, the numbers don’t have the appearance of being better than what we saw in 2025.”

Input Costs Lead the Pain

Among the many pressures facing producers, Hoskins says higher input costs remain the most immediate and widespread challenge.

“Over the past few months, the increase in input costs is a significant driver in what we’re seeing across agriculture,” he says. “Commodity prices being where they are certainly contributes to that as well.”

Hoskins notes that while producers are keenly aware of rising costs, marketing decisions can sometimes compound the problem. In volatile markets, hesitation to price grain can leave margins exposed.

“There are times where there’s a little bit of inertia on the part of producers to take advantage of sales opportunities when they present themselves,” he says. “There’s always the hope that the margin will improve, but that’s exactly where a written marketing plan becomes extremely valuable.”

A marketing plan, Hoskins says, helps remove emotion from pricing decisions and provides structure during uncertain times.

Where Farmers Still Have Levers to Pull

Despite the headwinds, Hoskins believes producers still have meaningful opportunities to manage costs — particularly by scrutinizing inputs more closely.

“Looking at fertility levels across different farms and making sure you’re applying the proper amounts of fertilizer is one place to start,” he says. “Every field doesn’t necessarily need the same approach.”

He also encourages producers to evaluate field operations carefully, weighing whether a tillage pass truly adds value compared to alternative chemical applications.

“These are the kinds of decisions that, taken individually, may not seem significant. But collectively, they can have a real impact on the bottom line,” Hoskins says.

Insurance is another area he believes deserves renewed attention.

“With the increases we’ve seen in equipment values and real estate values, it makes sense to revisit property and casualty insurance,” he says. “There may be opportunities to adjust coverage levels and capture some savings without increasing risk.”

Financial Stress Is Real, And It’s Growing

From a lender’s vantage point, Hoskins says the financial strain facing row-crop producers is increasingly visible. While not every farmer lost money in 2025, many operations ended the year with thinner working capital and less flexibility.

“Were there producers who made it through 2025 without losing money? Yes, but they were more the exception than the rule,” Hoskins says.

Looking ahead, he doesn’t expect conditions to ease quickly. That makes proactive planning and communication critical.

“When challenges exist, don’t try to solve them on your own,” Hoskins says. “Use the resources available to you: your lender, your accountant, your advisers.”

He cautions against reacting too aggressively in ways that could harm long-term viability.

“The goal is to weather this cycle,” he says. “It’s not to cut the meat completely off the bone and compromise your ability to operate when conditions do improve.”

Adjustment to Higher Interest Rates

Higher interest rates remain a sticking point for many producers, particularly those accustomed to historically low borrowing costs. Hoskins says perspective is important.

“While rates are much higher than what we’ve been used to over the last 25 years, if you look historically, they’re not that far out of line with the last 40 or 50 years,” he says.

The bigger challenge, he adds, may be mental rather than mathematical.

“We were in a very low-rate environment for a long time,” Hoskins says. “Adjusting to today’s rates requires a shift in expectations.”

To adapt, he advises producers to closely examine their borrowing structure across operating loans, equipment financing and real estate debt.

“If you’ve got debt that’s been out there for 12 or 18 months, there may be opportunities to restructure,” he says.

He also encourages producers to take advantage of low- or zero-percent financing options on inputs when available and to maintain open communication with lenders.

“Your interest rate is a product of your risk profile,” Hoskins says. “Having honest conversations with your lender helps you understand where you stand and what options you have.”

Are More Farmers Exiting?

With margins compressed and financing tighter, Hoskins says some producers are choosing to exit the business, but for different reasons.

“There are producers looking at 2026 and even 2027 and saying, ‘I don’t see things improving materially,’” he says. “They don’t want to see any more working capital erosion or equity erosion, so they’re making that decision on their own.”

At the same time, Hoskins acknowledges others may not have a choice.

“There will be producers who are unable to obtain the funding they need to go another year,” he says. “In those cases, the decision to step away isn’t voluntary.”

Still, he does not expect a widespread collapse.

“I wouldn’t characterize this as something that’s going to be across the board,” Hoskins says. “But with the challenges we’re facing, we will see examples of both.”

Mindset Matters As Much As Math

While financial statements tell part of the story, Hoskins believes mindset plays an equally important role in determining how producers navigate difficult cycles.

“The key truly has nothing to do with numbers,” he says. “It has everything to do with mindset.”

Hoskins encourages producers to define clear goals, not just for the coming year, but over a longer horizon.

“What are your one-year goals? Your three-year goals? Your five-year goals?” he asks. “Having that longer-term perspective changes how you view short-term challenges.”

He believes producers who approach decisions with a clear sense of priorities tend to make more measured, sustainable choices.

“When you understand your priorities as people first and foremost, you start looking at the financials differently,” Hoskins says. “That ultimately leads to better decisions.”

USDA Numbers Confirm the Reality

USDA issued its first net farm income forecast for 2026 just last week, but the bigger surprise was the fact the agency revised its net farm income forecast for 2025, showing sharper declines than earlier estimates. Hoskins says those revisions align with what they are seeing on the lending side.

“It doesn’t surprise me that USDA lowered 2025 farm income,” he says. “As more data becomes available, it gives a clearer picture of where reality really lies.”

While the outlook remains challenging, Hoskins stresses agriculture has endured difficult cycles before.

“We’re not going to lose all of America’s farmers and ranchers,” he says. “But we do have challenges within this industry that need to be addressed.”

For producers willing to plan ahead, stay disciplined and lean on trusted advisers, Hoskins believes there is still a path forward, even in one of the tightest margin environments in recent memory.

One Big Beautiful Bill Might Force Farmers to Rethink Farm Business Structures

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 15:02:08 GMT

At a time when farm income is under growing pressure, the One Big Beautiful Bill is reshaping the farm safety net in ways that go well beyond bigger checks or better crop insurance coverage. According to Farm CPA Paul Neiffer, the legislation could quietly push producers toward fundamental changes in how their farm businesses are structured, decisions that could have long-term implications for taxes, payments, and succession planning.

While the bill was signed into law in July of 2025, there’s still guidance that needs to be set before farmers can make vital decisions. And some of the most favorable changes- like to crop insurance coverage- won’t go into effect until late this year.

While much of the early conversation around the bill has focused on higher reference prices and stronger crop insurance subsidies, during the 2026 Top Producer Summit, Neiffer told attendees the real impact may not be fully understood yet, and farmers should be paying close attention.

“This bill changes the rules we’ve all been operating under for the last 20 years,” Neiffer says. “And when the rules change, the structure of the farm suddenly matters a lot more than it used to.”

Financial Stress Is Already Building in Farm Country

The bill arrives against a backdrop of tightening farm finances. USDA’s updated net farm income forecast showed a sharper-than-expected decline for 2025 , with early projections for 2026 offering little comfort, particularly for row-crop producers, a trend doesn’t surprise Neiffer.

“It peaked out in 2022, and it’s definitely been going down ever since,” he explains. “If you’re a row-crop farmer, 2026 is probably going to look a lot like 2025 unless something changes on the price side.”

While government payments will help stabilize income, Neiffer is blunt about what would happen without them.

“Without ARC, PLC, the FSA payments, the SDRP top-ups, without all of that, most row crop farmers would absolutely be struggling right now,” he says.

Payments tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill are expected to start flowing in October, providing a critical backstop during a period when margins remain thin and balance sheets are tightening across large parts of the country.

Crop Insurance: One of the Bill’s Biggest Wins

Neiffer gives the crop insurance provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill high marks , calling them one of the clearest positives for producers.

“I’d give it a B-plus to A-minus,” says Neiffer.

Why such a high grade? The bill boosts premium subsidies across most revenue protection levels:

Coverage levels from 55% to 75% receive a 5 percentage-point increase in premium subsidies.
80% and 85% coverage levels see a 3 percentage-point increase.
Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) now extends up to 90% coverage, and farmers can now pair ARC with SCO, something previously prohibited.
SCO subsidies jump from 65% to 80%, making higher coverage far more affordable.

For many producers, especially wheat growers, these changes significantly reduce out-of-pocket costs while expanding protection.

Beginning farmers also receive a major boost. Previously limited to a 10% premium subsidy bump for five years, the bill expands the benefit to 10 years, with even higher subsidies in the early years.

“For young farmers, it can now make financial sense to farm on their own instead of with their parents,” Neiffer said. “From a family standpoint, they’re actually going to make more money.”

Prevent Plant Still a Pain Point

Not everything is a win. One of the main reasons Neiffer doesn’t give the crop insurance changes a straight A is because of changes to prevent plant, something that remains a concern, especially in high-risk regions like Arkansas and the Dakotas.

Under previous rules, farmers could buy up an additional 10% of coverage. That was later reduced to 5%, and Neiffer says USDA’s Risk Management Agency is still discussing cutting or eliminating that option entirely.

“That extra 5% really matters when you’ve got too much water,” he said.

While not enough to outweigh the bill’s positives, the issue drags down what could otherwise be a near-perfect crop insurance package.

Beginning Farmers See Expanded Incentives

The bill also significantly expands benefits for beginning farmers, extending premium subsidy incentives from five years to ten , while also increasing the subsidy percentages in the early years.

“Before, they got a 10% bump, but only for five years,” Neiffer says. “Now it’s 15% in years one and two, 13% in year three, 11% in year four, and 10% all the way through year ten.”

That change, he says, could alter how farm families bring the next generation into the operation.

“For a lot of young farmers, it may actually make more sense financially to farm on their own instead of farming with their parents,” Neiffer says. “If they’re part of the parents’ operation, they may or may not qualify for those premium subsidies. On their own, they do.”

From a purely financial standpoint, Neiffer says some families could generate more income overall by restructuring how younger operators enter the business.

Prevent Plant Remains a Lingering Concern

Despite the positives, not every provision landed well with producers. Prevent plant coverage remains a contentious issue, particularly in regions prone to excess moisture.

“Under the old rules, you could buy up an extra 10% of prevent plant coverage,” Neiffer adds. “That got cut to 5%, and now RMA is still talking about cutting or eliminating that extra 5% altogether.”

For producers in places like Arkansas and the Dakotas, that reduction matters.

“When you’ve got too much water, that extra coverage helps mitigate a really bad situation,” he says. “Losing it would hurt.”

Even so, Neiffer says the overall crop insurance package remains strong.

“That’s really the only thing dragging it down just a little bit,” he said.

ARC and PLC Changes Offer Ongoing Protection

Beyond insurance, Neiffer points to ARC and PLC changes as one of the most important income stabilizers in the bill, especially because they are designed to work over time, not just in a single marketing year.

“The increase in reference prices and effective reference prices isn’t a one-shot deal,” he says. “It happens this year, it happens next year, and it keeps happening as long as prices stay depressed.”

The bill also includes what Neiffer describes as an “automatic put” built into ARC and PLC, designed to cushion farmers during prolonged periods of weak prices.

“That’s going to help smooth out income over multiple years, and right now, that’s exactly what farmers need,” says Neiffer.

The Structural Shift Farmers May Not Be Ready For

The most overlooked part of the One Big Beautiful Bill, and potentially what may be the most consequential part of the legislation, is how it changes payment limits tied to farm business structure.

Under old rules, LLCs and S corporations were often limited to a single payment cap. The new law shifts that framework, allowing multiple payment limits based on the number of equal owners , depending on how the operation is structured.

That opens the door to significant restructuring. According to Neiffer:

General partnerships may move to LLCs for liability protection and expanded payment eligibility.
C corporations, which remain stuck with a single payment limit, may convert to S corporations.
Some farms are already making the switch.

“I’ve talked to several farmers already that either have switched or will be switching,” Neiffer says. “And it’s completely because of the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Still, he urges caution. USDA guidance on how these new rules will be applied has not yet been released.

“Before I tell anyone to change their structure, we need that guidance,” Neiffer says. “Otherwise, you risk unintended consequences that wipe out the benefit.”

A Note of Caution on Taxes and Spending

Neiffer also warns producers not to let tax provisions drive equipment purchases or expansion decisions.

“There are a lot of good tax provisions in this bill,” he said. “But farmers tend to get hooked on them.”

He points specifically to bonus depreciation as an area of concern.

“They go out and buy something just because they can deduct it,” he says. “If they finance it with debt, they don’t always think about what happens the next year, or the year after that, or the year after that.”

The result, he says, can be financial strain that lasts long after the tax benefit fades.

Guidance Still Needed Before Big Decisions

Despite the potential advantages of restructuring, Neiffer urges farmers to have patience. USDA guidance on how the new payment limit rules will be applied has not yet been released.

“Before I’m telling anybody to change their structure, we really need that guidance,” he says. “I worry about the law of unintended consequences, where we think the rule is going to work one way, and then something else kicks in and negates the benefit.”

Farmers were expecting clarity by the end of 2025. That hasn’t happened yet.

“We’re already almost to March,” Neiffer says. “But we should have it any day now.”

When it arrives, Neiffer believes it could prompt some of the most significant farm business decisions producers have faced in years , driven not just by markets, but by policy.

At a Breaking Point, More Cotton Farmers Could Be Forced to Walk Away

Tue, 13 Jan 2026 17:59:58 GMT

It’s a grim reality that isn’t improving in the South. Cotton and rice producers say their balance sheets are bleeding red. After multiple years of losses, debt continues to mount, and recently announced government payments are not expected to come close to covering the financial hole farmers face again this year.

For many, the question is no longer how to make a profit, it’s whether they can stay in farming at all.

Farmers, industry leaders and economists warn the U.S. could be approaching a breaking point for cotton and rice production, with 2026 shaping up to be another year that pushes more growers out of the business. And with more farmers potentially walking away, the fear is the U.S. could be on the verge of losing those industries altogether.

“An Average Crop Doesn’t Pay the Bills”

For Charles Williams, a farmer in Crawfordsville, Ark., he’s seen what multiple years of losses can do to an industry.

“In terms of how the year ended up, it’s pretty average to mediocre,” Williams says. “But an average crop really doesn’t pay the bills, unfortunately.”

Looking back at 2025, Williams says he feels fortunate his operation was able to plant at all. Heavy flooding across the mid-South last spring forced many acres to go unplanted, compounding losses in a region heavily dependent on rice and cotton.

The flooding came at a time when acreage was already under pressure.

“I’m on the Arkansas Rice Research and Promotion Board, and I’ve seen some projections on acres,” Williams says. “In 2024, I think we had 1.4 million acres of rice here in the state. In 2025, USDA shows 1.25 million got planted. I’m kind of surprised by that number, but it’s probably some late-planted rice. We’re projecting under 900,000 acres. I think that’s the lowest acreage since 1983.”

Arkansas is the nation’s largest rice-producing state, growing roughly half of all U.S. rice. Cotton is the other cornerstone crop,but it comes with specialized, expensive equipment that leaves farmers with few alternatives.

Because these farmers have cotton equipment to pay for, equipment that can only do one thing, which is pick cotton, walking away isn’t an easy choice. Williams also is an owner of a gin.

“We’ll continue to plant some cotton, at least as much as we did last year,” he says. “Our production last year is half of what it historically is, so we’ll be 50% to 60%, maybe 65% of what we historically plant with cotton. Rice, I don’t know. There may not be a whole lot of rice grown, quite frankly.”

The Piece Not Many Are Saying Out Loud: “We’re on the Cusp of Offshoring Production”

Williams says many farmers are planting crops in 2026 knowing full well they won’t make money on them. That reality has him worried about the long-term future of U.S. production.

“I hate to think about the possibility of offshoring cotton production and rice production,” Williams says. “I think we’re on the cusp of that right now.”

That concern is echoed across the Cotton Belt.

When Gary Adams, president and CEO of the National Cotton Council, spoke to “U.S. Farm Report” last spring, he warned the industry had gone from just losing money to losing farms . Nearly a year later, he says little has changed.

“If you just look at the economics of where the market is, it’s been generally trading sideways over the last half of 2025,” Adams says. “For a lot of growers, the situation is kind of the same as it had been. You just put another year of losses on top of what had been a couple of years before that.”

Adams says conversations with farmers reveal a level of stress he hasn’t seen before. Average cotton losses in 2025 are estimated at more than $300 per acre.

“That’s the kind of numbers we’re seeing for the 2025 crop,” Adams says. “We compare that to 2024, even a little worse than what we saw in 2024, and 2023 had a loss as well, just not as large. That’s the magnitude we’re looking at when we stack up market returns versus cost of production.”

Government Aid Helps, But Doesn’t Close the Gap

Last week, USDA announced payment rates for the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program , with rice payments set at nearly $133 per acre and cotton payments just over $117 per acre.

Those payments drew criticism from soybean farmers who argue soybeans were hit harder by last year’s trade dispute with China.

Seth Meyer, who served as USDA chief economist for five years before taking a job with the University of Missouri to start 2026, was on the front lines of crafting the calculations for the Farmer Bridge Program payments. He says it’s key to understand the program is designed as economic aid, not trade mitigation.

“We started off this discussion about trade mitigation and simply tight margins and tough economic conditions to bridge us to ARC and PLC support,” says Seth Meyer, director of Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri and former USDA chief economist. “The safety net kicks in in October of this year. When folks look at some of the commodity payments, this is an economic impact. They were calculating these very similarly to ECAP, looking at shortfalls in cost of production, not trade impacts.”

Meyer says the administration was pursuing multiple strategies simultaneously while being strategic with how the program was rolled out.

“There’s been kind of two efforts,” he says. “One is putting a program out there so the Chinese can’t hold that trade impact over our head during negotiation. At the same time, we’re pursuing other trade opportunities. When we look at ongoing trade negotiations with China and the president’s supposed visit in the spring, there’s been some progress, even though the friction lasted longer than last time.”

But the Farmer Bridge payments are capped at $155,000 per individual, a limit Adams says will constrain many cotton operations.

“I do think it’s helping offset a portion of their shortfall,” Adams says. “It gives them a chance to stay in business, not a chance at a profit, a chance to stay in business, when you combine it with the higher reference prices in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that will take effect later this year.”

He says in the OBBB, cotton’s seed cotton reference price increased about 14%, but those funds won’t arrive until October.

“There’s still a lot of weight between now and then,” Adams says. “Things can happen with the market. This serves as a bridge, but does it fill the entire hole they’re facing? No, it doesn’t.”

What it does provide, Adams says, is some reassurance to lenders.

“It gives lenders some assurance to go with them for another year,” he says. “That’s the situation a lot of growers are in.”

More Farmers Walking Away? Those Decisions Are Being Made Right Now

Even with the assistance that USDA says should hit bank accounts by the end of February, Adams says some farmers won’t make it, either by choice or because their lender won’t finance them for the upcoming year.

“Some growers will look at the markets, look at cost of production, look at what equity they still have and make the decision that that’s enough,” Adams says. “They’ll decide to get out of farming and do something else. We know those decisions are being made right now.”

When asked whether the industry expects an uptick in farmers exiting, particularly in the mid-South, Adams doesn’t hesitate.

“I think there’s a really good chance that will happen,” he says. “Whether it’s by choice or dictated by their lender, they’re taking a hard look at what equity they still have and whether they want to continue taking on that level of risk.”

Ag Lender Says Farmers Are Seeing the Most Financial Stress Since the 1980s

Greg Cole is president and CEO of AgHeritage Farm Credit Services, which serves roughly 6,700 members across 24 counties in Arkansas. Cole started in ag lending in 1984, and he told U.S. Farm Report last year that Arkansas farmers were staring at a loss on every crop they grow . He says it’s not an exact repeat of the 1980s, but it’s eerily similar.

“I can tell you this, this is the most stress I’ve seen since the ‘80s when you come to farm profitability, i.e. farmers losing money,” Cole says. “One positive we have now compared to the ‘80s is land values. Our land values are still positive, which gives some lendable equity —unlike in the 80s, when I started my career, when U.S. farmland prices plummeted in some areas up to 60%.”

With a drastic drop in commodity prices, but input prices still record or near-record high, Cole says farmers in Arkansas, specifically, have been eroding balance sheets for four straight years.

“We started seeing losses in ’22 when 40% of our producers lost money,” Cole says. “In ’23, about 50% lost money. And then last year, in ’24, 70% lost money, with the average loss of about $150 an acre. And that’s after they received about a $50 per acre ECAP payments. Today, we’re looking at where we stand now. We could have a similar level of losses in ‘25 that we had in ‘24. Even though in ’24, we had very strong yields. But now we have weaker yields.”

As mounting debt shows up on the balance sheets, Cole says there are two types of farmers seeing the most severe financial strain.

“The ones who rent most of the land, especially if they pay on the higher end of rent. And here in the Mississippi Delta, most farmers who have a lot of acres rent most of their ground,” Cole says. “And then young, beginning farmers who didn’t have the opportunity to build up a lot of equity. Those are the ones that have occurred these multiple year losses where their balance sheet debt has swollen to a level that’s hard to service a debt when you add the interest rate cost on top of it.”

What Will It Take to Turn Cotton Prices Around?

With prices still below breakeven again this year, Adams says the industry is focused on the demand side of the equation.

“Commodity markets are always cyclical,” he says. “There will be some unanticipated shock, but when we look forward. We’re really focused on demand; global cotton demand has been relatively stagnant for the last decade.”

Global consumption currently sits between 115 million and 118 million bales, down from highs of 123 million to 124 million bales. That’s why the industry is leaning into campaigns like Plant Not Plastic , highlighting cotton’s environmental and health benefits.

“We’re really focusing on cotton as a natural fiber and a healthy alternative to synthetics,” Adams says. “Microplastic microfiber pollution is in the environment, in our bodies and in our food. We want brands, retailers and consumers to be aware of that.”

Adams also points to untapped domestic demand. Of the roughly 40 million bales of fiber consumed in the U.S. retail market each year, only about 4 million bales, roughly 10%, are U.S. cotton.

Legislation known as the Buying American Cotton Act , introduced by Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, aims to change that by offering transferable tax credits for products made with U.S.-grown cotton.

“We hope in the next two to three weeks to have a companion bill introduced in the House,” Adams says. “This would provide tax incentives to brands and retailers that document the use of U.S. cotton. We believe that translates into additional demand and better prices for producers.”

Williams says domestic consumption is critical.

“I think we need to find ways to incentivize production as much as we can,” he says. “Beyond that, domestic consumption is something we need to be looking at. The Buying American Cotton Act is an America-first approach that could reshore finished goods. That’s what we need.”

“It’s Hang On and Hold On”

Until something changes, farmers say the pressure will continue into 2026. For Williams, the stakes are deeply personal.

“It’s hang on and hold on,” he says. “I’m going on 52 years old. I’ve got four kids, two in college and two in high school, and I need to see them through.”

For many cotton and rice farmers across the mid-South, the coming year could determine whether holding on is still possible.

Economists Forecast Farm Economy to Stabilize, But High Costs and Policy Uncertainty Block a 2026 Rebound

Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:26:37 GMT

As 2026 ushers in a fresh start, agricultural economists say the U.S. farm economy has stopped sliding, but it’s far from fully healed.

The December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows month-to-month sentiment is improving, but deep structural strain remains — especially in row crops. Meanwhile, livestock markets continue to provide strength. Crop producers face another year of tight margins driven by high input costs, weak prices and unresolved trade and policy uncertainty.

“There’s cautious optimism,” the economists say, “but very little belief that 2026 will bring a meaningful rebound without cost relief or stronger demand.”

Those themes mirror the perspective of Seth Meyer, former USDA chief economist and now director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri. In a recent interview, Meyer connected the dots between narrow margins, policy responses and what might actually move the dial for U.S. agriculture heading into 2026.

Stabilizing, Not Recovering

December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Economists see the ag economy holding its ground — but not gaining strength.

54% say the ag economy is somewhat better than one month ago.
Compared with a year ago:
- 42% say conditions are worse
- 33% say they are better
Looking ahead 12 months:
- 46% expect conditions unchanged
- 38% expect improvement
- 15% expect conditions to worsen

“Momentum has improved since mid-2025,” Meyer notes, “but tight margins have been with us for a long time. Turning that around requires demand growth, not just price stabilization.

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Grant Gardner, assistant Extension professor at the University of Kentucky, tells AgriTalk’s Chip Flory: “I think as we move into kind of this next marketing year, you’re looking at what looks like a breakeven and not a loss, but breakeven still doesn’t look great after three years of breakeven or losses.”

He says even with the $11 billion in Farmer Bridge Program payments , it won’t drastically change the outlook for the farm economy.

“Purdue had a good survey about a month ago, where they looked at what were these payments going to go to, and research would show that a lot of these payments go into long-term assets, and so land tractors, but I think over 60% of producers right now are in such a tight cash crunch that you’re going to see a lot of these payments go into that short-term debt,” Gardner says.

Consolidation a Growing Threat

Economists are nearly unanimous that the crop sector remains under extreme financial stress. 83 percent say row crops are currently in a recession. That isn’t about production declines — acres and yields haven’t collapsed — but about persistently weak profitability.

“Negative returns for at least the third consecutive year across nearly all row crops,” one economist wrote in the survey.

Another said: “Margins remain below full costs of production for many producers.”

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes)

Meyer traces that back to how abruptly agriculture moved from the high prices of 2021 and 2022 into today’s tighter margins.

“We moved very quickly from a very high price environment and good profitability in 2022 to very tight margins,” he says. “That usually happens coming off price peaks, but this time it happened really rapidly.”

A minority of survey respondents argued farms are “treading water,” supported by strong land values and government aid rather than eroding further, which Meyer acknowledged aligns with how risk and safety nets have interacted this year.

But when you look at how the current stress in the farm economy could impact consolidation, the ag economists say it’s the economic pressure combined with demographic trends causing the acceleration. In fact, 92% of them say consolidation is underway and unavoidable.

“Markets go to the lowest-cost producers,” one economist wrote. “That sorting is consolidation on the production side.”

Aging producers exiting and rent-heavy operations under pressure only add fuel to that trend, with one economist saying: “Consolidation happens because producers have to exit, not because they want to.

What’s Driving the Farm Economy Right Now

When economists were asked to identify the two most important factors shaping agriculture’s economic health today, their responses clustered around a familiar, but increasingly sharp, divide: strong demand in livestock and the protein sector versus persistent oversupply and cost pressure in crops, all layered with trade and policy uncertainty.

Several economists pointed to continued strength in beef demand, both domestically and through export channels, as a key stabilizing force. While the dairy sector is an area that shows signs of weakness for 2026.

“Livestock revenues are a bright spot,” one respondent noted, underscoring why the livestock sector continues to outperform crops financially.

Looking to 2026, economists overwhelmingly point to input costs, not interest rates, as the biggest barrier to profitability. Nearly 70% cited input prices as the largest challenge as well, far ahead of trade concerns or capital availability.

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

“We have too much supply and not enough demand for row crops,” one economist wrote.

Another said: “Input costs are still too high.”

Trade remains a central wild card, especially relationships with China and uncertainty around global supply. Several respondents cited trade disputes and agreements as critical factors, along with questions about the size of South American crops and how that could shape global competition in the months ahead.

Policy uncertainty was also featured prominently, with economists pointing to domestic biofuels policy, government payments and broader market signals as factors influencing both short-term cash flow and longer-term demand growth.

Overall, economists say the ag economy is being pulled in opposite directions: strong livestock demand providing support, while crops struggle under high costs, oversupply and unresolved trade and policy questions — a dynamic that helps explain why the broader farm economy feels stable, but far from healthy, as 2026 approaches.

Livestock: A Continued Bright Spot

Livestock continues to stand out as the most financially healthy segment of the ag economy. Every economist surveyed rated beef as above average or excellent, supported by strong domestic demand and tight supplies. Dairy and pork were viewed as stable to moderately strong.

That success creates a stark contrast with row crops, where corn and cotton were cited by 38% each as the commodities most at risk financially in 2026.

What Could Move Crop Prices in the Next Six Months

Looking ahead to the first half of 2026, economists say crop prices will hinge less on domestic fundamentals and more on global supply, trade flows and policy clarity.

Across responses, South America emerged as the dominant influence, with economists repeatedly citing Brazilian weather, the size of the South American harvest and how those supplies compete with U.S. exports. Several noted that clarity around South American production will be critical in setting price direction for corn, soybeans and wheat.

Trade, particularly with China, remains another key swing factor. Economists emphasized not just the announcement of trade agreements, but whether purchases translate into actual shipments.

“China purchases of U.S. crops, but also if and when actual shipments occur,” one respondent noted, adding that details within any trade deal, including purchase commitments, will matter just as much as headlines.

Domestic factors still play a role, but economists see them as secondary in the near term. Input prices, early U.S. planting conditions and assumptions about 2026 acreage were all cited as important — especially as markets begin to trade expectations for next year’s crop mix.

Policy uncertainty also hangs over the outlook. Economists pointed to ongoing questions around trade policy, biofuels policy and broader economic conditions as variables that could amplify or mute price moves.

Economists say crop prices over the next six months are likely to be driven by how global supply unfolds, whether export demand materializes and how quickly policy uncertainty is resolved, rather than by any single domestic production shock.

Biofuels Policy: A Potential Turning Point?

One of the clearest themes Meyer highlights as a possible game changer for demand, and ultimately prices, is biofuels policy.

For economists, policy levers like year-round E15, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volumes, 45Z investment tax credits and how small refinery exemptions are handled could meaningfully influence demand for corn and soybeans in 2026 and beyond.

“It’s one of the places where policymakers actually have levers to help with tight margins in the row crop sector,” Meyer says.

He emphasizes that final rules on RFS volumes and how biobased credits are implemented could impact feedstock demand.

“For the next couple of crop seasons, RVO (Renewable Volume Obligations) and how EPA reallocates small refinery exemptions are big factors,” Meyer says. “Should we raise the RVO to soak up that pool like a sponge? Should imported feedstocks get full 45Z credit? Those decisions could move demand.”

On year-round E15, a long-sought policy priority for corn growers, Meyer is cautiously optimistic.

“I do think it matters,” he says. “Maybe it’s not a huge swing this year, but offering certainty and building demand over multiple seasons is supportive. Other countries like Brazil are ramping up their biofuels production too, so this isn’t happening in a vacuum.”

Policy Uncertainty Still Looms

Economists also flagged top priorities for 2026 policy action:

Year-round E15 (row crops)
Trade policy clarity (row crops & livestock)
Labor reform and regulatory issues (livestock)

They also highlighted under-covered risks, which include pressure on land rents and values, labor shortages, biofuels policy details (such as 45Z credits) and slower population growth affecting long-term demand.

What Could Move Livestock and Dairy Prices in the Next Six Months

When economists look ahead to livestock and dairy markets in early 2026, they see a mix of strong demand signals, supply-side risks and policy uncertainty shaping price direction.

Consumer demand remains the cornerstone of the outlook, particularly for beef. Several economists pointed to continued buying interest from U.S. consumers as the primary support for cattle prices, even as affordability pressures rise. At the same time, some warned that a more “K-shaped” economy could begin to shift demand, pulling some consumers away from beef and toward pork.

Supply dynamics and herd trends are another major focus. Economists cited herd size, potential herd expansion and the availability of feeder cattle as critical variables. The expected resumption of feeder cattle imports from Mexico was highlighted as a key factor that could influence cattle supplies and pricing, depending on timing and volume.

Animal health risks also remain on the radar. Issues such as avian influenza, screwworm and other disease threats were mentioned as potential disruptors that could quickly alter supply conditions in both livestock and dairy markets.

Policy and trade uncertainty continues to hover over the sector. Economists pointed to ongoing questions around tariffs, restrictions on live animal trade with Mexico and the next steps under the USMCA as factors that could impact both imports and exports. Political uncertainty more broadly was also cited as a potential source of market volatility.

For dairy, economists noted that beef-on-dairy dynamics are likely to continue weighing on milk prices by increasing beef supplies while complicating dairy herd decisions.

Taken together, economists say livestock and dairy prices over the next six months will be driven by a delicate balance between strong consumer demand, evolving supply conditions and unresolved trade and policy questions, with any shift in one of those areas capable of moving markets quickly.

Acreage Expectations: Stress, Not Shock

Despite margin pressure, economists do not expect dramatic acreage pullbacks in 2026. Most expect:

Corn: 93 to 95 million acres
Soybeans: 84 to 86 million acres
Wheat: 44 to 45 million acres
Cotton: 9 to 10 million acres

Corn acreage expectations have edged lower since November, as economists backed away from another year above 95 million acres. At the same time, soybean acreage expectations have firmed, with 75% now targeting 84 to 86 million acres, suggesting stronger relative economics for beans.

“Export demand has helped keep corn acres supported,” Meyer says. “The question is whether that demand holds and whether policy supports it.”

As for acreage, the major impact on prices would be a large acreage reduction, which is unlikely.

“That’s what it comes down to, too. What I’ve been thinking about is what else can you use land for? And you’ve got the pushback on urban sprawl, you’ve got pushback on other uses for ag land. But right now, the simple fact is we’ve got way too much production. Without that slowing, or a drastic increase in demand, I don’t see prices improving to very lucrative levels,” Gardner says.

Overall, The Ag Economy Is a Grind, Not a Rebound

When you look at all the results from the December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, economists paint a picture of an industry that has stopped getting worse, but has not yet found a path to durable profitability.

Crops remain mired in margin compression; livestock continues to outperform but remains sensitive to policy decisions. Government aid is buying time but not addressing structural challenges, but it’s policy outcomes, especially around biofuels, trade and E15, that could be decisive in shaping 2026 outcomes.

For now, the farm economy has found a floor. The tougher question, economists say, is whether policy can help lift it, or if it will continue to grind forward without a genuine rebound.

Related News: As Screwworm Inches Closer, When Could the U.S. Reopen the Southern Border to Cattle Imports?

What Does The Venezuela Situation Mean For U.S. Farmers?

Mon, 05 Jan 2026 22:28:18 GMT

The recent capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and subsequent discussions about opening the country’s vast oil reserves to Western investment have sparked a key question within the U.S. agriculture sector: What impact will this situation ultimately have on farmers?

While current headlines focus on immediate geopolitical shifts and the actions of energy companies, the resulting ripple effects could eventually reduce U.S. farmers’ fuel expenses and other input costs, according to Bob Elliott, co-founder of Unlimited Funds.

However, Elliot emphasizes that even if Western oil companies successfully establish operations in Venezuela, it will take years to repair the damaged infrastructure there and bring a meaningful new supply of oil online.

“While Venezuela has some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world they have been chronically under-producing due to decades of underinvestment and poor management,” he explains. “As we transition to a point where maybe more Western oil companies come in, they could invest and create supply but that’s a story that’s going to take years to unfold.”

If Western investment is successful, Venezuela could eventually add “a few million barrels per day” to the world’s supply, a volume significant enough to help drive global oil prices lower, Elliott notes. Over time, this increase in supply could ease costs for diesel and gasoline, reduce input expenses (including fertilizer and freight) and generally improve the overall cost of production for farmers.

Don’t Expect Any Short-Term Relief

Despite the long-term potential, Elliott emphasizes that the current developments offer little to no immediate benefit for farmers and consumers.

“If you’re looking to get a little relief at the gas pump, it’s not going to happen from this effect anytime soon,” he says.

Furthermore, cheaper global oil, influenced by Venezuelan supply, would introduce a trade-off for U.S. oil-producing regions.

Elliott explains that “at $60 oil, we’re right on the cusp of break evens for the major U.S. oil producing regions.” The implication is that farm communities closely tied to oil and gas employment could experience economic fallout if domestic prices were to drop too sharply. Even so, Elliott believes farmers across the country would still welcome lower fuel and freight costs.

The U.S. Advantage In Refining Venezuelan Crude

From a logistical standpoint, Elliott points out that the U.S. refining industry is well-equipped to handle the specific type of crude that comes from Venezuela, which is a “sour” crude.

Sour crude is characterized by a high sulfur content (over 0.5%) and significant amounts of hydrogen sulfide, making it more corrosive and challenging—and thus more costly—to refine than “sweet” (low-sulfur) crude, according to the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.

“We’ve got the refiners that can handle the sour crude that comes out of Venezuela down in Texas… we’re set up better to handle that kind of crude oil than any country in the world, really,” notes Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk.

Strategic Outlook for Farmers

Elliott points out that the Venezuelan situation is unfolding against a backdrop of wider geopolitical tensions, including concerns surrounding Iran and other global conflicts.

“All of those highlight some of the uncertainties in the geopolitical picture coming into 2026. It’s part of the reason why gold is getting such a bid to open the new year here,” he notes.

Elliott says the best course of action for farmers is to continue managing their fuel as if the market will remain tight—while simultaneously recognizing that, a few years down the line, new barrels from Venezuela could significantly shift the cost landscape in agriculture’s favor.

Hear the full conversation between Elliott and Flory on AgriTalk at the link below:

The Major Market Forces That Could Reset or Further Tighten Farm Margins in the New Year

Mon, 05 Jan 2026 16:48:08 GMT

As producers close the books on 2025, there’s little debate about how the year will be remembered. Commodity prices retreated from harvest highs, input costs refused to follow them lower and margins compressed from both sides. But for market analysts at StoneX Group, the real takeaway from 2025 isn’t the pain. It’s what the year reveals about where agriculture is headed next.

Looking ahead to 2026, Arlan Suderman, StoneX chief commodities economist, and Josh Linville, StoneX vice president of fertilizer, both say 2026 will be shaped by structural shifts that go far beyond one growing season. Global competitiveness, domestic demand growth, geopolitical risk and policy decisions are converging at the same time, and it’s how those forces resolve, or fail to do so, could determine whether 2026 brings opportunity, volatility or another year of pressure.

Suderman: “We’re Not the Lost Cost Producer in the World Anymore”

The downturn producers experienced in 2025 fits squarely into a longer-term cycle that began forming well before the year started, Suderman says.

“We’re entering the cycle, and supply becomes greater than demand, and prices go down, and we’re going to have lean times,” he says. “And that certainly happened [in 2025].”

That cycle, he says, exposed a deeper challenge facing U.S. agriculture, and one that won’t disappear just because markets eventually recover.

“We continue to lose market share to Brazil,” Suderman says. “The reality is we’re not the low-cost producer in the world anymore.”

That loss of cost advantage is having consequences that ripple across exports, acreage decisions and profitability.

“Brazil is going to be able to produce bulk commodities cheaper than us,” he says. “And with their cheap currencies, they’re going to be able to sell it cheaper than we.”

Suderman says that reality is forcing a shift in thinking for U.S. producers and policymakers.

“So we have to find other ways to generate revenue from what we do produce,” he says. “We’re great at producing it, but Brazil is going to be able to produce bulk commodities cheaper than us, and so we have to find other ways.”

Domestic Demand Becomes the Battleground

With export competition intensifying, Suderman says the next phase of market support must come from inside U.S. borders. That’s where biofuels, and specifically what EPA does with biomass-based diesel, will become central to the 2026 outlook.

“We have the biofuel program coming in, which we believe will transition to domestic demand to help replace the lost export demand,” he says.

Suderman points out that export demand to China is already structurally weaker, making domestic demand growth even more critical.

“We’re going to lose that export demand with China anyway,” he says. “So that EPA announcement looks to be good, but we’re still waiting. We’re still waiting for the final regulations from the EPA. We’ve been waiting for most of the past year.”

That delay, he says, isn’t just frustrating, Suderman says it has real economic consequences.

“If we get it by the end of the quarter, that means we’ve lost 25% of the production year,” he says. “If we get it very early in the year, then we can really ramp things up.”

Suderman also points out the details of the policy are just as important as the timing of the announcement.

“What will they do with the small refinery exemptions?” he asks. “Will they offset them all? Will they offset 50% of them? What will they do with the 50% credit for imported feedstocks that were originally proposed? Will that go up to 100%? Will it stay at 50%?”

StoneX expects compromise, but one that still boosts demand, which will be a critical market factor in 2026.

“Our bias is that we think they’re going to go closer to 100% on the feedstock but offset that by offsetting the SREs back onto the RVO,” he says.

If that happens, Suderman says soybeans stand to benefit first and most directly.

“We have tremendous crush potential for our soybeans,” he says. “If we drive soybean demand higher domestically, we can tighten up that balance sheet.”

That tightening, he says, changes the entire market dynamic.

“It leaves us vulnerable to a weather market,” Suderman says.

Corn Demand Is Strong, But Supply Still Dominates

Corn enters 2026 with a different set of fundamentals. Demand, Suderman says, is already robust, but production efficiency continues to cap rallies.

“Corn demand has been on fire,” he says. “We’ve become very good at producing it, and so that has been the problem there.”

One unexpected support has come from Brazil itself.

“Brazil has been ramping up corn ethanol production,” Suderman says. “That has made them less of a competitor in the export market than they otherwise would be.”

Even so, he expects the global balance sheet for corn to remain heavy, which could cap some of the excitement in the markets.

“Global corn demand has exceeded production for about the past decade,” he says. “But supplies were so large, we’re finally working them down to an area where it can start to matter.”

Suderman says that dynamic puts corn at a tipping point, but the market isn’t quite there just yet.

“It may be a year or two away,” he says. “But if we would have a weather problem this summer, we would suddenly find ourselves back in the situation where the market would have to respect that.”

Fertilizer: Where Do We Go From Here?

While producers look for demand-side relief, Linville says fertilizer markets remain one of the biggest headwinds going into 2026 with phosphate standing out above all others.

“You talk to any farmer out there who uses phosphate, and they’re going to tell you this thing is outrageously high priced,” Linville says. “If you look at it from a flat price comparison, it’s incredibly high. When you look at it versus grain values, they’re historically in decent shape, but phosphate values have gone so far above and beyond what we would consider normal.”

That disconnect has already altered behavior of the market, including some loss of demand this past fall

“You saw major demand destruction this fall,” Linville says. “There’s still a lot saying we’re going to see the same thing for spring.”

But the global backdrop limits how much leverage farmers actually have on prices, he says.

“As you look ahead to 2026, that output at export does not look like it’s going to improve,” Linville says. “We think it’s actually going to be markedly worse.”

And what’s the country that remains the linchpin in this discussion? He says that’s simple: It’s China.

“China is your typical leading exporter in the world. Eight to 10 million tons per year back in those normal years,” Linville says. “This year, we’ll be lucky if we get five million tons.”

Why Tight Supply Is Structural Not Strategic

Linville pushes back on the idea that global producers are intentionally tightening supply to inflate prices.

“They’re not restricting exports because they’re trying to drive the global price higher,” he says.

Instead, domestic priorities dominate.

“They’re trying to keep more supply in place for their own people,” Linville says. “There’s higher economic demand, growing industrial demand, battery manufacturing.”

The result is uneven pricing across regions.

“We have seen Chinese values be a decent discount versus the rest of the world,” he says. “It’s a little short-sighted from our standpoint, but when you’re the biggest exporter in the world, you get to do that.”

Nitrogen markets show some improvement, but remain vulnerable.

“You look at the Russian-Ukraine war — that’s a worry,” Linville says. “European production is still 75% of normal — that’s a worry.”

The deeper issue, he says, is how thin the global buffer has become.

“We just don’t have the excess production like we used to,” Linville says. “If there’s any impact to supply, the market reacts very quickly.”

Acreage and Logistics: Where Risk Still Builds

Looking to 2026, StoneX expects acreage shifts but not enough to materially ease fertilizer demand.

“I have corn down 3.5 million acres,” Suderman says. “Soybeans up 4 million acres.”

Much of that movement, he says, happens outside the Corn Belt.

“When you look at the South and the Plains, that can be up to 25% variance,” Suderman says. “That’s where you get your real shift.”

Even with fewer corn acres, Linville says fertilizer demand remains massive, which will support fertilizer prices.

“If we are truly going to be seeing something in the mid-90-million-acre corn range,” he says, “that’s a tremendous amount of fertilizer.”

His biggest concern isn’t price, it’s the timing.

“My worry is that when we all say: ‘Yes, we need that product for spring,’ everybody’s going to rush to market at the same time,” Linville says. “Logistics will penalize us severely.”

He says with that possibility in 2026, retailers are already adjusting to it.

“They can only take so much risk,” Linville says. “So they can only buy so much without further information.”

His advice heading into 2026 centers on communication not prediction.

“Keep having those conversations with your supplier, your retailer, your co-op,” Linville says. “I’m not saying go out and buy it, but have these conversations so the market can plan and be ready for spring.”

Southern Farmers Face ‘Brutal’ Losses as Rice and Cotton Lead Commodity Collapse

Tue, 23 Dec 2025 16:49:56 GMT

Arkansas farmer Nathan Reed says the financial pressure facing farmers in the South this year is unlike anything he has seen in his career — and it is hitting rice and cotton producers especially hard.

After several years of elevated input costs combined with an extended stretch of weak commodity prices, Reed says many Southern operations are now reaching a breaking point. While farmers across the country are feeling margin pressure, he says producers in the Delta face a uniquely severe financial squeeze that leaves little room for error.

“We are in a very difficult situation in the South, in Arkansas,” Reed says. “I grow five crops: cotton, corn, soybeans and rice, with wheat and milo every once in a while. My corn and soybeans don’t pencil out, but the losses are nowhere near what the rice and cotton losses are. It is just brutal, the losses that we’re sustaining.”

Reed says the scale of the losses is hard to overstate, particularly for rice and cotton.

“Rice and cotton right now are by far the biggest losers in commodities,” he says. “It’s just staggering losses per acre.”

Southern Farms Face Unique Financial Exposure

Reed says the financial stress facing Southern farmers goes beyond commodity prices alone. Structural differences in how farms operate in the region create a very different risk profile than what many Midwest producers face.

“Being in the South, we farm improved land, and we’re mostly irrigated,” Reed explains. “Compared to the Midwest, I would say we [have] farm larger operations, but we’ve been forced toward that just to maintain the same standard of living.”

That expansion, he says, has not necessarily improved profitability — and in many cases, it has increased exposure.

“We’ve been forced to expand quite a bit, but we don’t have as workable of an insurance program,” Reed says. “Because we’re always going to make 80% of a crop through irrigation and land improvements, we can’t really rely on insurance. We’re always going to make the crop.”

That reality, Reed says, leaves Southern producers vulnerable when prices collapse.

“We can have some pretty severe losses without any real way to recoup those losses,” he says. “That’s the risk we live with.”

Rice and Cotton Losses Deepen

USDA was expected to roll out the exact Farmer Bridge Program payment rates this week, but the agency says that will now happen before the end of next week with payments expected to roll out early next year. Ahead of USDA’s official release, early estimates point to cotton and rice seeing the biggest payment rates , and that’s understandably so considering cotton and rice are experiencing the steepest losses this year.

As price pressure intensifies, Reed says earlier loss projections are quickly becoming outdated, particularly for rice.

According to University of Arkansas projections released earlier this fall, losses were estimated at roughly $85 per acre for soybeans, nearly $353 per acre for cotton and about $259 per acre for rice.

Reed says rice losses are now significantly worse.

“The rice price is over 50¢ less than when that projection was made,” he says. “Rice losses are closer to over $300 an acre now, and yes, that’s very close to reality.”

He says those figures already include equipment payments, land rent and operating expenses — and that makes the situation even more precarious for producers carrying heavier debt loads.

“They take every number into account, equipment payments, land, rent, all of that,” Reed says. “If you’ve got a heavy debt load on equipment, rent and land at 20% to 25% market share, that’s absolutely the kind of loss you’re looking at.”

Watch the full “Unscripted” episode here:

‘You Can’t Just Walk Away From Cotton’

Despite those losses, Reed says cotton isn’t a crop farmers can simply abandon. Years of investment and infrastructure lock producers into the crop, even during downturns.

“The problem with cotton is you kind of have everything else we farm, and then you have cotton,” Reed says. “It takes a lot of specialized equipment. I’ve got three cotton pickers. I don’t have enough combine capacity to harvest all my land if I walked away from cotton.”

Beyond the equipment, Reed says entire regional systems depend on cotton production.

“You’ve got gins, warehouses, seed crushing facilities — this whole infrastructure that’s built just for cotton,” he says. “If you’re not careful, you can lose that in two to three years.”

Reed says most cotton farmers understand what’s at stake.

“I think most cotton farmers recognize that and are willing to try to stay in the cotton business as long as we can,” he says. “I’ve severely curtailed my acres, not because I wanted to, but out of economic necessity. I had to cut back to a level I can afford to lose.”

Global Competition and a ‘Non-Level Playing Field’

Reed says the financial strain is compounded by what he sees as unfair global competition. While U.S. farmers operate under strict regulations and higher costs, competitors abroad do not face the same constraints.

“I used to feel like the American farmer could compete against anybody in the world,” Reed says. “Now, I feel like we can produce the highest-quality crops under the best environmental and worker safety standards, but we are having difficulty competing on price.”

He points to cotton as a clear example.

“When you have South America making money on cotton in the low 60¢ range and the American cotton farmer hemorrhaging money, something’s not right,” Reed says. “How do you rebalance that? I don’t know.”

Higher labor costs and equipment expenses only widen the gap, he adds.

“I pay more for my labor per hour than most of our competition pays per day,” Reed says. “They’re buying the same tractors we are, but for 20% less because they don’t have to deal with emissions systems and the problems that go with them.”

Financing Pressure Builds Heading Into 2026

As producers look ahead to 2026, Reed says decision-making has shifted from profitability to survival.

“Right now, what we’re really looking at is what we can lose the least on,” he says. “That’s what my decision-making is.”

Even with expected USDA bridge payments, Reed says financing pressure is mounting and many producers may not make it through another year.

“Oh absolutely, there will be farmers who can’t get financed,” Reed says. “It’s been quiet because people were waiting to see what would happen. But my banker is getting calls every day from people trying to refinance or who’ve been cut off.”

He says once temporary relief measures are accounted for, the true impact will surface.

“I think that’s when the pain really comes,” Reed says.

The Stakes for Rural America

Reed says the consequences of sustained losses extend far beyond individual farms, especially in rural Southern communities where agriculture is the primary economic driver.

“In our little community, it’s just ag,” he says. “We don’t have factories. The whole middle class works for ag-related businesses.”

If farming isn’t viable, Reed says the ripple effects are devastating.

“If agriculture is not sustainable, I can’t stay,” he says. “And it drains out the tax base, the schools, everything. If ag is not viable, we might as well shut the door on every small town across the South.”

Reed says American farmers have upheld their end of the bargain.

“The American farmer has done their job,” he says. “We’ve provided the cheapest food per capita anywhere else in the world.”

But without change, he warns, the system will continue to erode.

“Twenty years ago, you could farm 2,000 acres, raise a family and be solidly middle class,” Reed says. “Now you’ve got to farm five times that just to maintain the same lifestyle. That tells you how bad this has gotten.”

Dollars And Dirt: Navigating The Financial Reality Of Conservation Farming

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 20:47:18 GMT

Farmers like Ted Hamer and April Hemmes aren’t opposed to conservation practices or regenerative agriculture—both Iowa row crop growers already use some. What they are opposed to is taking on unmanageable risk in an environment of tight margins, volatile markets and rising input costs without clear, reliable benefits.

During their recent, wide-ranging conversation on AgriTalk, a central theme emerged: if policymakers and companies seek broader adoption of conservation and regenerative practices, they must pair expectations with practical, well-designed incentives.

Here are some of the key points the two farmers made during their discussion with Host Davis Michaelson.

‘Regenerative’ is Just Good Farming
When new programs are announced with big dollar figures and bold language, they often imply that farmers need to be “fixed.” That doesn’t sit well with farmers, many of whom have been stewarding the same land for generations.

As Hemmes, based in Franklin County, Iowa, puts it, many practices highlighted under the umbrella of “regenerative agriculture” are simply standards for good farming.

“What you’re saying is regenerative ag, I just call farming. That’s just what we do. Taking care of our ground and having healthy soils is what we farmers do because it’s our legacy to our family,” says Hemmes, who uses no-till, cover crops and water management practices.

In her and Hamer’s perspective, farmers are not resistant to regenerative practices. Instead, they dislike being told they are “farming wrong” by groups and individuals outside of agriculture who may not fully grasp the on-the-ground economic and agronomic realities.

Tight Margins Make Experimenting A High-Stakes Decision
Hamer, based in Tama County, Iowa, explains that adopting new practices—such as cover crops, reduced tillage, or diversified rotations—often means incurring upfront costs, significant management changes, and a lot of uncertainty.

“It’s terribly risky with the margins we have right now… I’ve got to make a buck… I can’t have it be so risky that I don’t see a return on my investment,” Hamer says.

This is the crux of the matter: even when farmers are supportive and willing to adopt new practices and technologies, the math has to work, and some profit must be realized.

Their collective perspective is clear: without robust ROI data, strong cost-share or incentive payments, and integrated risk-management tools (like multi-year contracts or crop insurance integration), shifting current practices is often unjustifiable.

“The margins are too tight to stick your neck out very far at this time,” Hamer says.

Incentives Must Include Technical Support
National agricultural announcements often tout the dollar amounts available, such as the recently announced $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program . While funding is crucial, Hemmes points to an equally pressing need: technical support in the field to help implement the programs effectively.

“They need more dollars for people in the field…. I’ve been a soil and water commissioner for over 30 years, and we are in desperate need for technicians out here. So, throwing money at this is one thing, but getting the people in place to carry out the programs is another,” she says.

When USDA service centers, Extension offices, and others at the local level are understaffed and technical assistance is stretched thin, good programs can stall at the farm gate. Hemmes outlines the requirements for effective incentives:

Adequate Technical Assistance: To help farmers correctly design and implement complex practices.
Reasonable Timelines: Recognizing that some benefits, like improved soil structure and organic matter, take time to develop and build.
Simple, Predictable Processes: Application and compliance should be straightforward.

Without the necessary technical support and manpower, Hemmes notes that even the best programs often just turn into frustrating paperwork exercises.

Aid Payments Don’t Fix Structural Issues
Short-term “bridge” or aid payments can help keep farms afloat during difficult years, but Hemmes and Hamer say they don’t structurally support the long-term decisions that can improve grower practices and profitability.

The main issue, they contend, is that much of the money from these aid programs never truly stays on the farm.

“This payment (the $12 billion Farmer Bridge Assistance program) isn’t for us. It’s all going to input costs, fertilizer, equipment. None of that money stays in our hands,” Hamer says.

Hemmes agrees, noting that people outside of agriculture often “don’t see what the problem is” because farmers are seemingly getting “free” money.

“It’s not like we go to Amazon and order a bunch more crap off there because we got some money,” she says. “No. It goes to everything we have to do to put the next crop in the ground.”

Ultimately, she believes, major policy change requires facing difficult truths.

“We’d love free and fair trade, but we know that’s not a possibility,” she contends. “It’s going to hurt to make a change, and I think that’s what politicians don’t like. They want to get reelected, so [their attitude is] ‘let’s just keep doing it this way.’ That’s the tough part of it all, because anything that revolves around changing policy is messy.”

Hear the complete conversation between Hamer, Hemmes and Michaelson on AgriTalk:

No More Idle Fields: How A Small Fish Could Solve Rice Farmers' Winter Revenue Gap

Wed, 17 Dec 2025 15:25:04 GMT

Researchers are pioneering a system in Arkansas to turn winter-idle rice fields there into productive fish farms, potentially offering environmental benefits and a new revenue stream for growers.

Currently, rice is planted in the spring and harvested in the fall, leaving the fields empty in winter. But what if this non-productive period could be utilized to add a second, lucrative crop?

The ‘Fish In The Fields’ Project
University of Arkansas researcher Ben Runkle is exploring that question with his multiyear research project called, “Fish in the Fields.”

Runkle says the research is being conducted on a commercial rice farm in eastern Arkansas in Lonoke County, about 45 minutes east of Little Rock.

“The concept was introduced to us by partners from California, at the Resource Renewal Institute, who are interested in exploring different types of regenerative production that are environmentally-friendly and farmer-friendly,” Runkle says.

Scientists at the Institute reached out to Runkle and his group, knowing their expertise in agriculture and farm practices and the interactions between the carbon and water cycle.

“We started designing this experiment to explore the potential for growing fish as a crop, concurrent, or in the off season, with rice,” Runkle says.
The researchers are evaluating two key potential benefits:

environmental/agronomic: The fish can help consume and degrade some of the leftover residues of the rice plant. They are also theorized to reduce methane emissions from the field in the winter period, Runkle notes. Additionally, they process and cycle nutrients, which could potentially reduce fertilizer needs for the subsequent rice crop.
economic: The fish provide an alternate source of income for the farmers if they are harvested and sold on the market.

Runkle says there are a couple of similar projects he’s aware of that are underway in the U.S. One is in Louisiana, where rice farmers are doing some rotation with crawfish in their fields. There are also some similar projects underway in California, with researchers and farmers there exploring the use of fish in the wintertime to help break down residues.

Small Fish, Big Impact
Runkle says the Arkansas project is currently focused on growing fish commonly referred to as darters.

“They’re very small fish, basically like minnows. They are most commonly used as feed for other fish,” he explains.

The 2024 winter marked the third time Runkle and his research team have raised the fish in the field. In the process, they developed a prototype system to turn the fish into a marketable product.

“They are being flash freeze-dried, packaged, and will be sold as fish food,” Runkle says.

Along with developing a marketable product, Runkle says his team’s work has demonstrated some regenerative agriculture benefits.

“My graduate student’s research has found very low methane emissions in these fields, which is an environmental benefit,” Runkle says. “We also have some evidence of the fish consuming the leftover residue in the field, which provides an agronomic benefit.”

Along with those efforts, Runkle and hist team are taking water samples to assess zooplankton and phytoplankton, and flying a drone over the field to measure chlorophyll content. “It’s a highly integrated, real-world measurement system,” he says.

De-Risking The System For Farmers
Future phases of the research will continue to look at how farmers could benefit financially from including fish as a second crop in their fields during winter while incurring a low level of risk. Being able to produce an additional “crop” on fields could provide a financial boost to rice growers in Arkansas, the No. 1 rice-producing state in the country, and potentially, for rice growers in other states.

Runkle says his group is evaluating how to “de-risk the system” by making sure it demonstrates a clear profit, does not impact farmers’ main crop of rice and offers a reliable market for the uniquely grown fish.

“We would like to study more about the methane dynamics, the fish productivity, and critical harvest methods. A major factor is improving the harvest, which currently involves draining the fields just right to congregate the fish in a ditch, and then using a special pump system to collect them. It requires year-by-year iteration to improve,” Runkle notes.

Runkle says financial support by the Southern SARE Grant (Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education) and an NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant is funding the research.

To learn more about the fish-in-fields project, listen to the recent podcast, Short Talks From The Hill , where host Hardin Young and Runkle discuss the research and the potential opportunities for farmers.

‘Farmers Can’t Outyield the Balance Sheet Anymore’

Fri, 12 Dec 2025 22:39:11 GMT

Randy Dowdy, high-yield corn and soybean farmer and agronomic consultant, paints a stark picture of the economic pressure bearing down on American farmers.

Fresh from a visit with customers, Dowdy says the same three questions dominate almost every discussion he had with growers:

Where can we cut costs?
Where do we have to spend money to stay in business?
How do we service existing debt when margins are razor thin?

Even with strong yields this year, many of the farmers, he notes, “could not outyield the balance books.” Commodity prices have not kept pace with rising costs, he says, leaving farmers struggling to keep their operations in the black.

Costs Have Soared, Partly Due To Regulations
Dowdy contrasts his early years in farming with today’s reality. When he started farming in 2008, his first tractor cost between $150,000 and $175,000. Now, he says, a similar horsepower tractor “can run roughly three times that dollar amount.”

He traces a significant part of that escalation to emissions and environmental regulations that began ramping up in the late 2000s. He recalls an initial price jump, followed by annual increases of 6% to 8% since then, compounding the burden on farm finances. The complexity that comes with the machinery systems, he argues, also has stripped farmers of their ability to repair their own equipment.

“You can’t work on [equipment] without a computer. Even the technicians can’t work on them without a computer,” he mentioned on a recent AgriTalk segment.

Noting not all of the price jump is due to emissions controls, Dowdy believes the regulatory wave gave some manufacturers cover to raise prices.

Tension Between Policy and Reality
Dowdy’s comments on AgriTalk came following a White House roundtable on Monday tied to a new $12 billion “bridge payment” plan . President Donald Trump said his administration will move quickly to ease environmental requirements affecting tractors and other farm machinery , arguing the changes will lower sticker prices and simplify repairs.

On Wednesday more news followed with Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health Secretary Robert “F” Kennedy Jr., announcing a $700 million initiative for regenerative agriculture .

Dowdy said he’s not opposed to supporting agricultural niches — all of the profitable corn and soybean growers he and Total Acre business partner David Hula met with recently have some kind of specialty angle.

“If there’s a little help for those guys, I don’t have a problem with it. But at the end of the day, the row crop farmers are where the help needs to be,” he notes.

Part of the help has to do with machinery costs. He highlighted cotton pickers as one example.

“The cotton industry’s got one manufacturer that I’m aware of that makes a cotton picker. One. And it’s $1.2 million,” he says. “Where’s the competition that helps make that thing affordable?”

Dowdy doesn’t claim to have all the answers, but he would like a “seat at the table” to have a candid conversation with policymakers and regulators focused on one core goal: bringing equipment and input costs back within reach so farmers can keep their operations viable.

“I’m all for the farmer,” Dowdy says. “If the farmer wins, everybody wins.”

Dowdy and Hula address farmer profitability needs in more detail in their new Breaking Barriers With R&D podcast, available here:

You can also catch the AgriTalk discussion between Dowdy and Host Davis Michaelson below:

Over $10 Billion Still Available To Farmers In Disaster Relief Program

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 22:36:05 GMT

The sign-up period is now underway for farmers interested in participating in the USDA Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP).

Participation in Stage 2 of the SDRP is now open to those farmers who experienced crop, tree, bush, or vine losses in 2023 and 2024 due to qualifying natural disasters that were not covered under Stage 1. This includes non-indemnified, uncovered, or quality losses from events like wildfires, floods, excessive heat, and drought, USDA says.

The agency adds that the sign up for Stage 1 participation is still ag for those farmers with indemnified losses.

Both stages have a deadline of April 30, 2026, to apply.

USDA has allocated a total of $16 billion for SDRP. To date, the agency says over $5.7 billion has been distributed to more than 381,000 farmers under Stage 1 of the program, leaving $10.3 billion of aid still available to qualifying producers.

What If You’re On The Fence About Applying?
One group of farmers who might not believe they qualify for Stage 2 of the program are those who had crop insurance the past two years but didn’t collect a payment – either because their coverage level was too low or they didn’t have quite enough yield loss, reports Paul Neiffer, The Farm CPA.

“There are a lot of farmers out there who could qualify and collect under Stage 2,” Neiffer says. “It’s probably more farmers than we might have thought initially.”

Neiffer has developed a calculator that farmers can use to estimate their potential payment. The subscription-based product is available at farmCPAreport.com.

USDA offers more information specific to Stage 2 at this link .

Update On 2025 ARC-PLC Payments
Under the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” enacted in July 2025, the legislation allows qualifying farmers to automatically receive the higher of ARC or PLC payments for each covered commodity, regardless of their initial program election. This change is projected to add an additional $3.2 billion to the estimated $13.5 billion in ARC and PLC payments for 2025.

“Based on current projections, farmers can expect between $12 and $13 billion in payments next October,” Neiffer says.

Some farmers have contacted Flory, asking whether Congress could potentially change the rules on the 2025 ARC-PLC payments, if a ‘skinny’ farm bill is passed. Neiffer says that won’t happen.

“The rules are permanently in the law right now,” he explains. “The last thing I think Congress wants to do is make any changes as far as farm bill provisions. Remember, they already kicked the 2018 farm bill down the road to September 30, 2026. That means any changes likely to come are not going to happen until sometime next year anyway, so I can’t see any way they’re going to make any changes to the 2025 ARC-PLC.”

IRS Issues Guidance On Interest Deduction
The internal revenue service (IRS) has released guidance on new bank loan interest deductions. Any bank (excluding Farm Credit banks) or life insurance company that makes loans to farmers could potentially get a 25% net deduction on their interest income.

“But then they also have to reduce their interest expense that they incur to fund that loan by 25%. So, the net benefit to the farmer, potentially is an extra 10 to 15 basis points reduction in their loan rate. So, if they’re at 8% they might get a loan at 7.85% or 7.9%,” Neiffer says.

While the benefit is small, it still is a potential money saver. “That’s not a big deal, but it certainly doesn’t hurt to ask the bank in that situation,
‘Hey, give me an extra 10 or 15 basis points, because I know you have a tax deduction here,’” Flory says.

Catch more of the Neiffer-Flory conversation on AgriTalk here:

Hope on the Horizon: Farmers Anticipate 'Bridge Payment' Announcement

Tue, 02 Dec 2025 21:27:48 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Tuesday that the Trump administration will announce a “bridge payment” for farmers next week that will provide short-term relief while longer trade and aid packages are finalized. The dollar amount has not been disclosed, though some groups have estimated the total amount will be in the neighborhood of $12 billion.

While many growers acknowledge the necessity of such ad-hoc payments amid mounting financial challenges, other farmers question whether the stopgap measures offer real solutions. Northeast Iowa farmer Tim Burrack says he is in both camps regarding the payments.

“Yeah, there’s people that can really use them. Everyone can use them,” says Burrack. “Our cost structure is terrible – our costs versus our returns. But in the big picture, I think these ad-hoc payments just kind of pacify us. We’re not getting real solutions.”

Farmers Want Market Opportunities
Burrack ticks off a short list of actions he believes the Trump administration needs to take that can help corn and soybean farmers. Chief among them, more export market opportunities and reduced trade barriers.

“We’re not getting our biofuel solutions,” Burrack adds. “We’re not getting E15, and now it looks like we still may allow imported feedstocks from China.”

Despite time to do so, Congress has not voted on legislation that would allow consumers across the country to access E15 year-round, according to Jed Bower, Ohio farmer and National Corn Growers Association president.

Northeast Kansas farmer Ken McCauley shares Bower’s sentiment. “President Trump has to come through on this. E15 is a no-lose deal,” says McCauley.

Like Burrack, McCauley favors the use of ad hoc payments to farmers in the short-term. “These payments do help, but I think they give a poor signal to input suppliers that we can keep this up, that everything’s going to work out. But it might not work out,” he says. “We’re talking some high numbers [of farmers at risk]. It’s not like the ‘80s, but it could get there pretty quick.”

Burrack says he is more concerned about the long-term future for American farmers and consumers, as well.

“My bigger concern is the federal government and the debt,” he says. “The issue is the American people are not prepared for the pain that’s coming because of the deficits. Either we’re going to be paying a lot more taxes, or people are going to have a lot less services, and no one wants to do either one. I don’t know how that’s going to turn out, but that’s the big concern I have.”

For more insights from Burrack and McCauley, listen to their discussion on AgriTalk with Host Chip Flory:

Can China Live Up to Its 12 MMT Soybean Promise?

Mon, 01 Dec 2025 21:14:39 GMT

As year-end approaches, soybean markets are entering what is normally a quiet stretch, but this year, the calm might be deceptive. Arlan Suderman, chief commodities economist at StoneX, says two uncertainties could spark volatility: the EPA’s final biofuel regulations and China’s ability to follow through on its promise to purchase 12 million metric tons (MMT) of new U.S. soybean sales.

And as USDA weighs market loss payments due to tariffs and trade disruptions, which are reportedly coming this week , ag economists cast doubt on if China will buy 12 MMT yet this year, Suderman says the market might have have already priced in a lower amount.

Markets in a Holding Pattern But Not for Long

Suderman describes the current market tone as typical for late November and December, saying: “We’re in a holding pattern right now, and typically between Thanksgiving and Christmas, you get kind of sluggish markets as we’re waiting for new direction after the first of the year.”

But he immediately adds that this year could carve its own path.

“I think this year we have more potential for volatility, perhaps in both directions, because over the next few weeks, we anticipate getting direction from the EPA on the final regulations for the biofuel program,” he adds. “That could be very bullish, it could be bearish. Our bias is to the positive side, but until we know, that’s an unknown that the market’s really not pricing in yet at this point.”

The Million-Dollar Question: Can China Really Buy 12 MMT?

A major focus remains China’s pledge to buy 12 MMT of soybeans in 2025, but even the timing of those purchases is unclear.

“The White House says it’s new purchases for the calendar ’25. China hasn’t given their side of it. That’s why we need to see the agreement, and we hope to get that this week. That should detail it out in addition to details on the other commodities,” Suderman explains.

Beyond the calendar debate, he says there are real logistical limitations.

“What we hear from our cash sources on the ground in China is they don’t have enough storage space if their state grain buyers are going to buy all these because it’s not economical for the private crushers,” he says. “So the only way they could do it would be to wash out some purchases from Brazil. Now that would be bearish for Brazil, cause their basis to collapse, and then some customers who normally buy from us might go to Brazil instead, kind of rearranging the deck chairs, so to speak.”

Suderman says the core issue is straightforward and there are two looming questions that only China can answer.

“How it all plays out is a big question mark. But I think the big key is: Does China make the full 12 million metric tons of new purchases by the end of the year? And when do they take shipment? They can make the purchases and not take shipment till the next marketing year, or they could take shipment in the next few months. That’ll have a big impact on the dynamics of this market,” says Suderman.

Economists Cast Doubt

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins and the White House have said China will live up to its promise to buy 12 MMT of soybeans this year, but ag economists aren’t so sure.

Farm Journal’s November Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor , an anonymous survey, found more than three-quarters (76%) of economists surveyed say China won’t purchase that amount of soybeans this year; 24% of economists think China will.

(Farm Journal)

Those same economists are also divided on whether additional trade aid is needed. Exactly half of economists say yes, trade aid is still necessary, while the other half say no.

But economists overwhelmingly agree on two key risks:

U.S. agriculture has become too reliant on ad hoc payments. A striking 94% say the industry has become “too addicted” to emergency programs. And it’s not just farmers, but also industry and input suppliers who have become reliant upon these payments. Many economists say repeated aid packages distort land values, cash rents, equipment purchases and overall decision-making.
One hundred percent of economists argue tariff-aid payments will keep fertilizer prices high. Every economist surveyed says tariff aid would keep input prices elevated, particularly fertilizer.

November Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

But this also leads to a bigger issue: Is there enough competition in the fertilizer market? Two-thirds (67%) of economists surveyed say there is not enough competition in fertilizer markets.

Fertilizer prices track crop prices, not energy costs — a sign of market power.
The market is concentrated and driven by a handful of global producers.

“The fertilizer market appears to be very concentrated, limiting competition,” said one economist in the anonymous survey. “In a competitive fertilizer market, fertilizer prices should track more closely with energy costs as the primary input cost in fertilizer production (supply) instead of tracking more closely with crop prices as the primary demand for fertilizer. Prices correlating more closely to production costs suggest a competitive supply-driven market. Prices correlating more closely with crop prices suggest a demand-driven market with some market power.”

“More competition is always better, but closing out competition with trade barriers right now is a bad idea,” one economist said.

“While we only have a few suppliers, there is not competition to offer lower prices. Fixing this is a whole other issue,” said another economist in the monthly survey.

“Economies of scale are so large that firms will be few in number. Breaking them up may lead to more competition but also higher prices as economies of scale are lost,” was another comment in the November survey.

What Traders Are Actually Pricing in

Right now, Suderman says the market is assuming something less than the full 12 MMT pledge.

“I think the market has priced in expectations that maybe they’ll take 8 to 10 million metric tons, and they’ll take it during the marketing year between now and the end of August,” he says.

He adds that traders expect the 25 MMT earmarked for 2026 could be purchased sooner but shipped later.

U.S. Soybeans Still Too Expensive for Private Buyers

Even if China lifts its 10% retaliatory tariff, as many expect, it still won’t make U.S. soybeans the cheaper option for commercial crushers.

“For the private crushers, what they would have to pay if there were no additional tariff—and there still is a 10% retaliatory tariff—we expect that to come off soon. But even if it comes off, our U.S. soybeans are priced 70 to 80 cents above Brazilian soybeans landed at the port in China,” he says. “And so we’re still not competitive from that standpoint. And with new crop harvest just weeks away in Brazil now, we’re probably not going to get competitive. So it’s going to have to be state purchases.”

Livestock Margins, Not Disease, Are the Real Drag on Feed Demand

While there are recurring late-year rumors of disease in China’s hog herd, Suderman doesn’t see unusual issues at the moment.

“Every year we hear this time of year about disease in China,” he says. “We don’t see anything at this point that’s out of the ordinary.”

Instead, he points to weak margins across all major protein sectors.

Instead, he says the real challenge is weak livestock economics.

“The bigger problem is the poor returns, the poor margins for livestock feeding—be it pork, be it poultry, be it all forms of protein right now. Demand for protein is simply not there,” Suderman explains. “So they’re shrinking the size of their herds, their flocks, etc. And that’s reducing demand for corn consumption. They actually expect to see corn consumption go down next year versus prior year. That’s a reversal of the normal trend for soymeal demand as well.”

He adds that China is still buying soybeans for a strategic reason and one that agriculture needs to prepare for now.

“Soybean demand is only being held up right now by China building its reserves so that when President Trump’s no longer in office, they can never buy another soybean from us again.”

If the U.S. Must Rely Less on China, What’s the Quickest Way to Do So?

Rollins recently warned that reducing reliance on China will be difficult. Suderman agrees but insists it’s necessary and will take not only striking new trade deals and finding new markets, but building domestic demand.
That includes:

A strong biofuel program
New trade agreements
Expanded global access
Domestic demand growth

“I’ve been saying that for four or five years, that we were going to lose China. Let’s go to all of the above,” he says.

He believes some recent trade pacts signed by Trump are “very good for demand,” though he cautions nothing can fully replace China’s market size.

Still, Suderman says there is reason for optimism as biofuel infrastructure.

“With the all-of-the-above approach, we do have a bright picture down the road,” he says.

What to Watch Through the End of the Year

China’s ability to follow through on its 12 MMT soybean promise remains highly uncertain. Storage constraints, price disadvantages, and weak domestic protein margins are all complicating factors.

Suderman says the market is prepared for 8 MMT to 10 MMT but not the full pledge.

What China does, or doesn’t do, over the next few weeks could shape the soybean market well into 2026.

“Some of these trade packs that President Trump has signed are very good for demand. It’s not going to replace China by any means. You can’t do that, it’s not the same size market. But I think with the all-of-the-above approach, we do have a bright picture down the road as we get the biofuel infrastructure built up,” says Suderman.

From Harvest to Hardship: Farmers Struggle With Cash-Flow Crunch

Tue, 25 Nov 2025 22:13:45 GMT

Across America’s heartland, most corn and soybean crops are harvested, combines have been put away, and farmers will gather with their families to enjoy the holidays ahead. But as farmers gather around dinner tables and give thanks for what they have, many are concerned about what they don’t have this fall – adequate cash flow.

That lack is the No. 1 issue facing farmers now, according to southeast Illinois farmer Sherman Newlin, who’s based in Crawford County.

“I think these low prices are starting to take a toll on guys trying to meet their cash-flow needs,” he says.

For many farmers, Newlin believes the issue isn’t just about surviving until next spring — it’s about paying land rents, covering input bills coming due, and staying afloat right now.

“Unless you’re in a good area that had really good yields, cash flow is probably going to be tight,” Newlin says.

Northeast Iowa Brent Judisch doesn’t sugarcoat the numbers he penciled out last Wednesday. “Our cash corn today is at $4.10 — that’s not going to cut it with an average yield. Our cash beans today are $10.60. With a good bean crop, that probably cash flows, but it doesn’t make any money,” he says.

Farmers Took Grain To Town At Harvest
Selling grain is about the only option many row-crop growers have had this fall to meet expenses, even if the market timing isn’t ideal, Newlin says.

“Prices for corn and soybeans have come up some. At harvest, things were quite a bit lower than where they are right now,” Newlin says. “But it’s kind of hard to take advantage of a rally if you sold across the scale and didn’t come back in and reown [the crop] on paper.”

Judisch says there are some “better bids out there” for farmers who can wait to market corn in late winter, February and March.

“But for the short term, [buyers] are not having to bid up that much to get it because guys are just having to turn some stuff into cash to pay the December rents,” he says.

(Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor)

The November Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor survey reflects farmers’ current cash-flow pressure as well as their mindset in how they are approaching marketing decisions now. The survey, administered by Farm Journal, shows:

53% of ag economists say farmers are marketing defensively, prioritizing liquidity and risk reduction.
41% of ag economists say farmers are reactive, delaying decisions due to uncertainty.

Where Is The Financial Stress Most Severe?
Jackson Takach, chief economist for Farmer Mac, tells Farm Journal his reports indicate farmers’ top concern is liquidity (working capital) and their second-highest concern is farm income.

“We know cash flows are top of mind,” he says. “As prices have come down, people are talking about it more and digging into working capital, and that’s causing a little bit of distress, particularly in the grain side of the ag economy.”

Takach says the economic stress is highest in parts of the country where soybeans are farmers’ No. 1 crop.

“You look at the Delta, that’s where we’re seeing a lot of stress popping up in bankruptcies as well as late payments, because of some of that additional stress coming through with lower commodity prices specific to soybeans.”

That sentiment is similar to what was shared in the November Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor survey, though the Monitor paints a broader picture. When asked in which region farmers face the most severe financial pressure, economists reported that “cotton and rice country is suffering from especially poor profitability and weak sentiment.”

Without action, long-term farmer viability is at risk, according to John Newton, American Farm Bureau Federation economist. “Additional financial support is critical to offset trade losses and provide a bridge until farm bill enhancements from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act go into effect,” he says in a release. “This will stabilize the farm economy, sustain rural economies and maintain affordable food prices.”

Will China Come Through On Soybean Purchases?
The fate of soybean exports is on nearly everyone’s radar, especially as China’s purchases for 2025 still hang in the balance.

Reuters’ Karl Plume reports that China is starting to make good on its promises, noting that “two cargo vessels were headed for grain port terminals near New Orleans on Monday to load with the first U.S. soybean shipments to China since May, according to a shipping schedule seen by Reuters.”

But Judisch warns the window for 2025 U.S. soybean sales to China is closing fast.

“We’re going to have to see some immediate results from this agreement [with China], because if this drags into January and February and Brazil comes online, I’m not very optimistic that we’re going to make the goals that were set between the U.S. and China.”

Farmers Press On And Start Planning For Next Season
With 2026 around the corner, cautious optimism about the new year mingles with the current hard reality of farmers’ cash-flow drought.

Judisch notes that successful negotiations by the Trump administration to drop tariffs on some items, such as fertilizer, aren’t helping financially strapped farmers. He says that was a scenario of a little help that arrived too late.

“Stopping the tariffs on fertilizer this late in the game does no good for the 2026 crop because you’ve either got it on fields already or your buildings are already full of high-priced fertilizer,” Judisch contends.

“It’s kind of a bugaboo for us,” he adds. “Our costs are staying high even with the tariffs being dropped on fertilizer, but our income is just not going to be there until probably next summer.”

Cash rents for 2026 is one important aspect of the financial equation for the year ahead that 100% of ag economists surveyed this month recommend farmers dig into now. Notes one ag economist: “Cash rent could use more attention as a majority of land is rented… it would be nice if landlords knew that they may need to lower cash rent.”

(Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor)

Newlin says he and other farmers he knows in his area are sorting through crop rotations for next season – whether to plant more corn and
fewer soybeans or less corn and more soybeans.

“We’ll probably be heavier corn next year just because of our rotation, but a lot of guys are going to be heavier in corn in our area,” Newlin says.

Judisch is sticking with his 60-40 ratio of corn to beans next season. Like Newlin, he believes other farmers could lean toward more corn in the year ahead, given the financial opportunity many believe corn offers.

“We’ve seen some very good export sales on corn, so there are some good things happening,” Judisch says. “We need to keep them going in the future. That’s the biggest thing.”

Your next read: USDA Signals Possible Trade Aid Soon, Economists Warn It Could Keep Input Prices High

Is EPA Reversing Course on RFS Proposal? Agency Pushes Back on Rumors as Ag Sector Awaits Final Rule

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 20:07:50 GMT

The EPA says it is “working expeditiously” to finalize Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volumes after proposing record-high blending requirements for biomass-based diesel earlier this year — levels that could deliver a major boost in domestic soybean demand. But with rumors swirling about potential delays or softened requirements, agriculture stakeholders are asking: Is EPA reversing course?

In an exclusive interview with U.S. Farm Report, EPA deputy administrator David Fotouhi says the agency is committed to getting the RFS rule “exactly right,” and strongly disputes reports suggesting the administration may scale back or delay the proposed increases.

EPA Still Won’t Commit to a Date, But Says Final RFS Rule Is “On Track”

While agriculture groups continue pressing for clarity on when EPA will finalize its Renewable Fuel Standard volumes orignally proposed in June , the agency maintains that the process remains on schedule — though it’s still without a specific public release date.

The deputy administrator emphasizes the RFS rulemaking has been a top priority since the new EPA leadership took office in January.

“We understand how important it is to get this exactly right,” he says. “From day one, administrator Zeldon has been laser focused on ensuring that the RFS strikes the right balance and carries out our statutory obligation to set volumes, considering the factors that are in the Clean Air Act.”

He notes the original proposal, which was unveiled in January, and the June update were shaped under difficult circumstances.

“When we came to the agency here in January, we had an unprecedented backlog of small refinery exemptions that the Biden administration had failed to consider,” he explains. “We also had a Renewable Fuel Standard program that was behind on setting volumes.”

To address that, EPA not only advanced its main proposal but also issued a supplemental notice proposing how to reallocate volumes connected to those outstanding small refinery exemption decisions.

“We’ve invested a lot of time and effort in the proposal that you just described, as well as the supplemental notice on reallocation of those SRE-exempted volumes,” he says. “That comment period just recently closed, and we’re looking at all the comments we received on the initial proposal from the summer, as well as on the supplemental notice that we just issued.”

(EPA)

The comments are now being reviewed collectively as EPA weighs what the final RVOs should look like.

“We’re taking all of that on board and considering that when deciding how to set the final RVOs,” he continues. “And we are working expeditiously to do that because we know farmers across the country and all the other stakeholders implicated by this program need certainty.”

Pressed on whether the final rule could realistically land this winter or slip into spring, he again declined to give a specific timeframe but reiterated the agency’s urgency.

“What I can say is that we’re working expeditiously to provide that level of certainty,” he says. “We know that we need to set these volumes so that stakeholders can adjust and act accordingly and start meeting the standards. We are working as quickly as we can to take final action on that proposal.”

EPA Slams Reuters Report on Imported Biofuel Incentives

EPA’s frustration with outside reporting was on full display when asked about a Reuters article suggesting the administration is considering delaying proposed cuts to incentives for imported biofuels — a key piece of EPA’s June proposal that was intended to prioritize domestic production. Reuters reported refiners had pushed the administration to dial back or postpone the shift, prompting widespread speculation that EPA might be reversing course.

The deputy administrator forcefully rejects that narrative.

“What I can say now is that there are a lot of rumors and speculation about what we might or might not do,” he says. “We can’t prejudge the outcome of where we’re going. We’re still looking at all of the public comments.”

He made it clear the agency views the Reuters report as misleading and potentially harmful to agricultural markets.

“It’s very frustrating, frankly, when a news agency like Reuters comes out and spreads rumors and innuendo about where we may or may not be going,” he says. “They do it in a way that actually moves markets and causes commodity prices to be affected before we’ve even made a decision.”

The deputy administrator stressed the imported biofuel incentive changes laid out in June remain on the table — and nothing has been rolled back behind the scenes.

“As you said, it was an integral part of our proposal,” he notes. “We’ve received a lot of public feedback on it that we are reviewing from stakeholders across the board, and we’ve made no final decisions yet on that issue.”

He went even further, directly questioning the appropriateness of the Reuters reporting.

“It is irresponsible for Reuters to be speculating about that at this time,” he says. “We are taking this seriously, we are reviewing the comments, and we will make a decision based on the law and the record — not based on rumor.”

The agency’s direct pushback underscores the sensitivity surrounding EPA’s final RVO decision. Every signal about imported biofuels, biomass-based diesel volumes or domestic versus foreign supply carries major implications for commodity markets, soybean crush demand and the renewable fuel industry.

EPA’s message to farmers: Ignore the rumors, wait for the rule and understand that:

No decisions have been finalized
Public comments are still being reviewed
Reports of policy shifts are premature
Certainty for farmers is a guiding priority

More Background on the RFS Proposal

As Farm Journal originally reported in June , EPA’s proposed rule is a potential game changer for farmers. The proposal would increase biomass-based diesel requirements, from 3.35 billion gallons in 2025 to 5.61 billion gallons in 2026, supporting American row-crop growers in the process.

The proposal includes at least three key regulatory shifts that would accompany the volume increases:

Heightened quotas for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel (BBD) and advanced biofuels.
Prioritization of soybean oil and ethanol produced in the U.S. Imported biofuels would earn just 50% of the Renewable Identification Number (RIN) value compared to U.S.-based fuels.
Removal of renewable electricity (eRINs) as a qualifying fuel, reinforcing liquid biofuels as the RFS centerpiece.

EPA Signals a Broader Deregulatory Strategy

Beyond the RFS, the agency is emphasizing cost-cutting and regulatory relief as core priorities — offering a stark contrast to Biden-era policy approaches.

In August, EPA finalized its decision not to impose new wastewater discharge rules on meat and poultry processors, reversing a previous proposal the deputy administrator says would have cost facilities “millions, if not tens of millions of dollars” with limited environmental benefit.

He argues the change is part of a coordinated administration-wide effort to reduce the cost of living, noting that avoiding new regulatory burdens could help keep grocery prices lower.

Earlier this year, EPA also announced what it called the largest deregulatory action in agency history, spanning 31 changes intended to reduce energy and regulatory costs for farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers.

“One of our biggest focuses is reducing the cost of energy,” he says. “We’re working across agencies — USDA, DOE, Interior — to identify ways to lower input costs for producers. That’s a priority for the president.”