Opinion

Teaching Agricultural Policy in Africa

Wed, 27 May 2026 18:15:08 GMT

Last week, I had the opportunity to help facilitate a two-day workshop focused on agricultural policy and advocacy in Ibadan, Nigeria, on the campus of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), one of the 13 agricultural research centers that are part of the CGIAR system (formerly known as the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research). IITA was one of the original centers of the CGIAR when it was established in 1971, along with CIMMYT (the wheat and maize research center in Mexico City), IRRI (the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines), and CIAT (International Center for Tropical Agriculture in Colombia).

I was recruited for this workshop by my friend and colleague Abiola Afolayan, previously with Bread for the World (where I met her several years ago here in the Washington DC area). She is now the co-founder of the Center for Women’s Policy and Agricultural Innovation (CWPAI), headquartered in Abuja, Nigeria. I was joined in facilitating this workshop by Abiola, her fellow co-founder of CWPAI Olafunke Makinwa, Adebayo Adeleke, retired U.S. Army Major and head of the Nigerian Food Security Project, and Alex Johnson, a Capitol Hill veteran, former U.S. diplomat and the co-founder of the Global Futures Collaborative at Howard University.

The workshop was funded by IITA, and most of the people attending work for that institution, some coming from across Africa as well as from the research facilities on the Ibadan campus. The majority were relatively young, likely post-docs or junior scientific staff, and they appeared very interested in the information we were providing. In addition to specific feedback I solicited during the course of the workshop, which was highly favorable, the fact that there was only a slight drop-off in attendance between Day 1 and Day 2 also supports that hypothesis.

The topics we covered during the course of this workshop included the following:

• Foundations of Food Policy,

• How changes in the foreign policy views of the United States and other Western countries have altered how financial assistance to developing country agricultural sectors might be distributed and how much,

• Global, Regional, and National Policy Frameworks, including how the U.S. farm bill process came about, as well as discussions about various regional and national food policies,

• Why engage in advocacy with policymakers, and how to go about it, and

• Private Sector Partnerships

The workshop also included two breakout sessions, one on each day, for participants to brainstorm among themselves about how to best approach policymaking and policymakers, and a short session of role playing during the advocacy component of the workshop.

At the end of Day 2, we had the chance to visit some of the research facilities on the IITA campus, and learn more about the work underway there. The first stop was at the Genetic Resource Center, IITA’s gene bank, which is the largest such facility on the African continent. It is headed by Dr. Michael Abberton, A British plant breeder who has worked at IITA since 2012. The majority of the Resource Center’s collection consists of hundreds of varieties of the six principal crops that they are mandated to work on:

• Maize (corn)

• Soybeans

• Cowpeas

• Bananas and plantain

• Yams

• Cassava

The first three crops on this list are reproduced through the production and planting of seed, and the last three crops are propagated vegetatively, which means that they are developed from existing vegetative structures like stems, roots, or leaves. If you recall the movie The Martian, the lead character played by Matt Damon was able to survive alone for months on Mars in part because he was able to cut up the potatoes that had been brought to help the crew celebrate Thanksgiving, and plant the pieces in order to grow potatoes to supplement the packaged rations he still had. Potatoes are vegetatively propagated, just like the three crops mentioned above.

In order to maintain the collection properly, technicians have to go in and draw out random seeds (where applicable) and then test-plant them to make sure they are still viable. This is a standard practice for all gene banks around the world, because you don’t want to devote resources to preserving nonviable seeds that can’t be used to grow actual plants.

We also had the chance to meet Dr. Mercy Diebiru-Ojo, who specializes in research on the cassava plant, a crop that was indigenous to South America (Brazil) but was introduced to Africa in the 16th Century by Portuguese traders. Cassava is cultivated in most African countries (about 40 in all) as a staple crop, and provides a source of carbohydrate calories but not much else in terms of nutrition. In 2025, Dr. Dieburu-Ojo was awarded the Africa Food Prize for her work on cassava, having developed methods to more rapidly reproduce the cassava plant (as well as yams), increasing yields by up to 500 percent, and also for incorporating Vitamin A into certain varieties of the crop to make it more nutritionally useful.

The IITA headquarters campus itself is located on a gated, 1,000-acre forested preserve in the middle of Ibadan, a metropolitan area with a population of around 4.3 million. Unfortunately, we chose to make it only a three-day trip to Nigeria, leaving no time to see the countryside and Nigerian farmers at work. Interestingly, we did see numerous long-horn cattle and goats grazing along the side of the highway between Lagos and Ibadan, along with probably thousands of small huts and shacks selling probably every product imaginable. There was even what looked like an open-air cattle market on the outskirts of Lagos, with perhaps thousands of animals up for sale.

Farmers Are Applying Sound Science to the Biggest Challenges in Agriculture

Fri, 22 May 2026 20:53:00 GMT

By Tiana ‘Jia-Cih’ Yang: Jinlan, Chiayi County, Taiwan

We’re on the front-line working in agriculture in Taiwan.

It’s a never-ending struggle when you cultivate food and fruit in a tropical region with a hot and humid climate. Diseases are a constant challenge. One of the worst is fusarium wilt —a global fungus that damages and destroys crops on every continent.

The mission of our farm is to defeat it by promoting and producing disease-resistant seedlings.

We started it in 2012, seeking to take advantage of Taiwan’s special strengths in agriculture. These may not be obvious to outsiders. Our land is famous for making semiconductors, not growing food.

Taiwan’s arable land is limited to only about 800,000 hectares. Farms tend to be smaller in size and they’re expensive, both in property values and labor costs. To be sustainable economically, farms in Taiwan must produce large amounts of food that sells at a good price and never lets up.

Diseases are a major threat. Successful farms must be more than lucky. They must have strategies of resistance and ways of battling back. Otherwise, fusarium wilt invade and conquer our farms.

Thankfully, Taiwan benefits from special strengths in agriculture. Our island may be small, but it contains multitudes of environments, from tropical jungles to soaring mountains. The farms that occupy these regions aren’t big, but they are enterprising and adaptable—and they are an ideal proving ground for experimenting with new varieties of plants and conducting disease-resistance trials.

Farmers like me are also physically close to a powerful industry of advanced technologies. This means we enjoy access to 21st-century tools such as sensors, automation, and artificial intelligence.

This is the goal of our farm: We seek to apply smart and sound science to the biggest challenges of agriculture.

Fusarium wilt is one of them. This soil-borne fungus attacks plants through the roots. As it spreads, it blocks the vessels that provide crops with water and nourishment.

First the plants turn yellow. Then they wilt. Finally, they die.

When fusarium wilt infects a plant, farmers can’t fix the problem. The infection is forever.

The losses can be massive. Farmers around the world surrender billions of dollars each year to fusarium wilt. Bananas may be the single most vulnerable crop. Both Chiquita and the Dole Food Company have called fusarium wilt “an existential threat” to the global production of this delicious and popular fruit.

The only cure for fusarium wilt is prevention. In other words, we must find ways to stop the disease from infecting crops in the first place.

That’s where our seedling farm steps in.

There are many traditional ways for farmers to fight fusarium wilt, such as rotating crops and selecting fertilizers that lower soil acidity. Today’s farmers are increasingly able to take advantage of new tissue-culture technologies.

On my farm, we work in labs and greenhouses that allow us to propagate banana, strawberry, and papaya seedlings in sterile conditions. We collaborate with university researchers to breed plants that carry a natural resistance to fusarium. We’re best known for a banana resistance line with a name that only a scientist could love: GCTCV-228.

This type of banana is not immune to fusarium wilt, but it confronts one of the deadliest strains of the fungus with vigor—and it gives banana growers a chance to overcome a massive threat to their livelihoods. We’ve also developed more than 30 varieties of strawberry and we’re boosting resistance in papayas and melons.

Crops are often uniquely suited to the places and climates where they are grown. Yet the seedlings from our farm have found homes not only in Taiwan but in Vietnam and Brunei in Asia and Eswatini in Africa.

I don’t know where they’ll go in the future, but I’m encouraged by the conclusion earlier this year of a trade agreement between Taiwan and the United States. While the deal is mostly about manufacturing, it also involves food imports and exports. And it will bind our countries more closely at a time when many trade ties are loosening.

As we exchange goods and services, we also exchange knowledge—and I’m hopeful that when farmers and scientists work together across borders, we can overcome diseases and improve agriculture everywhere.

Jia-Cih (Tiana) Yang produces seedlings for bananas, strawberries, papaya, loofah, grape and melon under greenhouse in Jinian, Taiwan.Tiana is a member of the Global Farmer Network www.globalfarmernetwork.org

Our Regenerative Farming Practices are Science in Action

Fri, 15 May 2026 13:20:45 GMT

By David Statham: Moree, New South Wales, Australia

Our brand is called Good Earth Cotton because we’re good to the earth and it’s good to us. Good Earth Cotton means that we sequester more carbon in our farming practices than we emit.

But it’s not just a brand. It’s a way of doing business. We can do well and do good at the same time—and we can even make farming fashionable.

Here on our farm in Australia, we’re telling a carbon-positive story about agriculture. We’re meeting both the needs and expectations of consumers by supplying companies with raw material for clothes and doing it in a regenerative way that helps the environment.

My wife Danielle and I run Sundown Pastoral, a conglomerate of 15 properties aggregated together between 1984 and 1998, encompassing 64,500 acres, including 26,000 acres of irrigated cotton, 25,000 acres dryland farming, and 10,000 acres of cattle pastures in New South Wales, about 600 km north of Sydney. Our major product is cotton, and we also grow wheat, chickpeas, faba beans, and canola in rotation. The cattle graze on oats and Lab Lab. The cattle operation is a background operation. We don’t own the cattle. Instead, we’re paid by how much weight they gain while they’re in our pastures.

Our family has been at it ever since my father started buying farmland in the early 1980s, when I was just becoming an adult. I’ve devoted my working life to this project. Today, we’re well established and thriving. We are constantly adapting to circumstances, taking up new technologies, and seizing opportunities.

That’s why we founded Good Earth Cotton.

It started out of sheer economic necessity. We live in a dry area and must conserve water, which is our scarcest resource. Our constant goal is to grow more crop per drop.

This led us to regenerative practices that keep moisture locked in the soil, where crops can use it. Over the last two decades, we’ve moved from tilling our fields to a minimal and zero-till approach. This also happens to be good for biodiversity, keeping our soil healthy and nutritious for crops as well as birds, insects, worms, and other wildlife.

Along the way, we’ve kept careful records on everything from inputs to yield. This allows us to take a long view as we analyze our performance and improve our methods. We took a big step forward about six years ago, when we began to use Downforce technology, allowing us to measure carbon content by satellite, gaining information about every ten square meters of our farm every ten days while giving you records looking 7 years back.

The Downforce technology clearly shows that our change of practices has increased soil carbon over the whole property and can measure the year-on-year change, reflecting this information in our annual reports to our customers.

When I started farming, this would have felt like science fiction. Now it’s science in action.

One of the lessons we’ve learned lately is that if we farm the right way, we can sequester more carbon in the soil than we emit in greenhouse gases.

Farmers are often blamed for exacerbating climate change through carbon emissions. Our farm is proof that farmers are part of the solution—and that we can develop methods that make economic sense for our operation as well as environmental sense for everybody.

Consumers increasingly want to know that what they buy comes from sustainable sources. This means that brands want to work with farms like ours. We have the traceability of the product, using Fibretrace, to validate to them that net-zero production begins right here. Then we can become a part of their marketing strategy. A positive story about sustainability starts on our farm.

My wife Danielle deserves much of the credit. I know a lot about farming, but she’s the one with the fashion sense. Under her influence, Good Earth Cotton and the Fibertrace business lets consumers trace their clothes back to us, learning about how we work in harmony with nature.

I’m pleased to say that demand for our cotton now outstrips the supply.

And we’re still striving to do better. By this time next year, we expect to be fully self-sufficient in fuel and fertilizer. We’re working with a New Zealand-based company to transition to hydrogen fuel and producing our own anhydrous ammonia. This green-energy initiative is good for the climate. It will also make us more resilient at a time of tumultuous energy and nitrogen prices.

As we do good, Good Earth Cotton keeps doing better.

David and Danielle Statham are creating the world’s first carbon positive farm, in northern North South Wales, Australia.As co-founders of Sundowner Pastoral, Good Earth Cotton, and FiberTrace Technologies, they are at the forefront of technology, innovation and the application of regenerative farming as they produce cotton, cattle, wheat, canola, and pulse crops. David is a member of the Global Farmer Network. www.globalfarmernetwork.org

From Compliance to Liability: How Court Decisions Threaten America’s Agricultural Supply Chain

Tue, 21 Apr 2026 14:34:27 GMT

By Daren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association President & CEO

Pesticide labels are not suggestions. Under federal law, they are binding rules.

For decades, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has governed the review, labeling, and use of pesticides in the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops and approves pesticide labels. Once approved, those labels dictate how products may be sold, handled, and applied nationwide. Deviating from them is illegal, and the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) strongly supports following labeling requirements.

A case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, Monsanto v. Durnell, threatens to unravel that system. If state tort claims are allowed to impose additional warning requirements beyond those approved by EPA, businesses that comply fully with federal law could still be held liable under state law. The result would be immediate disruption across the agricultural supply chain—higher costs, reduced access to vital tools, and increased uncertainty for the farmers who depend on them.

Why Uniform Labels Matter

FIFRA does not just regulate manufacturers; it imposes strict legal requirements throughout the supply chain. Agricultural retailers are prohibited from altering or supplementing pesticide labels, and professional applicators must apply products exactly as directed by the label. Any violation can bring substantial civil penalties.

Uniform labeling makes compliance possible; without it, federal law becomes a guessing game.

National uniformity is needed because retailers serve customers across multiple states. Insurers underwrite coverage based on predictable compliance rules, and farmers rely on timely access to lawfully labeled products during narrow planting and pest-control windows.

An Impossible Legal Conflict

State-law “failure to warn” claims argue that an EPA-approved label should have included additional warnings. But this contradicts FIFRA, which states that pesticide labels cannot be changed unilaterally.

Allowing state tort claims to impose different warning requirements creates an impossible bind: obey federal law and face state liability, or attempt to satisfy state law by breaking federal law. Congress did not intend for compliance itself to become grounds for punishment.

If national uniformity were to end, insurance premiums could increase, coverage could become harder to secure, and products farmers need could be pulled from shelves, even though they remain fully approved by the EPA. Costs would likely increase as service capacity decreased, and that pressure would flow directly down the supply chain to the farm gate.

Science Versus Jury Verdicts

FIFRA assigns responsibility for evaluating pesticide safety to the EPA, not to state courts. The agency makes those determinations through scientific review, public input, and a weighing of risks and benefits.

Tort litigation bypasses that process and asks juries to second-guess EPA’s scientific judgments years later, without access to the full regulatory record and without the agency itself as a party. If those verdicts can override FIFRA and federal approval, the result is a patchwork system in which legal obligations vary by state and evolve retroactively—requirements that retailers and applicators cannot comply with without violating federal law.

Why Glyphosate Matters Beyond One Case

The Supreme Court case centers on glyphosate, one of the most widely used and reviewed herbicides in American agriculture. EPA has repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic when used as directed and has approved its labeling accordingly.

Glyphosate is affordable, effective, and integral to modern farming practices that reduce soil erosion, conserve fuel, and maintain yields. Retailers, applicators, and farmers rely on EPA’s determinations for every pesticide they sell, apply, or use.

If a product that has cleared decades of federal review can still be deemed unlawfully labeled under state law, no product is truly secure.

What’s at Stake

Congress designed FIFRA so pesticide safety decisions would be made prospectively, scientifically, and consistently. Undermining that framework turns compliance into liability—and jeopardizes farmer access to lawful, essential tools.

The Supreme Court’s decision may very well determine whether pesticide regulation remains grounded in science and federal law, or becomes a moving target shaped by courtroom verdicts. For American agriculture, the consequences would be immediate and real.

Preserving uniform federal labeling protects everyone who depends on the food system—and that means all of us.

Can Congress Pass a New Farm Bill in 2026?

Mon, 06 Apr 2026 13:23:33 GMT

On December 20, 2018, President Trump signed the Agricultural Improvement Act, commonly known as the 2018 farm bill. Like most recent farm bills, it was scheduled to expire in five years, on September 30, 2023. No new farm bill was enacted at that time, and Congress Has had to extend the authority of the 2018 farm bill three different times, not just for fiscal 2024, but also for the following two fiscal years in subsequent legislation.

It has not been unusual in recent decades for Congress to take more than one year to complete a farm bill. In fact, until the 2018 farm bill, that full legislative process, starting with Agriculture Committee hearings and ending when the bill is signed into law, had lasted for one year or more the previous four farm bills, due to delays for a variety of factors, including figuring out to cut funding to generate budget savings (in 1996 and 2014) or how to obtain new funds to address farm policy concerns of stakeholder organizations (2002 and 2008).

The current process has gone on for more than three full years, with Congressional hearings held in both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees in advance of anticipated legislative action as early as the spring of 2022. In April 2022, the Senate Agriculture Committee held a field hearing in Michigan (the home state of the then-Committee chair, Senator Debbie Stabenow), to start to document farmer feedback on the previous farm bill. The House Agriculture Committee held its first hearing nearly a month earlier, in March 2022, although after Republicans took over control of the House of Representatives in the 2022 mid-term elections, the new Chairman Glenn Thompson (R, PA) basically restarted the hearing process from scratch in early 2023.

The House Agriculture Committee was able to report a bill out of Committee in the spring of 2024, but never attained the next step of having that bill debated on the floor of the House by the end of the 118th Congress. The Senate Agriculture Committee didn’t even get that far, their activity limited to the chair and ranking member putting out dueling farm bill frameworks late in 2024, but no formal committee action was taken. Bitter partisan disagreements over how to generate additional funding to address improvements to the farm safety net as urgently sought by farm stakeholder groups was the main reason for the ongoing stalemate in 2023 and 2024.

In 2025, the Republican majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate enacted legislation under the Congressional budget reconciliation process, officially called the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ (OBBB), which included a number of legislative items that are normally included in traditional farm bills. These were provisions that made changes to existing nutrition and conservation programs that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined would save approximately $190 billion over ten years, of which about $65 billion was retained within farm bill programs to bolster funding primarily for commodity, crop insurance, and disaster relief programs. Using this reconciliation process allowed the GOP majorities to pass the bill due to an exemption from Senate filibusters under Congressional rules. However, those same rules limited the extent to which the OBBB could encompass farm bill provisions not directly linked to federal spending. More details on the farm bill provisions included in this bill were covered in a blog I wrote in July 2025, shortly after the passage of that legislation (https://www.agweb.com/opinion/farm-bill-process-drags)

Early last month, the House Agriculture Committee again marked up and passed a farm bill, entitled ‘Food, Farm, and National Security Act of 2026’. Chairman Thompson has referred to this bill many times in public comments as a ‘skinny’ farm bill, although that does not qualify as a valid reference to its length, which clocks in at 802 pages. That adjective can be applied to its cost, however, which according to CBO, had a 10-year score of -$1 million in estimated outlays.

Lacking new resources from outside the Agriculture Committees, Chairman Thompson was not able to further augment spending on farm safety net programs beyond what was included in the ‘OBBB’ provisions last summer. Only four of the twelve titles included in the legislation had any mandatory scoring implications according to CBO, and that mainly consisting of diverting roughly $1 billion from the EQIP program in the conservation title, and using those savings for the following purposes:

Conservation title

• Establishes new forestry conservation easement program (estimated to cost $240 million over ten years)

• Provides funding for the Feral Swine Eradication program ($56 million)

• Expands eligibility and increasing the cost share for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP–$228 million)

Trade title

• Re-tasks funds provided for the new Agricultural Trade Promotion and Facilitation Program under ‘OBBB’ to augment existing trade promotion programs, such as MAP and FMD (no change in net funding)

• Gives the Secretary of Agriculture full authority over the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, which had no resources in it as of the end of FY25 ($70 million over five years)

Commodities title

• Expands eligibility for Tree Assistance Program ($5 million over five years)

Energy title

• Moves resources from the biorefinery program to the biobased products program (no net change in spending)

Other provisions included expanding loan limits on FSA loan programs, streamlining access to beginning farmer programs, establishing a rural childcare initiative, making purchase and use of precision agriculture applications eligible for cost-share in conservation programs, moving operation of the Food for Peace international assistance program from the now-dismantled USAID to USDA, and establishing limitations on states’ ability to impose production requirements on livestock producers as well as regulate pesticides.

Chairman Thompson has stated publicly that he has been assured by the House GOP leadership that his farm bill will get debate time on the floor later this spring, and the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator John Boozman (R, AR), has committed publicly to marking up a farm bill in his committee ‘within weeks’. It remains to be seen whether these efforts will result in a new 2026 farm bill being enacted by the end of the year, as the 60-vote Senate filibuster threshold will be in effect for this legislation.

EU Progress Possible When Sound Science Used to Grow More Food

Sat, 04 Apr 2026 18:31:44 GMT

Europe has finally taken a step forward in crop technology. As it begins to accept the sound science of modern agriculture, it may allow struggling farmers like me to grow the food that my country and our continent needs.

Late last year, the European Union reached an agreement on how to regulate gene-edited plants. Rather than rejecting New Genomic Techniques (NGTs), as some activist groups had demanded, negotiators developed a system that will treat some plants as conventional crops while others will require special labels when sold as food.

They say that politics is the art of compromise and the NGT agreement looks like a great compromise. It marks the first time in more than two decades that Europe has allowed a new use of molecular biology in plant genetics.

As an Italian farmer who grows a rotation of maize, soybeans, wheat, and barley, I’m pleased by the news. For years, my fellow farmers and I have watched much of the rest of the world pass us by. They’ve embraced new technologies, including NGTs and their incredible promise, as European politicians and regulators have dawdled.

Now the EU has finally begun to act—and farmers can start to catch up, using sound science to grow more food on less land in a sustainable way.

European farmers need this boost. It’s getting harder for us to make ends meet.

As we’ve suffered from climate change, reduced farm support, and restrictions on crop-protection tools, we’ve lost our competitiveness in global markets. Europe is risking its ability to engage in staple food production.

Worst of all, our governments have prevented us from planting GMOs, which are openly accepted around the world. Farmers in North and South America and in other regions have watched their yields soar because they can grow safe crops that have a special ability to fight weeds, pests, and disease.

Here in Italy, however, I’m totally banned from planting GMOs. Last year, an outbreak of black cutworm ravaged my maize. These voracious pests damaged 50 hectares. I had to replant 25 hectares.

Farmers on the other side of the ocean don’t have to worry about such problems. They can grow crops that carry a genetic resistance to the black cutworm. Their governments have embraced sound science, empowering farmers to grow more food with fewer resources.

In Europe, however, GMOs are a taboo. We don’t even talk about them—not even the scientists who know they are safe. We’ve pushed them so far out of our conversations and even our minds that when the black cutworm was spoiling my fields, I had forgotten that GMOs already offer a solution.

The EU’s hostility to GMOs is simply incoherent. We import GMO crops all the time. We can feed our animals with them. We can even use them to produce the delicious food for which my country is so famous.

But I can’t grow them. It makes no sense.

So while I was hoping for good news on NGTs, I was ready for more disappointment.

To my delight, the EU’s rules on gene editing mark an important reversal. Instead of an unthinking rejection of something new, they open the door to progress. The rules impose more limits than I would like, but that’s the nature of compromise.

This is progress that holds the promise to help farmers.

We can’t take it for granted—nor can we assume the fight is over. The enemies of modern agriculture are determined. They will try to claw back what they think they’ve lost.

I remain optimistic.As a farmer, I believe we should focus more on the characteristics of a plant instead of the techniques applied. One day, I hope we will be able to evaluate a plant for taste, and nutritiousness, the safety they have and the lower amount of water and energy they require to grow.

We must use our voices as farmers to celebrate this breakthrough. We must speak up and let consumers know that gene-edited crops are safe. We must insist that our leaders make good on their new commitment. And we must push forward into a farming future that helps us all.

Marco Aurelio Pasti grows corn, soybeans, wheat, barley, sugar beets, potatoes, some wine grapes and walnuts. They also breed beef cattle and have a biogas plant for electricity production in the north-eastern part of Italy along the Adriatic coast.Marco is a member of the Global Farmer Network. www.globalfarmernetwork.org

Growing Marijuana Legally—A Snapshot of a New Business Model

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:05:12 GMT

In the United States, marijuana is legal to grow and consume for recreational purposes in 24 states, and can be prescribed for medical purposes only in another 16 states. The main holdouts are in the South and a handful of Republican-dominated states in the Midwest and the West. California was the first state to authorize medical use of marijuana in 1996, and Colorado and Washington state were the first to legalize its use for recreational purposes in 2012.

Marijuana remains a Schedule 1 drug under federal law (the Controlled Substance Act of 1970), defined as possessing “a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use”. However, the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) over recent years has chosen to not enforce this law in states where legalization has taken place, and the Trump Administration is now in the process of conducting a rulemaking to change marijuana’s status from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3, which would legalize the substance for medical use at the federal level and relax restrictions on research in this area. This step comes after President Trump issued an executive order on this subject last December. Legalization of marijuana for recreational use on a national basis would require Congress to modify existing law.

In 2022, it was estimated that nearly 18 million Americans used marijuana on a daily basis, a figure 20 percent higher than the estimated daily users of alcohol in this country. More than 60 million Americans reported using the drug at least once during the prior year, either as a joint for smoking or consuming THC-laced edible products such as brownies or gummies. The legal marijuana industry recorded revenues of more than $30 billion in 2024 in the United States, although this sector’s output is not included in official U.S. estimates of agricultural production value because of its current illegal status at the federal level. It is believed to be the sixth largest cash crop grown in the United States, just behind major row crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton, as well as hay.

Last January, I had an opportunity to tour a facility in Las Cruces, New Mexico devoted to growing marijuana legally and producing a variety of THC-infused edibles and other products for direct sales to consumers. This tour was part of an event that Farm Foundation held in El Paso, TX. It has been legal for residents of New Mexico over the age of 21 to buy and consume such products since April 1, 2022, and this facility began growing its marijuana plants using a hydroponic system a few months in advance of that day so as to have product available when it became legal to sell.

The production of the marijuana crop occurs all indoors, in a facility formerly operated by the large agricultural cooperative Land O’Lakes that housed tens of thousands of egg-laying hens at any given time. The original owner was forced to shut down the facility several years ago due to persistent violations of state and local clean water laws. It was purchased by a family wanting to open up a ‘cannabis grow’ facility within the same premises, and named it the Baked Chicken Farm in recognition of its previous incarnation.

Since the plants are grown indoors under artificial light, this is essentially a year-round operation, and the owners have taken steps to ensure consistent quality and THC content by essentially growing cloned versions of plants of certified high quality cannabis strains, excluding male plants from the growing chambers so as to reduce the risk of diluting those strains.

In addition to the classic marijuana joints, the company manufactures a variety of other products that allow users to enjoy the THC experience legally. These include THC-laced beverages, hand-packed and dried cannabis flowers that allow users to roll their own joints or incorporate into other food products, cannabis concentrate products, THC-infused gummies of various flavors, and THC-infused sleep aids. They also have technicians who are constantly working on new ways to deliver THC to users.

The owner and manager of the facility, Tony Miller, was quite frank about some of the obstacles that his company faces. Although his products are legal to sell and consume in New Mexico, the facility is located within a few minutes drive of the state’s border with Texas, where marijuana use is still a violation of state law. If caught with two ounces or less of marijuana in Texas, users can be charged with a Class B misdemeanor, and subject to jail time of up to 6 months and $2,000 in fines if convicted. If vehicles containing his products are stopped and searched by federal agents at interior checkpoints, both the product and the vehicles may be subject to seizure.

Completion of the federal rulemaking shift for marijuana from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 3 drug would be beneficial for Baked Chicken Farm (and other legal marijuana growers around the country) because it would make their financial transactions easier and less costly to conduct. Because of their crop’s ambiguous legal status, banks are able to charge these businesses relatively large fees to handle their banking activities (compared to other similar sized businesses), which Mr. Miller indicated would likely be reduced once this rulemaking process is finalized.

Mr. Miller acknowledged that his relatively new business has still not turned a profit, but believes that if some of the barriers described above are alleviated, that status would likely improve. The cannabis grow operation currently uses only a fraction of available space in the facility, but Mr. Wilson believes that a more favorable regulatory environment in the next few years would allow him to expand his operation, creating more jobs in Las Cruces, a town that was hurt financially by the closure of the Land O’Lake operation there, costing them a couple of hundred jobs.

Grain Markets Reverse the Reversal

Wed, 07 Jan 2026 21:30:56 GMT

Enjoy the benefits of Blue Line Futures

Open an account with Blue Line Futures and you will gain access to our daily commodity commentary, free desktop/mobile trading platforms, 24-hour trade desk, and more!

OPEN AN ACCOUNT

Futures trading involves a substantial risk of loss and may not be suitable for all investors. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. Trading advice is based on information taken from trade and statistical services and other sources Blue Line Futures, LLC believes are reliable. We do not guarantee that such information is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. Trading advice reflects our good faith judgment at a specific time and is subject to change without notice. There is no guarantee that the advice we give will result in profitable trades. All trading decisions will be made by the account holder. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.Blue Line Futures is a member of NFA and is subject to NFA’s regulatory oversight and examinations. However, you should be aware that the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority over underlying or spot virtual currency products or transactions or virtual currency exchanges, custodians, or markets. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you considering your financial condition.With Cyber-attacks on the rise, attacking firms in the healthcare, financial, energy, and other state and global sectors, Blue Line Futures wants you to be safe! Blue Line Futures will never contact you via a third-party application. Blue Line Futures employees use only firm-authorized email addresses and phone numbers. If you are contacted by any person and want to confirm your identity please reach out to us at info@bluelinefutures.com or call us at 312- 278-0500Performance DisclaimerHypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations, some of which are described below. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those shown. In fact, there are frequently sharp differences between hypothetical performance results and the actual results subsequently achieved by any particular trading program.One of the limitations of hypothetical performance results is that they are generally prepared with the benefit of hindsight. In addition, hypothetical trading does not involve financial risk, and no hypothetical trading record can completely account for the impact of financial risk in actual trading. For example, the ability to withstand losses or to adhere to a particular trading program in spite of trading losses are material points that can also adversely affect actual trading results. There are numerous other factors related to the markets in general or to the implementation of any specific trading program that cannot be fully accounted for in the preparation of hypothetical performance results all of which can adversely affect actual trading results.Research DisclaimerAll information, communications, publications, and reports, including this specific material, used and distributed by Blue Line Futures LLC shall be construed as, or is in the nature of, a Solicitation for entering into a futures transaction. Blue Line Futures LLC does not employ research analysts, or maintain a research department as defined in CFTC Regulation 1.71.Seasonal DisclaimerThis message and its content is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and should not be shared with additional parties. Seasonal tendencies are a composite of some of the most consistent commodity futures seasonals that have occurred in the past several years. There are usually underlying, fundamental circumstances that occur annually that tend to cause the futures markets to react in similar directional manner during a certain calendar year even if a seasonal tendency occurs in the futures, it may not result in a profitable transaction as fees and the timing of the entry and liquidation may impact on the results. No representation is being made that any account has in the past, or will in the futures, achieve profits using these recommendations. No representation is being made that price patterns will recur in the future.

Recognizing 2026 as the UN-Designated International Year of the Woman Farmer

Mon, 05 Jan 2026 23:09:11 GMT

By Ruramiso Mashumba: Marondera, Zimbabwe

I once lived in a shed.

When I started farming a dozen years ago, I didn’t have a proper home. I didn’t own any real agriculture equipment. There was no electricity. My access to the internet was limited. And I couldn’t get a loan from a bank.

A lot of people thought I’d fail as a farmer—and many of them thought I’d fail simply because I’m a woman.

There were times when I questioned everything, but my determination was stronger than my doubt—and I’m encouraged that the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations has chosen to recognize 2026 as the International Year of the Woman Farmer .

It’s good to be noticed. Women are the hands behind the harvest as well as the minds shaping the future of agriculture.

Most consumers probably don’t care if their food comes from farms run by men or women or both. They just want healthy and delicious food.

What they may not realize is that without women farmers – especially in Africa – we would not eat. Women make up 43 percent of the global agricultural workforce. The rate is even higher here in Africa, where women are credited with producing 70 percent of our continent’s food, according to the World Economic Forum.

I’m proud to be one of these female food producers. On my farm in Zimbabwe, I’ve moved out of the shed and into a proper home. I’m running a successful operation, where I grow no-till maize and potatoes. I’m also adding legumes for crop rotation. I also grow eucalyptus trees , which isn’t food but is still a part of my agricultural business. The wood from these trees becomes material for building as well as fuel for burning.

It was a struggle to get started. Despite my humble beginnings, I’m now doing well—and I have big plans to do better. I also have big ambitions for African agriculture, which, today, trails the rest of the world in food productivity.

I want all farmers to flourish, both men and women. We face the same challenges: poverty, climate change, and access to technology, markets, and finance.

I also know that flourishing farms require strong women. And if African agriculture is ever going to meet its potential, we must seek specifically to empower its women farmers. We must invest in this half of humanity.

Our contributions are often invisible. Women work long hours in the fields, often engaged in hard labor with primitive tools such as hand hoes and ox-drawn plows. We sort, clean, and pack food. This makes us indispensable links in national and global food chains, but many of us marry at a young age and don’t pursue the advanced education that the best farming demands. These factors can hold us back.

Meanwhile, men tend to occupy leadership roles. They drive the conversations that turn into policy. And they usually own the land.

Fewer than 13 percent of African women under the age of 50 are the sole owners of land, compared with 36 percent of African men, according to the World Bank . Even with joint ownership, there’s a gender gap: Only 38 percent of African women report owning any land at all, compared with 51 percent of African men.

That’s one of the reasons why I started Mnandi Africa , an organization that seeks to encourage women in farming. We offer training to improve knowledge. We also provide access to tractors, planters, and other mechanized equipment.

We’ve aided thousands of women. One of them is Mbuya Rufandike.

“I always thought farming was meant to hurt my back,” she told us. “Here I am, 60 years old, and farming without feeling the pain of bending because we can now use tractors.”

Mbuya has dedicated her working life to food production, at great personal and physical cost. When we put tools and technology in the hands of farmers like her, however, agriculture is no longer a punishment. It’s an opportunity.

In the International Year of the Woman Farmer, let’s listen to what Mbuya is telling us.

Ruramiso Mashumba grows snap peas, maize, cabbage, whole brown rice, sorghum, millet, eucalyptus and gum trees in eastern Zimbabwe. She served as the National Youth Chairperson for the Zimbabwe Farmers Union and is a member of the Global Farmer Network. Ruramiso was recognized as the 2020 GFN Kleckner Global Farm Leader Award recipient and currently serves the GFN as Regional Lead:Africa. www.globalfarmernetwork.org

Grains Mount an Impressive Rally

Mon, 05 Jan 2026 21:49:34 GMT

Enjoy the benefits of Blue Line Futures

Open an account with Blue Line Futures and you will gain access to our daily commodity commentary, free desktop/mobile trading platforms, 24-hour trade desk, and more!

OPEN AN ACCOUNT

Futures trading involves a substantial risk of loss and may not be suitable for all investors. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. Trading advice is based on information taken from trade and statistical services and other sources Blue Line Futures, LLC believes are reliable. We do not guarantee that such information is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. Trading advice reflects our good faith judgment at a specific time and is subject to change without notice. There is no guarantee that the advice we give will result in profitable trades. All trading decisions will be made by the account holder. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Blue Line Futures is a member of NFA and is subject to NFA’s regulatory oversight and examinations. However, you should be aware that the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority over underlying or spot virtual currency products or transactions or virtual currency exchanges, custodians, or markets. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you considering your financial condition.

With Cyber-attacks on the rise, attacking firms in the healthcare, financial, energy, and other state and global sectors, Blue Line Futures wants you to be safe! Blue Line Futures will never contact you via a third-party application. Blue Line Futures employees use only firm-authorized email addresses and phone numbers. If you are contacted by any person and want to confirm your identity please reach out to us at info@bluelinefutures.com or call us at 312- 278-0500

Performance Disclaimer

Hypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations, some of which are described below. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those shown. In fact, there are frequently sharp differences between hypothetical performance results and the actual results subsequently achieved by any particular trading program.

One of the limitations of hypothetical performance results is that they are generally prepared with the benefit of hindsight. In addition, hypothetical trading does not involve financial risk, and no hypothetical trading record can completely account for the impact of financial risk in actual trading. For example, the ability to withstand losses or to adhere to a particular trading program in spite of trading losses are material points that can also adversely affect actual trading results. There are numerous other factors related to the markets in general or to the implementation of any specific trading program that cannot be fully accounted for in the preparation of hypothetical performance results all of which can adversely affect actual trading results.

Research Disclaimer

All information, communications, publications, and reports, including this specific material, used and distributed by Blue Line Futures LLC shall be construed as, or is in the nature of, a Solicitation for entering into a futures transaction. Blue Line Futures LLC does not employ research analysts, or maintain a research department as defined in CFTC Regulation 1.71.

Seasonal Disclaimer

This message and its content is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and should not be shared with additional parties. Seasonal tendencies are a composite of some of the most consistent commodity futures seasonals that have occurred in the past several years. There are usually underlying, fundamental circumstances that occur annually that tend to cause the futures markets to react in similar directional manner during a certain calendar year even if a seasonal tendency occurs in the futures, it may not result in a profitable transaction as fees and the timing of the entry and liquidation may impact on the results. No representation is being made that any account has in the past, or will in the futures, achieve profits using these recommendations. No representation is being made that price patterns will recur in the future.

Grains Bounce Back from Friday's Weakness Ft. Oliver Sloup

Mon, 05 Jan 2026 17:06:38 GMT

Enjoy the benefits of Blue Line Futures

Fool Me Once

Sat, 03 Jan 2026 00:28:15 GMT

Market Watch with Austin Schroeder

January 2, 2026

Fool Me Once

Last week’s column was all about trust. Do we trust the trade, or any breakout associated with it on the thinner holiday markets? We had an inclination and got an official answer this week and it was not the one the bulls were looking for. There is an old saying that goes, “fool me one, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” Not that we were fooled by the failed break, as we warned against getting too confident. Still, as we move forward and are finally past this thin holiday market, we must be aware that technical signals are not as strong when we are dealing with a thin market. It’s best at times to drag your feet and wait, and in this case see where the market is when we come back on Monday. Still doing too much technical damage can be fatal in certain situations. The one thing the market is good at is making one humble.

Corn gave back all of last week’s gains, and more, with March falling 12 ½ cents (-2.78%) this week. Export Inspections data indicated 1.3 MMT of corn shipped in the week of 12/25, with marketing year shipments now 66.17% above a year ago at 25.57 MMT. EIA updated ethanol production data this week with 1.12 million barrels per day of ethanol production in the week of 12/26, a near record total. Stocks were up 416,000 barrels to 22.944 million barrels. The monthly NASS Grain Crushing report showed 471.87 mbu of corn used for ethanol production in November. USDA Export Sales data from this week showed 2.2 MMT of corn sold in the week of 12/18. Commitment of Traders data showed managed money flipped back to a net long by a move of 55,431 contracts to a net long of 2,759 contracts but 12/23. On Wednesday, USDA released the payment details for the Farm Bridge Assistance program, with the corn payment listed at $44.36/acre. Sorghum was tallied at $48.11.

All wheat bulls could muster was one week of gains, as the three exchanges gave it all back this week. Kansas City was back down 18 1/2 cents this week, as March Chicago was 12 ½ cents in the red. March MPLS spring wheat was 8 ½ cents lower. Export Inspections fell to 302,096 MT in the week of 12/25, with accumulated shipments at 15.06 MMT (+22.02% yr/yr). Weekly Export Sales data from the week of December 18 was at 147,834 MT. CFTC data from the week of December 23 had specs in CBT wheat futures and options adding 24,747 contracts to their net short at 91,6658 contracts. In KC wheat, they trimmed their net short by 964 contracts to 24,749 contracts in that week. Details on the Farm Bridge Assistance program were released by the USDA on Wednesday, with the wheat payment tallied at $39.35/acre.

Soybeans resumed the selling this, as March fell 26 ¾ cents as the calendar switched to 2026. Products were mixed this week, as March soybean meal was down $11.40/ton on the week, with bean oil 8 points higher. USDA export inspections showed soybean shipments improving to 750,312 MT in the week of December 25. Marketing year shipments at 15.4 MMT are down 46.3% from the same period last year. Export Sales data had just 1 update this week, with 1.05 MMT sold in the week ending on 12/18. Crush data via the Fats and Oils report was released on Friday, with 220.4 mbu of soybeans crushed during November, down 6.7% from the previous month but still 4.98% above last year’s monthly record. CFTC data is still slightly behind schedule with the holiday, as the Commitment of Traders report showed spec traders trimming another 37,375 contracts from their net long to 110,403 contracts by December 23. USDA released the payment details for the Farm Bridge Assistance program on Wednesday, with soybeans getting a $30.88/acre payment.

Live cattle were higher this week, helped by a Friday rally taking the gains to $6.35 over last Friday. Cash trade was firmer this week, with USDA confirming $232 sales, up $2-3. Feeders were higher, as Jan was up $9.925 on the week. The CME Feeder Cattle Index was back up 90 cents week/week to $350.22. An update from APHIS this showed an active bovine case in southern Tamaulipas, a Mexican state that borders the US, discovered on December 26. Wholesale boxed beef prices were mixed this week, tightening the Chc/Sel spread to $3.05. Choice boxes slipped another $1.13/cwt (-0.3%) on the week to $349.97, as Select was $3.12 (0.9%) higher at $346.92 as of Friday. Weekly beef production was 11.2% above the week prior but down 4.6% from the same holiday week last year at 423.7 million lbs. CFTC reported managed money in live cattle futures and options at a net long of 94,868 contracts as of December 23 in the latest Commitment of Traders report, up 3,565 from the week prior. Feeders were net long 14,629 contracts on that date.

Hogs saw another round of back and forth trade, as February was down 42 cents this week. The CME Lean Hog Index was $1.45 lower this week at $82.26 as of December 30. USDA’s Pork Carcass Cutout was down $3.14 (-3.2%) this week to $94.57/cwt. The ham, picnic, and belly were lower on the week. Weekly pork production was down 2% from the same week last year at 487.1 million lbs, which was 12.6% above the week prior. CFTC data had spec traders increasing their net long by another 10,489 contracts to 75,325 contracts in lean hog futures and options as of the week ending on December 23.

Cotton futures slipped back lower this week with March back down 48 points. Export Sales from the week of 12/18 were tallied at 182,680 RB, with shipments at 146,915 RB. Commitment of Traders data is updated through December 23, with spec funds in cotton futures and options cutting 4,387 contracts from their net short position of 50,446 contracts. The Adjusted World Price was updated to 50.76 cents/lb on Friday morning, up 74 points from the week prior. The LDP rate is now 1.24 cents. On Wednesday afternoon, USDA released the payment details for the Farm Bridge Assistance program, with the cotton payment listed at $117.35/acre.

Market Watch

We are back to a normal schedule next week, at least without the holidays. Export Inspection data will be out on Monday morning per the usual schedule. USDA will release a catchup Export Sales report for the week of 12/25 on Monday morning, with the data finally getting caught up on Thursday for the week of Jan 1. EIA data will be out on Wednesday. Census data for October will be out on Thursday.

Visit our Brugler web site at https://www.bruglermarketing.com or call 402-697-3623 for more information on our consulting and advisory services for farm family enterprises and agribusinesses.

There is a risk of loss in futures and options trading. Similar risks exist for cash commodity producers. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Copyright 2026 Brugler Marketing & Management. All rights reserved.

The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Global Agriculture

Mon, 29 Dec 2025 19:09:30 GMT

Since the early 1980’s, when personal computers first became both available and relatively affordable, farmers wishing to gather and analyze additional information about their farming operations had to make significant investments to bring such functionality into their operation. As a result, the willingness and ability of farmers to take advantage of such opportunities has typically varied considerably by scale, with early investments more common among large-scale farming operations and only later (if at all) accessible to small- and medium-sized farming operations.

Various studies indicate that farmers adopted this new type of technology relatively slowly at the beginning. My doctoral dissertation addressed this topic, finding that only about 4 percent of Iowa farmers had purchased their own computer based on a 1982-84 survey conducted by the Department of Journalism and Mass Communications at Iowa State University. The rates of adoption among firms in the U.S. agricultural supply chain were initially much greater. A survey of New Mexico agribusinesses in 1987 found that 44 percent of respondents had used a microcomputer in their business. Among farmers, the early uses of their computers included financial recordkeeping and for dairy operations, tracking the daily output of individual cows in their herds. By 2021, it was estimated that between 69 and 73 percent of U.S. farmers had access to a laptop or desktop computer, lagging between 20 and 25 percent behind computer ownership rates among U.S. households in general.

More recently, we have seen a similar divide with respect to farmers’ willingness to invest in equipment that allows them to receive and evaluate field level data about the performance of their crops. During the 1960’s, farmers with large scale operations had the financial wherewithal to commission photography firms to provide aerial photographs of their land, but it was an expensive activity and rarely undertaken more than a few times per year. Farmers did not perceive images taken by satellites to be of value to them until the late-1990’s, when the U.S. government removed restrictions on the resolution quality of the images that could be provided to the public.

Today, row crop farmers can install receivers on their farm equipment which allow them to receive signals from GPS satellites in orbit in real time while cultivating their fields, which provides information about the performance of their crops down to the square centimeter level. Horticultural crop and livestock producers can collect similarly detailed information about their operations from miniscule sensors embedded within individual plants or animals. However, the equipment needed to both receive and act upon the detailed information is expensive, so farmers with large operations are much more likely to purchase such equipment than their small- or medium-sized counterparts. According to data collected regularly through USDA’s Agricultural Risk Management Survey (ARMS), equipment such as auto-steering and yield monitors has been adopted by 70 and 68 percent of large-scale U.S. farmers respectively, but only by 9 and 13 percent of small-scale farmers.

The latest offering in this area is the public availability of artificial intelligence (AI) models for use by both households and businesses. One major difference between this innovation and those previously discussed is that deploying AI to help farmers collate and analyze information about their operations does not necessarily require the same significant level of investment in capital equipment as did the earlier generations of information technology. Thus, in recent years, farmers in both developed and developing countries have been able to utilize AI technology to help in their decision-making processes.

In developed countries like the United States, this process involves analyzing data gathered through precision agriculture tools such as yield monitors and IOT sensors monitoring plant growth and soil moisture that was already being collected on many farms prior to the deployment of AI models in the 2010’s. For example, in the state of California, by far the largest producer of horticultural crops in the United States, farmers growing an estimated 65 percent of those fruit and vegetable crops (as of 2017) rely on irrigation for those crops to thrive. At the University of California at Merced, Professor Wan Du has developed a system using AI modeling and data collected from IOT sensors placed within orchards to optimize delivery of irrigation water to tree crops like almonds and avocados.

Under a grant from USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), scientists and extension staff at the University of California at Davis developed a new tool (called Leaf Monitor) that allows farmers to image the leaves of their crops using a handheld spectrometer. Those images are then uploaded to an AI machine learning system to evaluate the leaf traits and their nutrient levels, using the information to build a predictive model for the crop whose images the farmers submitted. This model identifies nutrient deficiencies and prescribes treatments in terms of appropriate fertilizer application rates.

The non-profit organization Digital Green has developed an AI-based app called Farmer.Chat which it made available to small-holder farmers in Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, India, and Brazil, starting in late 2023. This app is designed to provide localized solutions to problems experienced by crop and poultry farmers in those countries, responding to farmer queries inputted through voice, text, and image-based searches. During the summer of 2025, Digital Green commissioned a survey of Kenyan farmers who had used the app previously to gauge their impressions of the information they gained from their past queries from an organization called 60 Decibels. The survey had 450 usable responses, from a population that was 72 percent male and 28 percent female.

In general, the app was very well received by the respondents. The survey found that a majority of respondents (68 percent) believed that the information they received ‘very much’ improved their way of farming, and more than 80 percent had never had access to such information services before they used Farmer.Chat for the first time. Using this app required no significant new investments by the farmers, as long as they already had a mobile phone.

Trust

Sat, 27 Dec 2025 17:27:27 GMT

Market Watch with Austin Schroeder

December 26, 2025

Trust

Trust, sometimes we take it for granted and other times we look too hard for it. It may be that we have issues handing over controls to $100,000+ worth of equipment to someone you just hired. Other times it may be a cow that is holding her head just a little too high. At times, especially in the last example, having a little bit of reluctance in trust can pay off. Turning to the markets this week we saw corn make a run at a breakout, beans get a nice little bounce, and wheat finally get some green on the screen. The livestock held up despite some late week pressure. Specifically, referring to the grains, trust is the issue here. How much should we trust a push higher that was associated with thin trade? Afterall this was one of the shortest weeks we will have. As you may know with fewer participants, the market can run a little further than it normally would. Getting past this next week’s thinner trade and holding the breaks would be the key to the trust factor.

Corn added to last week’s modest strength, with a gain of 6 ¼ cents on this week’s shortened trade. Weekly Export Inspections showed 1.74 MMT of corn shipped in the week of 12/18, taking the marketing year shipments to 67.57% above a year ago at 24.27 MMT. USDA Export Sales data was updated twice again this week, with 1.48 MMT sold in the week of 12/4 and 1.74 MMT for the week of December 11. Total export commitments are now 47.58 MMT, up 31% from the same date last year. Commitment of Traders data got just 1 update this week and should be up to date after the holiday, as managed money trimmed flipped back from short to long by a move of 62,390 contracts to a net long of 52,672 contracts.

Wheat posted strength this week, as the winter wheat contracts continued led the charge. Kansas City was up 18 ¼ cents this week, as March Chicago was 9 ¼ cents higher. March MPLS spring wheat was just 1 ¼ cents higher. Export Inspections improved to 627,443 MT in the week of 12/18, with accumulated shipments at 14.75 MMT (+22.9% yr/yr). Weekly Export Sales data from the week of December 4 was at 381,532 MT, with the second release on Tuesday morning at 432,609 MT in the week of 12/11. Export sale commitments are now 19.855 MMT, up 22% from last year at this point. CFTC data from the week of December 16 had specs in CBT wheat futures and options adding 20,849 contracts to their net short at 66,918 contracts. In KC wheat, they increased their net short by 8,702 contracts to 25,713 contracts in that week.

Soybeans saw a bounce this week, as January was 9 ½ cents higher. Products added some support this week, as Jan soybean meal was up $6.10/ton on the week, as bean oil was 82 points higher. USDA export inspections showed soybean shipments improving to 870,199 MT in the week of December 18. That is still seasonally low, as it was down 51% from the same point last year. Marketing year shipments are down 46% from the same period last year. Export Sales data had a couple updates this week, with 1.55 MMT sold in the week ending on 12/4 and 2.396 MMT in the week of December 11. Total export sale commitments of shipped and unshipped beans are now 25..78 MMT, a 33% lag from the same point last year. CFTC data is still slightly behind schedule with the holiday, as the Commitment of Traders report showed spec traders trimming 32,560 contracts from their net long to 147,778 contracts by December 16.

Live cattle slipped back this week, as February was up $1.15 from last Friday. Cash trade was firmer this week, with USDA confirming $229-230 sales. Feeders were higher, as Jan was up 57 cents on the week. The CME Feeder Cattle Index was back down 73 cents week/week to $349.32. Wholesale boxed beef prices were lower this week. Choice boxes fell $10.53/cwt (2.9%) on the week to $351.10, as Select was $2.22 (0.6%) lower at $343.80 as of Friday. We got our first NASS Cold Storage report since September this week, showing 425.5 million lbs of beef stocks at the end of November, which was down 3.42% from last year and the smallest November total since 2014. Weekly beef production was 1.7% above the same holiday week last year at 383.9 million lbs, despite a 0.9% decline in slaughter. Production year to date is 4% lower on a 6.8% decline in slaughter. CFTC reported managed money in live cattle futures and options at a net long of 91,303 contracts as of December 16 in the latest Commitment of Traders report, up 3,013 from the week prior. Feeders were net long 14,094 contracts on that date, down just 167 from the week prior.

Hogs saw some back and forth trade around the USDA Hogs & Pigs report, with February up a tick. The CME Lean Hog Index slipped back 17 cents this week at $83.71 as of December 23. USDA’s Pork Carcass Cutout was up another $2.05 (-2.1%) this week to $97.71/cwt. The ham, picnic, and loin were lower on the week. NASS Hogs & Pigs data was out on Tuesday, with December 1 hog inventory at 75.55 million head, up 0.63% from last year. December 1 market hogs were up 0.75% at 69.59 million head, with hogs kept for breeding down 0.87% to 5.952 million head. Cold Storage data was updated, with pork stocks on November 30 at 371.27 million lbs. That was the lowest November total since 1997 and the lowest for any month since June 2004. Weekly pork production was down 3.7% from the same week last year at 432.5 million lbs. Pork production to date is down 1.1% on a 1.5% drop in slaughter. CFTC data had spec traders increasing their net long by 13,365 contracts to 64,836 contracts in lean hog futures and options as of the week ending on December 16.

Cotton futures posted a turnaround this week with March up 74 points. Export Sales from the week of 12/4 were tallied at 153,266 RB, with 12/11 sales totaling 304,689 RB. Total export sale commitments are now 6.183 million RB, a drop of 14% from the same period last year. With just 1 catchup release this week, Commitment of Traders data is updated through December 16 and just waiting on the holidays to get caught up. Spec funds in cotton futures and options added 180 contracts to their net short position of 54,833 contracts.

Market Watch

Next week will be another holiday shortened week. Export Inspection data will be out on Monday morning. EIA data will be out on Monday as well after being delayed this week due to the holiday. USDA will release a catchup Export Sales report for the week of 12/18 on Wednesday morning. Wednesday is also first notice day for January soybean complex futures, as well as the last trade day for December live cattle. With January 1 on Thursday, the markets will be closed, with a hard open on Friday at 8:30 am CST. Friday will be the release of the Grain Crushing and Fats & Oils reports.

Visit our Brugler web site at https://www.bruglermarketing.com or call 402-697-3623 for more information on our consulting and advisory services for farm family enterprises and agribusinesses.

There is a risk of loss in futures and options trading. Similar risks exist for cash commodity producers. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Copyright 2025 Brugler Marketing & Management. All rights reserved.

Recognizing the Important Relationship Between Kenya and the United States

Sun, 28 Dec 2025 17:14:00 GMT

By Gilbert arap Bor:Kapseret (Uasin Gishu County), Kenya

Kenyan President William Ruto arrived in Washington, D.C., U.S.A., on 3^rd December 2025, following a special invitation by President Donald J. Trump, as Chairperson of the East African Community (EAC), for the official signing of the DRC–Rwanda Peace Agreement. This was a landmark accord and the most significant breakthrough yet in efforts to end decades of conflict in Eastern DRC.

His trip to Washington DC marked more than just a diplomatic visit. It was a symbol of the rising stature of Kenya on the global stage and the growing influence of his leadership in world affairs. As President Ruto stepped into the U.S. capital, he carried with him the hopes and ambitions of a modern, forward-looking Kenya and Africa. His leadership, marked by bold economic reforms, visionary diplomacy, and an unwavering belief in the potential of the African continent, continues to position him as one of Africa’s most transformative voices. His visit not only contributed to strengthening of Kenya-U.S. relations, but also underscores President Ruto’s role as a key architect of Africa’s future, a leader capable of shaping continental progress, championing innovation, and inspiring a new generation across Africa.

During the visit, the President did a lot to advance Kenya’s priorities in trade, investment, security, and health cooperation, and witnessed the signing of the Kenya–U.S. Health Cooperation Framework¾a new phase toward sustainable Universal Health Coverage.

Officials in the Trump administration are calling it an “ America First ” health initiative—and here in Kenya, we’re grateful that the United States is putting Kenya first in the fight against diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.

My country is the first nation to benefit from what is expected to be a series of global-health deals. Ours is worth $2.5 billion over the next five years, with the United States contributing two-thirds and Kenya investing the rest.

“Thank you very much to President Trump and his foresight and commitment to the relationship that exists between Kenya and the United States and between the United States and Africa,” said Ruto.

This deal is good for every Kenyan. It’s especially good for Kenyan farmers, who live in rural areas, where access to healthcare is lower.

Now we must take advantage of this moment and do everything possible to strengthen Kenya’s partnership with the United States.

It starts with trade—and there’s a lot of room for improvement and growth.
Two-way trade between the United States and Kenya is worth less than $2 billion (Kes. 260 billion) annually. We buy natural gas, aircraft, and chemicals from the United States. Our top exports are clothing and agricultural goods, such as coffee, tea, and fresh flowers.

I have a special interest in coffee because I became a coffee farmer four years ago. My county government of Uasin Gishu encouraged farmers like me to take up this high-value crop. I’ve spent my life in agriculture, but I’d never grown coffee. On my small farm, we’ve mostly grown maize (corn) and vegetables and raised dairy cows.

Yet we’re always looking for new opportunities—and in 2021, I jumped at the chance to plant 500 seedlings that now have grown into 3,000 coffee bushes. My first harvest of coffee came in 2024. Next year, I expect to bring more than 1,000 kg of coffee beans to the market.

Kenyans drink coffee, but most of what we produce (our beans) travel across borders to coffee drinkers in countries that can’t grow the crop. One of them is the United States which, apart from a few farms in Hawaii, produces no coffee of its own.

Americans love coffee: Starbucks is their second-largest fast-food chain, in both revenue and number of stores. They need farmers in other nations to supply the key ingredient.

I like to think that Americans can drink coffee that can be traced and sourced back to my farm.

I have a special relationship with the United States. I was a student at Southern New Hampshire University in 2006. I’ve also visited many times as a member of the Global Farmer Network , including a trip to Des Moines in 2011 to become one of the first recipients of what is now called the Kleckner Global Farm Leader Award . I also have many relatives in the United States, including some who have become citizens.

This reflects the long friendship between Americans and Kenyans. Our two peoples have much in common, including the fact that we both gained our independence from Britain. For Americans, it was way back in 1776. For Kenyans, it was much more recently, in 1963/64. Yet we have a shared political legacy, which includes a commitment to democracy. We also speak a common language: English is one of Kenya’s two official languages (along with Swahili) and it is our language of government and higher education.

We are allies in other ways as well. Kenya currently leads an international peacekeeping force in Haiti, where hundreds of our police officers seek to reduce gang violence and bring stability to a troubled country that is in America’s backyard. If our forces succeed, they will reduce the pressure of illegal immigration to the United States.

The United States helps Kenyan security as well. President Trump played a key role in the new peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. If the peace holds, it will bring stability to our region and make it easier for Kenyan farmers to sell what we grow to our neighbors.

So, Kenya and the United States must continue to work together—on national security, on healthcare, and above all on the international trade that can help us both prosper.

Gilbert arap Bor grows maize (corn), vegetables and dairy cows on a small-scale farm of 25 acres in Kapseret, near Eldoret, Kenya and has now added coffee and avocados. Dr Bor is also a lecturer of marketing and management at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Eldoret campus ( www.cuea.edu ). He is a member of the Global Farmer Network www.globalfarmernetwork.org , and is a member of its Advisory Board.

The Soybean Rally Many Counted On — And The Selloff Few Expected

Mon, 22 Dec 2025 15:42:32 GMT

Market Commentary for 12/19/26

Since reaching a 17-month high on November 18^th, soybeans have been in a sharp decline. Prices have fallen in 16 of the last 23 trading sessions and are now roughly $1.20 per bushel lower than a month ago.

The chart below shows the last 46 trading days.Interestingly, the first 23 days had only 7 down days, while the second 23 days had only 7 up days.

(Jon Scheve at Schevegrain.com)

Prices are still a little higher than 46 days ago when the rally started, but below values when the trade deal was announced in late October.

Will Soybean Prices Rally Again?
It could be difficult for US beans to sustain demand if South American beans are cheaper.Once Brazil’s harvest starts in late January, there will likely be an uphill battle for several months.

Exports
As this chart shows, export pace for US beans has been terrible.

(Jon Scheve at Schevegrain.com)

While attention has been focused on the potential for Chinese demand, broader global demand was largely overlooked by some traders. As prices moved above $11, US soybeans became uncompetitive in the global market. The recent pullback has brought US beans closer to competitor pricing, but further downside potential still remains as US beans are still higher than South American product.

Brazil’s January weather now becomes the focus.If precipitation is limited over Mato Grosso in early January or southern Brazil in late January, then bean prices could rally quickly.Currently, weather forecasts look for normal precipitation though.

Market Action – Soybean Futures Sale
After the announcement of a possible trade deal with China on October 27^th, futures were higher and trading $10.80. I set a target order to sell January beans at $11.20 futures.I picked this price because:

It was close to the average US farmer’s breakeven price
It was the highest value on the January contract since July 2024
I knew any value above $11 at the time was not competitive against South American suppliers
I expected irrational exuberance in soybeans and thought the market would trade up to at least $11.20 due to the trade deal.

On November 3^rd my order was hit, and I sold 100% of my crop using futures at that time, as this chart shows.

(Jon Scheve at Schevegrain.com)

Note, I only set the futures price.I haven’t set the basis or established when and where I will be delivering my cash soybeans.

Did You Regret Selling Everything When Prices Went Higher?
I didn’t regret it.In the days leading up to my sale, I was actually concerned I had set my goals too high.There were many reports that South American beans could be sold to China for what was equivalent to only $10.50 futures in the US.I thought I might have missed the best prices of the year and the chance to not lose any money on this crop this year.

Since I planted the soybean crop, there was never an opportunity to sell above the cost of production.With very little of my 2025 corn crop sold, and none of my 2026 corn or bean crop, it seemed very possible that I wouldn’t be able to sell any crop above the average farmer’s breakeven point this year.I wanted to reduce my risk on at least 1 of 4 crops I have to market in the next year.

I was also concerned that with rice, cotton, and wheat prices below breakeven values too, playing defense this next year may be the best strategy.

There was also a very small window where I could have beaten my price by anything significant.Of the 21 days values were higher than my sale point, only 8 closed higher than 10 cents above my sale.

Bottomline
I’m happy with my decision and price goal.And I still hope prices rally because I have some 2025 corn left to price and all of my 2026 beans and corn.

For questions—or to receive marketing content like this directly—connect with Jon at jon@schevegrain.com or schevegrain.com .

Want to read more by Jon Scheve?
Corn’s Invisible Supply Problem
Why U.S. Beans Can’t Compete Above $11—And What It Might Mean Next
Why This Year’s Corn Yield Might Be Higher Than Anyone Wants To Admit
A Drop In Soybean Yields Could Tighten Stocks And Support Prices Into Winter If The National Yield Is Too High, Is Demand Also Overestimated?

Naughty or Nice

Fri, 19 Dec 2025 23:07:42 GMT

Market Watch with Austin Schroeder

December 19, 2025

Naughty or Nice

It’s that time of year. Leverage is the name of the game and in the week leading up to Christmas, the parents have it all. The one handy thing of having kids that believe there is a jolly man dressed in red, with a big white beard is that we can always remind them of what is at hand. Behave, or else. Depending on who you’re talking too, the naughty and nice list below shows the soybean complex and part of the wheat getting a bear in their stocking, with the corn and cattle markets looking at a bull.

Corn posted back and forth trade over the week, as March closed with a 3 cent gain. Weekly Export Inspections showed 1.589 MMT of corn shipped in the week of 12/11, with marketing year to date shipments are 69.7% above a year ago at 22.5 MMT. EIA data showed ethanol production improving to another record, up 26,000 barrels per day in the week ending on December 15 to a 1.131 million barrels per day. Stocks of ethanol were down just 157,000 barrels at 22.353 million barrels, as both exports and refiner inputs of ethanol were up. USDA Export Sales data was updated twice again this week, with 1.84 MMT sold in the week of 11/20 and 1.79 MMT for the week of November 27. Commitment of Traders data got 3 updates this week and is now just a week behind, as managed money trimmed 13,552 contracts from their net long as of December 9 to 9,718 contracts.

Wheat was mixed again this week, as the winter wheat contracts continued to feel pressure. Kansas City was down just 2 3/4 cents this week, as March Chicago felt the pressure, falling down 19 ½ cents. March MPLS spring wheat was back up 2 ¼ cents from last Friday. Daily export news was light, though China did cancel 132,000 MT of white wheat purchased in late November. Export Inspections improved to 488,025 MT in the week of 12/11, with accumulated shipments at 14.12 MMT (+21.9% yr/yr). Weekly Export Sales data from the week of 11/20 was at 361,715 MT, with the second release on Thursday morning at 460,655 MT in the week of 11/27. CFTC data from the week of December 9 had specs in CBT wheat futures and options at a net short of 46,069 contracts. In KC wheat, they were net short 17,011 contracts in that week.

Soybeans continued to be under pressure this week, as January was another 27 ½ cents in the red over the course of the week. Products added pressure, as Jan soybean meal was down $4.90/ton on the week, as bean oil was 217 points (-4.33%) lower. NOPA data remains solid, with November crush at 216 million bushels, a 5.1% drop from October but a November record. Stocks of bean oil were up 39.58% from last year at 1.513 billion lbs. On top of the added bean oil supplies, EPA is planning to delay finalization of the 2026 RVO total, causing some uncertainty to remain. FGIS export inspections data showed soybean shipments improving to 795,661 MT in the week of December 1. That is still seasonally low, with marketing year shipments down 46.3% from the same period last year. Export Sales data had a couple updates this week, with 2.232 MMT sold in the week ending on 11/20 and 1.106 MT in the week of November 27. USDA confirmed 707,000 MT of daily soybean sales this week, with 468,000 MT to China, as their known total for the marketing year is at 4.6 MMT. CFTC data is still a week behind schedule, though the Commitment of Traders report showed spec traders net long 180,338 contracts by December 9.

Live cattle were back to higher trade this week, as February was up $1.25 form last Friday. Cash trade slipped back this week and was lighter on the holiday trade, with USDA confirming $228 live and $356-358 dressed. Feeders were higher, as Jan was up $6.50 on the week. The CME Feeder Cattle Index was up just $3.28 week/week to $350.05. Wholesale boxed beef prices were back with strength this week. Choice was up $4.10/cwt (1.2%) on the week to $361.63, as Select was $1.80 (0.5%) higher at $346.02 as of Friday. Weekly beef production was down 1.2% from last week and 1.9% below the same week last year at 525.8 million lbs. Production year to date is 4.1% lower on a 6.9% decline in slaughter. Friday’s Cattle on Feed report showed November placements at 1.595 million head, a 11.19% drop from last year. Marketings were 1.521 million head, down 11.83% vs. 2024. December 1 on feed totaled 11.727 million head a 2.13% drop from last year. CFTC reported managed money in live cattle futures and options at a net long of 88,290 contracts as of December 9 in the latest Commitment of Traders report. Feeders were net long 14,261 contracts on that date.

Hogs were back and forth all week, with February posting a single tick loss from last Friday. The CME Lean Hog Index was up $1.31 this week at $83.88 as of December 17. USDA’s Pork Carcass Cutout was up another $1.55 (1.6%) this week to $99.76/cwt. Just the picnic and belly were lower on the week. Weekly pork production was down 1.1% from last week but 4.8% above the same week last year at 585.9 million lbs. Pork production to date is down 1.1% on a 1.5% drop in slaughter. Spec traders were taking their net long down to just 51,471 contracts in lean hog futures and options as of the week ending on December 9.

Cotton futures saw some slight losses this week, with March 8 points lower from last Friday. Cotton Ginnings data showed a total of 10.212 million RB of cotton ginned by December 15, down 10% from the same week last year. Export Sales from the week of 11/20 were tallied at 148,396 RB, with 11/27 sales totaling 135,886 RB. The weekly Adjusted World Price was updated to 49.99 cents/lb this week, down 40 points from the week prior. After 3 releases this week, Commitment of Traders data is updated through December 9, with spec funds in cotton futures and options holding a net short position of 55,013 contracts.

Market Watch

Next week’s holiday shortened week will start with the Export Inspections report out on Monday morning. USDA will release a couple catchup Export Sales reports for the week of 12/4 on Monday and the week of 12/11 on Tuesday morning. Tuesday will also have the release of the monthly (and back-dated) Cold Storage report, as well as the quarterly Hogs & Pigs report. The weekly EIA data will not be reported next week due to the 24th and the 26th being declared federal holidays in an Executive Order signed this week. The government will be off all three days. The market will close early on Wednesday for Christmas Eve, with Thursday closed for Christmas. Friday will have a hard open at 8:30 am CST.

Visit our Brugler web site at https://www.bruglermarketing.com or call 402-697-3623 for more information on our consulting and advisory services for farm family enterprises and agribusinesses.

There is a risk of loss in futures and options trading. Similar risks exist for cash commodity producers. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Copyright 2025 Brugler Marketing & Management. All rights reserved.

Grain Markets Retreat After Support Gives Way

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 16:53:51 GMT

Enjoy the benefits of Blue Line Futures

Open an account with Blue Line Futures and you will gain access to our daily commodity commentary, free desktop/mobile trading platforms, 24-hour trade desk, and more!

OPEN AN ACCOUNT

Blue Line Futures is a member of NFA and is subject to NFA’s regulatory oversight and examinations. However, you should be aware that the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority over underlying or spot virtual currency products or transactions or virtual currency exchanges, custodians, or markets. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you considering your financial condition.With Cyber-attacks on the rise, attacking firms in the healthcare, financial, energy, and other state and global sectors, Blue Line Futures wants you to be safe! Blue Line Futures will never contact you via a third-party application. Blue Line Futures employees use only firm-authorized email addresses and phone numbers. If you are contacted by any person and want to confirm your identity please reach out to us at info@bluelinefutures.com or call us at 312- 278-0500Performance DisclaimerHypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations, some of which are described below. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those shown. In fact, there are frequently sharp differences between hypothetical performance results and the actual results subsequently achieved by any particular trading program.One of the limitations of hypothetical performance results is that they are generally prepared with the benefit of hindsight. In addition, hypothetical trading does not involve financial risk, and no hypothetical trading record can completely account for the impact of financial risk in actual trading. For example, the ability to withstand losses or to adhere to a particular trading program in spite of trading losses are material points that can also adversely affect actual trading results. There are numerous other factors related to the markets in general or to the implementation of any specific trading program that cannot be fully accounted for in the preparation of hypothetical performance results all of which can adversely affect actual trading results.Research DisclaimerAll information, communications, publications, and reports, including this specific material, used and distributed by Blue Line Futures LLC shall be construed as, or is in the nature of, a Solicitation for entering into a futures transaction. Blue Line Futures LLC does not employ research analysts, or maintain a research department as defined in CFTC Regulation 1.71.Seasonal DisclaimerThis message and its content is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and should not be shared with additional parties. Seasonal tendencies are a composite of some of the most consistent commodity futures seasonals that have occurred in the past several years. There are usually underlying, fundamental circumstances that occur annually that tend to cause the futures markets to react in similar directional manner during a certain calendar year even if a seasonal tendency occurs in the futures, it may not result in a profitable transaction as fees and the timing of the entry and liquidation may impact on the results. No representation is being made that any account has in the past, or will in the futures, achieve profits using these recommendations. No representation is being made that price patterns will recur in the future.

Corn’s Invisible Supply Problem

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 15:02:29 GMT

Market Commentary for 12/12/25

Corn has stayed locked in a tight $4.30–$4.50 range for 70 of the last 74 sessions, and this “holding pattern” seems likely to persist until the January USDA crop report.

(schevegrain.com)

In 30 of the last 36 trading sessions, March corn traded in an even tighter range, between $4.40 to $4.50.

(schevegrain.com)

Some estimates indicate only one third of the US corn crop has been marketed this year.This suggests any rallies will be met with farmer selling, while end users will likely buy the breaks in prices.

The USDA also increased the corn export pace in this month’s report.But, to sustain that pace, corn prices can’t rise too high, or US corn risks losing competitiveness in the global market.

Feed & Residual
There is an interesting dynamic within the USDA’s Feed & Residual category.Despite animals on feed remaining fairly consistent over the last 5 years, the category’s numbers have been erratic, as this chart shows:

(schevegrain.com)

The 2019-2020 marketing year saw an increase likely due to covid lockdowns and less ethanol and export usage.

Ethanol and export numbers are easier for the USDA to estimate because they are reported daily or weekly.Feed usage is harder to track, because the amount of corn going into on-farm feed rations is uncertain, and substitutions with other ingredients often go unreported.

Tracking crop carryover year to year is also challenging.The amount of unsold 2023 corn rolled into the 2024 marketing year is probably larger than many farmers want to admit.This isn’t surprising considering prices dropped in 2023 from $6.25 in June to $4.50 by that November. That put values that year well below breakeven and caused many farmers to wait for a rally that ultimately never came.

While the 2024 crop enjoyed a rally above breakeven levels in the middle of winter last year not every farmer took advantage of the opportunity.Many were still sitting on unpriced grain at the end of summer. As a result, less grain was marketed before harvest.It seems that much of that grain found homes in temporary grain bag storage and farmers are expecting a price rally this winter just like they saw last year.

This holding over of grain between marketing years probably makes it very difficult for the USDA to estimate the exact number of bushels held in on-farm storage.Even a 1% total production miscalculation in a marketing year can mean a 150-million-bushel adjustment to carryout.If those bushels remain in storage long-term and the situation repeats itself again the following year, the cumulative impact over 2 years could leave 300million bushels still in the system, but not fully reflected in the reported carryout number, which could definitely impact prices.

Since it’s difficult to determine exactly how much is being used for feed or carried over from year to year, it appears that the USDA adjusts the residual category.As a result, in big crop years it might appear that total usage is increasing, when it’s actually the carryout that is increasing. Then, when a crop is short and prices rally, those extra bushels that had been sitting in storage for over a year or two start to move into the market, and the crop that was expected to be small actually grows or the feed demand decreases.Over time, these residual bushels even out between crop years and the feed category number decreases at least 300 million bushels.

I think this means the real feed number is probably closer to 5.6 or 5.7 billion bushels. And it’s likely that the current Feed & Residual 6.1 billion bushels will haunt the market for the next year and act as an anchor to prices.

Since the start of 2025, corn prices were only above breakeven for 4 days in February.That means that farmers this year haven’t sold much of their corn.Many believe that disease pressure in other parts of the corn belt was worse than is being reported and look for the USDA to adjust yield lower in the January report just like they did last year sparking a rally in prices.

Bottomline
Unless there is a yield reduction in January, there is very little reason for carryout and/or the Feed & Residual numbers to drop.I expect corn prices to trade sideways until the summer weather markets.

Programing Note
I was interviewed on Markets Now on Agweb this week, discussing current market conditions and what direction farmers can expect prices to go in the coming months.

Click here to view: Markets Now with Michelle Rock and Jon Scheve of Scheve Grain

For questions—or to receive marketing content like this directly—connect with Jon at jon@schevegrain.com or schevegrain.com .

Want to read more by Jon Scheve?
Why U.S. Beans Can’t Compete Above $11—And What It Might Mean Next
Why This Year’s Corn Yield Might Be Higher Than Anyone Wants To Admit
A Drop In Soybean Yields Could Tighten Stocks And Support Prices Into Winter If The National Yield Is Too High, Is Demand Also Overestimated? Early Harvest Yields Are Inclusive. The Northern Corn Crop Seems Promising, But Concerns Remain In The

Under the Weather

Sat, 13 Dec 2025 01:10:33 GMT

Market Watch with Austin Schroeder

December 12, 2025

Under the Weather

Tis the season for more than just the holidays. As we get deeper into winter, it is prime season for sickness. That hit our household this week, as we had just one day where all the kids were in school. And no the parents are not immune. It appears the bulls are not immune either, as the grains, led by the beans were under the weather this week, led by pressure on Friday. A quick look at the bean charts would tell you they have been feeling off for the last couple weeks. The bulls seem to have some immunity in the livestock complex, as they found some support this week.

Corn saw back and forth trade this week, with March posting a 4 cent loss on the week. USDA had WASDE report out on Tuesday, with US ending stocks cut 125 million bushels to 2.029 bbu on an increase to exports. Weekly Export Inspections showed 1.453 MMT of corn shipped in the week of 12/4, down from the previous week, though marketing year to date inspections are 69.4% above a year ago. EIA data showed ethanol production slipping 21,000 barrels per day in the week ending on December 5 to a record 1.105 million barrels per day. Stocks of ethanol were down just 1,000 barrels at 22.51 million barrels. A backed up Grain Crushing report showed 911.76 mbu of corn used for ethanol production in September and October, up just 1 mbu from the same two months last year. USDA Export Sales data was updated twice this week as they continue to catch up, with 979,525 MT sold in the week of 11/6 and 2.4 MMT for the week of November 13. Commitment of Traders data got 3 updates this week, with managed money net long 38,127 contracts of corn futures and options as of November 18.

Wheat was mixed this week, as the winter wheat contracts continued to feel pressure. Kansas City was down 13 ¼ cents, with March Chicago wheat down 6 ½ cents. March MPLS spring wheat was back up 2 ¾ cents from last Friday. WASDE data showed no changes for the US balance sheet, with the world production up another 8.92 MMT and stocks 3.44 MMT higher to 274.87 MMT. Export Inspections were tallied at 393,341 MT in the week of 12/4. Weekly Export Sales data from the week of 11/6 was at 462,478 MT, with the second release on Thursday morning at 850,418 MT in the week of 11/13. CFTC data from the week of November 18 had specs in CBT wheat futures and options at a net short of 48,691 contracts. In KC wheat, they were net short 19,939 contracts in that week.

Soybeans were under pressure for much of the week, as January was 28 ½ cents in the red over the course of the week. Jan soybean meal was down $4.90/ton on the week, as bean oil was 162 points (3.13%) lower. WASDE data from Tuesday saw no major changes to the US or world balance sheets. Some backlogged Fats & Oils data was released on Wednesday, with 441.93 mbu of soybeans crushed in September and October combined. That is 9.8% larger than the same period last year. FGIS export inspections data showed soybean shipments improving to 1.018 MMT in the week of December 4, as the first couple cargoes were headed to China. That is still seasonally low, with marketing year shipments down 45.2% from the same period last year. Export Sales data had a couple updates this week, with 510,554 MT sold in the week ending on 11/6 and 695,598 MT in the week of November 13. USDA confirmed 1.221 MMT of daily soybean sales this week, with 664,00 MT to China, as their known total for the marketing year is at 3.5 MMT. CFTC data is still 4 weeks behind schedule, though the Commitment of Traders report showed spec traders net long 229,625 contracts by November 18. That is the largest net long in over 5 years.

Live cattle pared back some gains late in the week, as February was up $2.40 higher this week. Cash trade continued to rally this week, up $5-10 in the north and $5 in the south to $230. Feeders gave into the late week losses, as January was up just a nickel. The CME Feeder Cattle Index was up just $3.04 week/week to $346.77. Wholesale boxed beef prices were lower again this week. Choice was down $3.76/cwt (-1.0%) this week to $357.44 as Select was $3.17 (-0.9%) lower at $344.22 as of Friday. Weekly beef production was down 0.4% from last week but 0.9% above the same week last year, mainly on larger carcass weights at 532.4 million lbs. Production year to date is 4.2% lower on a 6.9% decline in slaughter. CFTC reported managed money in live cattle futures and options at a net long of 97,331 contracts as of November 18 in the now 4 week delayed Commitment of Traders report. Feeders were net long 17,430 contracts on that date.

Hogs posted gains on the week, with February up $2.25 on the week. The CME Lean Hog Index was back up 74 cents this week at $82.57 as of December 10. USDA’s Pork Carcass Cutout held was up another $1.82 (1.9%) this week to $98.21/cwt. Just the loin was lower on the week. Weekly pork production was up 1.2% from last week and 7.1% above the same week last year at 593.6 million lbs. Pork production to date is down 1.3% on a 1.6% drop in slaughter. Spec traders were taking their net long down to just 57,988 contracts in lean hog futures and options as of the week ending on November 18.

Cotton futures saw some slight losses this week, with March 10 points lower from last Friday. Crop Production data was updated on Tuesday, showing yield up 10 lbs/ac and production 150,000 bales larger at 14.27 million bales. That took ending stocks up 200,000 bales to 4.5 million bales. Export Sales from the week of 11/6 were tallied at a marketing year high of 292,146 RB, with 11/13 sales totaling 187,648 RB. The weekly Adjusted World Price was updated to 50.39 cents/lb this week, down 89 points from the week prior. After 3 releases this week, Commitment of Traders data is updated through November 18, with spec funds in cotton futures and options holding a net short position of 58,243 contracts.

Market Watch

We start next week with the Export Inspections report out on Monday morning, with the monthly NOPA report released that morning. USDA will release a catchup Export Sales report for the week of 11/20 on Monday morning and the week of 11/27 on Thursday morning. Up to date EIA data will be released on Wednesday morning per normal. Friday will see the release of the monthly Cattle on Feed report.

Visit our Brugler web site at https://www.bruglermarketing.com or call 402-697-3623 for more information on our consulting and advisory services for farm family enterprises and agribusinesses.

There is a risk of loss in futures and options trading. Similar risks exist for cash commodity producers. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Copyright 2025 Brugler Marketing & Management. All rights reserved.

Grains Under Pressure, Leaving Prices at Inflection Points to Start Next Week's Trade

Fri, 12 Dec 2025 21:32:36 GMT

Weekly Grain Market Recap

Grain futures had a rough end to the week with corn, soybeans, and wheat all finishing near the low end of the day’s and week’s range. At the close March corn was down 5 ¾ cents to settle at 440 ¾, for the week that was down 4 ½ cents. January soybeans fell another 16 ¾ cents today, settling at 1076 ¾. For the week that was 29 ½ cents lower and the lowest weekly close since the end of October. And over on the wheat side of things, the March Chicago contract lost 4 ¼ cents, to settle at 529 ¼. That was 5 ½ cents lower for the week, which marked the 6^th consecutive week of losses.

SOYBEANS

U.S.-China Trade Activity The USDA confirmed several soybean sales to China this week, totaling over 650,000 metric tons for 2025/26 delivery. China’s state stockpiler Sinograin auctioned 512,500 tons of imported beans (its first sale in three months), successfully moving about 397,000 tons at prices aligned with current spot levels. This makes room for incoming U.S. cargoes following improved trade relations.

Check out the full report on corn, wheat, and soybeans here: Grains Under Pressure, Leaving Prices at Inflection Points to Start Next Week’s Trade - Blue Line Futures

Futures trading involves a substantial risk of loss and may not be suitable for all investors. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. Trading advice is based on information taken from trade and statistical services and other sources Blue Line Futures, LLC believes are reliable. We do not guarantee that such information is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. Trading advice reflects our good faith judgment at a specific time and is subject to change without notice. There is no guarantee that the advice we give will result in profitable trades. All trading decisions will be made by the account holder. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.Blue Line Futures is a member of NFA and is subject to NFA’s regulatory oversight and examinations. However, you should be aware that the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority over underlying or spot virtual currency products or transactions or virtual currency exchanges, custodians, or markets. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you considering your financial condition.With Cyber-attacks on the rise, attacking firms in the healthcare, financial, energy, and other state and global sectors, Blue Line Futures wants you to be safe! Blue Line Futures will never contact you via a third-party application. Blue Line Futures employees use only firm-authorized email addresses and phone numbers. If you are contacted by any person and want to confirm your identity please reach out to us at info@bluelinefutures.com or call us at 312- 278-0500Performance DisclaimerHypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations, some of which are described below. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those shown. In fact, there are frequently sharp differences between hypothetical performance results and the actual results subsequently achieved by any particular trading program.One of the limitations of hypothetical performance results is that they are generally prepared with the benefit of hindsight. In addition, hypothetical trading does not involve financial risk, and no hypothetical trading record can completely account for the impact of financial risk in actual trading. For example, the ability to withstand losses or to adhere to a particular trading program in spite of trading losses are material points that can also adversely affect actual trading results. There are numerous other factors related to the markets in general or to the implementation of any specific trading program that cannot be fully accounted for in the preparation of hypothetical performance results all of which can adversely affect actual trading results.Research DisclaimerAll information, communications, publications, and reports, including this specific material, used and distributed by Blue Line Futures LLC shall be construed as, or is in the nature of, a Solicitation for entering into a futures transaction. Blue Line Futures LLC does not employ research analysts, or maintain a research department as defined in CFTC Regulation 1.71.Seasonal DisclaimerThis message and its content is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and should not be shared with additional parties. Seasonal tendencies are a composite of some of the most consistent commodity futures seasonals that have occurred in the past several years. There are usually underlying, fundamental circumstances that occur annually that tend to cause the futures markets to react in similar directional manner during a certain calendar year even if a seasonal tendency occurs in the futures, it may not result in a profitable transaction as fees and the timing of the entry and liquidation may impact on the results. No representation is being made that any account has in the past, or will in the futures, achieve profits using these recommendations. No representation is being made that price patterns will recur in the future.

The Future of Agriculture: A Partnership Between a Farmer’s Experience and AI’s Intelligence

Fri, 12 Dec 2025 17:35:46 GMT

By Malwinder Singh Malhi: Ludhiana, Punjab, India
A student recently asked me two powerful questions that capture the future of farming and artificial intelligence: “Sir, can AI help us grow rice with less water? If yes, then why should we fear the future?”
I appreciate his optimism—and he is right. His questions reflect the wisdom we need today.
If AI can help us grow rice with less water—and it certainly can—then AI should make us excited about the future, not fearful of it.
Yet this perspective is not widespread. Globally, people are more anxious than enthusiastic about AI. A Pew Research Center survey across 25 countries found people were roughly twice as likely to express concerns about AI than excitement. Ironically, some of the strongest concerns come from the United States, the very country leading much of then AI innovation.
In India however the conversation feels different. Especially In rural areas, we don’t fear that AI will take our jobs. Instead, we see AI as a support system, a tool that augments our work, not replace it. AI is more likely to create new roles – in data collection, machine operation, crop monitoring, digital advisory services, and precision agriculture.
In short, we see AI as an assistant, not a threat.
I’m already using AI on my 25-acre family farm in Punjab. We recently finished our rice season and are now growing wheat for food, producing high-quality potato seed for other farmers, and cultivating corn for silage.
In our rice paddies, AI-powered sensors guide irrigation, helping us conserve water. In our potato fields, AI-connected sprinkler systems analyze real-time data to optimize irrigation and fertilizer application.
In both crops, AI has given us clear benefits:we grow more using fewer resources.And this is just the beginning. AI-enabled tools and small robotic implements will soon support farmers in spraying, weeding, and scouting for pests and diseases. They will provide timely information about prices and markets and help us navigate labor shortages.
What AI will not change is the farmer’s fundamental role. We will always plant seeds, care for crops, and harvest food. Our traditional knowledge will remain vital. But AI will increasingly enhance our decision-making and efficiency.

I often say the farmers of the future won’t just operate machines. We will also operate data. And AI will help us convert that data into practical knowledge and insights.
For example, a simple image taken with a smart phone can now detect nutrient deficiencies, pests, and plant diseases.. A young farmer recently told me: “We used to lose precious days waiting for experts to visit. Now AI tells me the problem and solution in minutes.”
As Global Farmer Network colleague V. Ravichandran says it perfectly: “ I have a plant doctor in my pocket .
With AI, Indian agriculture can achieve higher and more stable yields, reduced chemical usage, healthier soils, climate-resilient cropping patterns, and overall improved sustainability. Most importantly, it strengthens food security for the world’s most populous nation, home to roughly 1.5 billion people.
AI is not a robot replacing farmers. It’s a decision-support tool.Jobs will evolve, not disappear. We will still need farmers to collect data, operate machines, monitor fields and convert AI insights into real-world improvements.
This potential is already drawing young people toward agriculture. During a recent AI-training program at a rural school, I saw tremendous enthusiasm, especially among the girls.They were confident, curious, and ready to embrace this new era.
Our future farmers are teaching us something important:The partnership between human intuition and machine intelligence is not something to fear. It is something to welcome with confidence and hope.
Dr. Malwinder Singh Malhi is a 3^rd generation farmer in Ludhiana, Punjab, India where he grows rice, wheat, potatoes, peas, along with fodder crops of oats, rye grass and mustard.Malhi has over 30 years of experience working with farmers on the transfer of agricultural technologies to increase productivity. Malwinder Malhi is a member of the Global Farmer Network. www.globalfarmernetwork.org

Did the USDA Set Corn Prices Up For a Santa Claus Rally?

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 21:40:48 GMT

Check out our WASDE report Recap! (with charts!)

Did the USDA Set Corn Prices Up For a Santa Claus Rally? - Blue Line Futures

Futures trading involves a substantial risk of loss and may not be suitable for all investors. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. Trading advice is based on information taken from trade and statistical services and other sources Blue Line Futures, LLC believes are reliable. We do not guarantee that such information is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. Trading advice reflects our good faith judgment at a specific time and is subject to change without notice. There is no guarantee that the advice we give will result in profitable trades. All trading decisions will be made by the account holder. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Blue Line Futures is a member of NFA and is subject to NFA’s regulatory oversight and examinations. However, you should be aware that the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority over underlying or spot virtual currency products or transactions or virtual currency exchanges, custodians, or markets. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you considering your financial condition.

With Cyber-attacks on the rise, attacking firms in the healthcare, financial, energy, and other state and global sectors, Blue Line Futures wants you to be safe! Blue Line Futures will never contact you via a third-party application. Blue Line Futures employees use only firm-authorized email addresses and phone numbers. If you are contacted by any person and want to confirm your identity please reach out to us at info@bluelinefutures.com or call us at 312- 278-0500

Performance Disclaimer

Hypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations, some of which are described below. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those shown. In fact, there are frequently sharp differences between hypothetical performance results and the actual results subsequently achieved by any particular trading program.

One of the limitations of hypothetical performance results is that they are generally prepared with the benefit of hindsight. In addition, hypothetical trading does not involve financial risk, and no hypothetical trading record can completely account for the impact of financial risk in actual trading. For example, the ability to withstand losses or to adhere to a particular trading program in spite of trading losses are material points that can also adversely affect actual trading results. There are numerous other factors related to the markets in general or to the implementation of any specific trading program that cannot be fully accounted for in the preparation of hypothetical performance results all of which can adversely affect actual trading results.

Research Disclaimer

All information, communications, publications, and reports, including this specific material, used and distributed by Blue Line Futures LLC shall be construed as, or is in the nature of, a Solicitation for entering into a futures transaction. Blue Line Futures LLC does not employ research analysts, or maintain a research department as defined in CFTC Regulation 1.71.

Seasonal Disclaimer

This message and its content is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and should not be shared with additional parties. Seasonal tendencies are a composite of some of the most consistent commodity futures seasonals that have occurred in the past several years. There are usually underlying, fundamental circumstances that occur annually that tend to cause the futures markets to react in similar directional manner during a certain calendar year even if a seasonal tendency occurs in the futures, it may not result in a profitable transaction as fees and the timing of the entry and liquidation may impact on the results. No representation is being made that any account has in the past, or will in the futures, achieve profits using these recommendations. No representation is being made that price patterns will recur in the future.

Soybeans Break to Six-Week Lows Ahead of Tomorrow's WASDE Report

Mon, 08 Dec 2025 21:38:59 GMT

Enjoy the benefits of Blue Line Futures

Open an account with Blue Line Futures and you will gain access to our daily commodity commentary, free desktop/mobile trading platforms, 24-hour trade desk, and more!

OPEN AN ACCOUNT

Futures trading involves a substantial risk of loss and may not be suitable for all investors. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. Trading advice is based on information taken from trade and statistical services and other sources Blue Line Futures, LLC believes are reliable. We do not guarantee that such information is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. Trading advice reflects our good faith judgment at a specific time and is subject to change without notice. There is no guarantee that the advice we give will result in profitable trades. All trading decisions will be made by the account holder. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Blue Line Futures is a member of NFA and is subject to NFA’s regulatory oversight and examinations. However, you should be aware that the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority over underlying or spot virtual currency products or transactions or virtual currency exchanges, custodians, or markets. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you considering your financial condition.

With Cyber-attacks on the rise, attacking firms in the healthcare, financial, energy, and other state and global sectors, Blue Line Futures wants you to be safe! Blue Line Futures will never contact you via a third-party application. Blue Line Futures employees use only firm-authorized email addresses and phone numbers. If you are contacted by any person and want to confirm your identity please reach out to us at info@bluelinefutures.com or call us at 312- 278-0500

Performance Disclaimer

Hypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations, some of which are described below. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those shown. In fact, there are frequently sharp differences between hypothetical performance results and the actual results subsequently achieved by any particular trading program.

One of the limitations of hypothetical performance results is that they are generally prepared with the benefit of hindsight. In addition, hypothetical trading does not involve financial risk, and no hypothetical trading record can completely account for the impact of financial risk in actual trading. For example, the ability to withstand losses or to adhere to a particular trading program in spite of trading losses are material points that can also adversely affect actual trading results. There are numerous other factors related to the markets in general or to the implementation of any specific trading program that cannot be fully accounted for in the preparation of hypothetical performance results all of which can adversely affect actual trading results.

Research Disclaimer

All information, communications, publications, and reports, including this specific material, used and distributed by Blue Line Futures LLC shall be construed as, or is in the nature of, a Solicitation for entering into a futures transaction. Blue Line Futures LLC does not employ research analysts, or maintain a research department as defined in CFTC Regulation 1.71.

Seasonal Disclaimer

This message and its content is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and should not be shared with additional parties. Seasonal tendencies are a composite of some of the most consistent commodity futures seasonals that have occurred in the past several years. There are usually underlying, fundamental circumstances that occur annually that tend to cause the futures markets to react in similar directional manner during a certain calendar year even if a seasonal tendency occurs in the futures, it may not result in a profitable transaction as fees and the timing of the entry and liquidation may impact on the results. No representation is being made that any account has in the past, or will in the futures, achieve profits using these recommendations. No representation is being made that price patterns will recur in the future.

Elves or Pirates

Sat, 06 Dec 2025 01:29:59 GMT

Market Watch with Austin Schroeder

December 5, 2025

Elves or Pirates

Earlier this week, my oldest had his first school Christmas program as a Kindergartner. The teachers had a play for them this year, with a theme of elves and pirates. The concept was elves taking a beach vacation and coming across some pirates. One group is searching for treasure and the other is loaded with presents. I won’t bore you with the details, but the gist of the story was getting the pirates to understand the giving and not taking. Grain bears were in a giving mood last week, but decided to switch to a taking mood this week. Both sides have been in a greedy mode in the cattle market, as bulls were tired of giving for the last month, and switched to the taking mode this week.

Corn slipped up in the latter half of the week, with March down 3 cents. Weekly Export Inspections showed 1.421 MMT of corn shipped in the week of 11/27, down from the previous week but still seasonally high. EIA data showed ethanol production rising 13,000 barrels per day in the week ending on November 21 to a record 1.126 million barrels per day. Stocks of ethanol stocks saw a draw of 543,000 barrels at 22.511 million barrels. Export Sales data was released twice this week as USDA catches up, with 1.8 MMT sold in the week of 10/23 and 1.99 MMT for the week of October 30. Commitment of Traders data is still aged, with managed money in corn futures and options trimming their net short position by 71,479 contracts in the week of 10/28 to 89,506 contracts.

Wheat was mixed this week. Kansas City was higher this week, up 3 ¾ cents, with the other classes weaker. March MPLS spring wheat was down 5 cents, with the Chicago March contract 2 ¾ cents lower. December KC HRW futures were back up 6 ¾ cents. Export Inspections were tallied at 384,881 MT in the week of 11/27. Weekly Export Sales data from the week of 10/23 was at 499,775 MT, with the second release on Thursday morning at 505,415 MT. Canadian wheat production is pegged at 39.96 MMT according to Stats Canada, a 3.3 MMT hike from the September number and 3 MMT above USDA. CFTC data from all the way back on October 28 had specs in CBT wheat futures and options cutting their net short by 33,692 contracts to 75,133 contracts. In KC wheat, they trimmed 15,563 contracts from their net short to 51,708 contracts in that week.

Soybeans gave into some late week weakness this week, as January closed 32 ½ cents lower. January soybean meal was down $11.30/ton on the week, as bean oil was 36 points (0.69%) lower. FGIS export inspections data showed soybean shipments improving to 920,194 MT in the week of November 27. That is still seasonally low. Export Sales data had a couple updates this week, with 1.45 MMT sold in the week ending on 10/23 and 1.25 MMT in the week of October 30. USDA confirmed 462,000 MT of soybeans to China this week, with the known total for the marketing year at 2.845 MMT. CFTC data is still more than a month behind, with Commitment of Traders showing spec traders net long 118,489 contracts by October 28, with the latest data showing an 83,160 contract increase from the week prior.

Live cattle rallied this week, with a stronger Friday taking the weekly December gain to $11.57. Cash trade improved late this week with $220-225 in the North and $225-226 in the South. Feeders were rallying for much of the week with January up $15.075. The CME Feeder Cattle Index rallied back, up $24.97 week/week to $318.76. Wholesale boxed beef prices were lower again this week. Choice was down $5.62 /cwt (-1.5%) this week to $361.20 as Select was $3.66 (1.0%) lower at $347.39 as of Friday. Weekly beef production was up 20.7% from last week due to the holiday, as well as 0.4% above the same week last year at 534.6 million lbs. Production year to date is 4.3% lower on a 7.0% decline in slaughter. CFTC reported managed money in live cattle futures and options at a net long of 116,355 contracts as of October 25 in the more than a month delayed Commitment of Traders report this week. Feeders were net long 21,323 contracts on that date.

Hogs saw some strength this week with December $1.05 higher. The CME Lean Hog Index was down another 44 cents this week at $81.83 as of December 3. USDA’s Pork Carcass Cutout held was up $2.17 (2.3%) this week to $96.39/cwt. Weekly pork production was up 29.7% from last week due to the holiday and 4.0% above the same week last year at 587.7 million lbs. Pork production to date is down 1.4% on a 1.7% drop in slaughter. Spec traders were slashing another 22,070 contracts from their net long in lean hog futures and options as of the week ending on October 28, taking it to 95,161 contracts.

Cotton futures turned back lower this week, as March was 78 points in the red. Export Sales from the week of 10/23 were tallied at 132,760 RB, with 10/23 sales totaling just 81,530 RB. The weekly Adjusted World Price was updated to 51.28 cents/lb this week, up 51 points from the week prior. Delayed Commitment of Traders data showed spec funds in cotton futures and options slashing back 7,152 contracts from their net short position as of 10/28 to 74,093 contracts.

Market Watch

Next week will see the weekly Export Inspections report out on Monday morning. USDA also release delayed Export Sales data for the week of 11/6 on Monday morning and the week of 11/13 on Thursday morning. Monday is also first notice day for December live cattle futures as well as the last trade day for December cotton futures. USDA will release their monthly WASDE on Tuesday. Up to date EIA data will be released on Wednesday morning. Friday is the last trade day for December grain futures.

Visit our Brugler web site at https://www.bruglermarketing.com or call 402-697-3623 for more information on our consulting and advisory services for farm family enterprises and agribusinesses.

There is a risk of loss in futures and options trading. Similar risks exist for cash commodity producers. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

Copyright 2025 Brugler Marketing & Management. All rights reserved.

Soybeans Breakdown and Cattle Breakout!

Fri, 05 Dec 2025 21:37:07 GMT

Weekly Grain Market Summary

Tuesday’s WASDE estimates at the bottom of this page

Market Overview

Grain markets experienced choppy trading throughout the week before finishing uniformly lower on Friday. March corn futures closed down 2½ cents at 444¾, losing 3 cents for the week. January soybeans dropped 14¼ cents to settle at 1105¼, marking a 32½ cent weekly decline—the first weekly loss in eight weeks. March Chicago wheat fell 4½ cents to 535¾, down 2¾ cents on the week.

SOYBEANS

U.S. Market Developments: U.S.-China trade relations showed significant improvement over the last several weeks. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer indicated trade relations with China have stabilized, though he emphasized the need for more balanced, smaller-scale trade focused on non-sensitive goods.

South American Production: Brazil’s soybean planting for 2025/26 reached 89% of expected area as of late November, up 8 percentage points from the previous week but lagging last year’s 91%. Irregular rainfall continues to impact key producing states including Mato Grosso, Goias, Maranhao, and Piaui, while Rio Grande do Sul faces declining moisture after early-season excess.

StoneX cut Brazil’s 2025/26 soybean production forecast by 0.9% to 177.2 million metric tons, citing productivity reductions in Mato Grosso and Goias despite modest area expansion. Despite the revision, the forecast still points to a record crop. Brazilian exporter 3tentos expects soybean origination to grow from 4.11 million tons in 2025 to 4.8 million tons in 2026.

Anec maintained its projection for record Brazilian soybean exports of 110 million tons in 2025, up from 97.3 million tons last year, driven primarily by Chinese demand.

Chinese Demand: The USDA’s Beijing post forecasts China’s 2025/26 soybean imports at 106 million metric tons, down 1 million tons year-over-year as Beijing continues limiting import growth. The projection reflects restrained crushing demand growth of 2% and government efforts to control imports. China’s domestic production is forecast at 19.9 million metric tons.

Read the full report with our WASDE estimates here: Soybeans Breakdown and Cattle Breakout! - Blue Line Futures

Futures trading involves a substantial risk of loss and may not be suitable for all investors. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. Trading advice is based on information taken from trade and statistical services and other sources Blue Line Futures, LLC believes are reliable. We do not guarantee that such information is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. Trading advice reflects our good faith judgment at a specific time and is subject to change without notice. There is no guarantee that the advice we give will result in profitable trades. All trading decisions will be made by the account holder. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.Blue Line Futures is a member of NFA and is subject to NFA’s regulatory oversight and examinations. However, you should be aware that the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority over underlying or spot virtual currency products or transactions or virtual currency exchanges, custodians, or markets. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you considering your financial condition.With Cyber-attacks on the rise, attacking firms in the healthcare, financial, energy, and other state and global sectors, Blue Line Futures wants you to be safe! Blue Line Futures will never contact you via a third-party application. Blue Line Futures employees use only firm-authorized email addresses and phone numbers. If you are contacted by any person and want to confirm your identity please reach out to us at info@bluelinefutures.com or call us at 312- 278-0500Performance DisclaimerHypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations, some of which are described below. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those shown. In fact, there are frequently sharp differences between hypothetical performance results and the actual results subsequently achieved by any particular trading program.One of the limitations of hypothetical performance results is that they are generally prepared with the benefit of hindsight. In addition, hypothetical trading does not involve financial risk, and no hypothetical trading record can completely account for the impact of financial risk in actual trading. For example, the ability to withstand losses or to adhere to a particular trading program in spite of trading losses are material points that can also adversely affect actual trading results. There are numerous other factors related to the markets in general or to the implementation of any specific trading program that cannot be fully accounted for in the preparation of hypothetical performance results all of which can adversely affect actual trading results.Research DisclaimerAll information, communications, publications, and reports, including this specific material, used and distributed by Blue Line Futures LLC shall be construed as, or is in the nature of, a Solicitation for entering into a futures transaction. Blue Line Futures LLC does not employ research analysts, or maintain a research department as defined in CFTC Regulation 1.71.

Seasonal DisclaimerThis message and its content is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and should not be shared with additional parties. Seasonal tendencies are a composite of some of the most consistent commodity futures seasonals that have occurred in the past several years. There are usually underlying, fundamental circumstances that occur annually that tend to cause the futures markets to react in similar directional manner during a certain calendar year even if a seasonal tendency occurs in the futures, it may not result in a profitable transaction as fees and the timing of the entry and liquidation may impact on the results. No representation is being made that any account has in the past, or will in the futures, achieve profits using these recommendations. No representation is being made that price patterns will recur in the future.

Corn and Wheat Reverse and Soybeans are Hanging on by a Thread | Ft. Oliver Sloup

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 21:34:09 GMT

Enjoy the benefits of Blue Line Futures

Open an account with Blue Line Futures and you will gain access to our daily commodity commentary, free desktop/mobile trading platforms, 24-hour trade desk, and more!

OPEN AN ACCOUNT

Futures trading involves a substantial risk of loss and may not be suitable for all investors. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your financial condition. Trading advice is based on information taken from trade and statistical services and other sources Blue Line Futures, LLC believes are reliable. We do not guarantee that such information is accurate or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. Trading advice reflects our good faith judgment at a specific time and is subject to change without notice. There is no guarantee that the advice we give will result in profitable trades. All trading decisions will be made by the account holder. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.Blue Line Futures is a member of NFA and is subject to NFA’s regulatory oversight and examinations. However, you should be aware that the NFA does not have regulatory oversight authority over underlying or spot virtual currency products or transactions or virtual currency exchanges, custodians, or markets. Therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you considering your financial condition.With Cyber-attacks on the rise, attacking firms in the healthcare, financial, energy, and other state and global sectors, Blue Line Futures wants you to be safe! Blue Line Futures will never contact you via a third-party application. Blue Line Futures employees use only firm-authorized email addresses and phone numbers. If you are contacted by any person and want to confirm your identity please reach out to us at info@bluelinefutures.com or call us at 312- 278-0500Performance DisclaimerHypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations, some of which are described below. No representation is being made that any account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those shown. In fact, there are frequently sharp differences between hypothetical performance results and the actual results subsequently achieved by any particular trading program.One of the limitations of hypothetical performance results is that they are generally prepared with the benefit of hindsight. In addition, hypothetical trading does not involve financial risk, and no hypothetical trading record can completely account for the impact of financial risk in actual trading. For example, the ability to withstand losses or to adhere to a particular trading program in spite of trading losses are material points that can also adversely affect actual trading results. There are numerous other factors related to the markets in general or to the implementation of any specific trading program that cannot be fully accounted for in the preparation of hypothetical performance results all of which can adversely affect actual trading results.Research DisclaimerAll information, communications, publications, and reports, including this specific material, used and distributed by Blue Line Futures LLC shall be construed as, or is in the nature of, a Solicitation for entering into a futures transaction. Blue Line Futures LLC does not employ research analysts, or maintain a research department as defined in CFTC Regulation 1.71.This email may include information produced by third parties. Material not labelled Blue Line Futures LLC should be considered to be third-party, and is provided for informational purposes only. Third-party material is from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed by Blue Line Futures LLC.Seasonal DisclaimerThis message and its content is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and should not be shared with additional parties. Seasonal tendencies are a composite of some of the most consistent commodity futures seasonals that have occurred in the past several years. There are usually underlying, fundamental circumstances that occur annually that tend to cause the futures markets to react in similar directional manner during a certain calendar year even if a seasonal tendency occurs in the futures, it may not result in a profitable transaction as fees and the timing of the entry and liquidation may impact on the results. No representation is being made that any account has in the past, or will in the futures, achieve profits using these recommendations. No representation is being made that price patterns will recur in the future.