U.S. Department of Agriculture

SDRP Double‑Up Payment Rules Explained

Tue, 12 May 2026 20:46:02 GMT

Paul Neiffer, host of the Top Producer Podcast, discusses the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) and its “double-up” payment rules.

“I call it the double up. Typically, we call it a top up but, but they essentially doubled it up,” he says. “Our first initial payment was 35% and then this double up is on top of it, another 35% and for many of you, it’s going to be exactly what you got into the first one.”

Neiffer mentions that $11.7 billion has been paid out so far, with $12.5 billion expected in total between Stage 1 and Stage 2. With the program deadline being extended to August 12, 2026, Stage 2 farmers will continue to receive funds as USDA updates its database.

USDA allocated $16.09 billion to the program. If total payments reach $12.5 billion, approximately $3.5 billion remains for:

Payments for applications submitted by the August 12, 2024, deadline, including Stage 1 and Stage 2 quality losses.
A potential final “top-up” for producers.

“The reason [the total payout is less than the allocation] is a lot of farmers are going to hit the payment limits,” Neiffer says. Payment limits are $125,000 per year for regular crops and $125,000 for specialty crops. However, if more than 75% of your adjusted gross income (AGI) is farm income, those limits increase. “Before any of the 75% [test], that means you qualify automatically for $250,000 combined between ’23 and ’24 [for regular crops],” Neiffer explains.

Equipment gains and custom farming income remain “the rub” for qualification. Neiffer notes that currently, equipment gains may disqualify some from the 75% farm income test. While the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” will make equipment gains automatically count as farm income starting in the 2026 crop year, that change does not apply to SDRP for ’23 and ’24.

Neiffer estimates a potential final top-up distribution of 5-10% could occur once all initial payments are settled. “Congress only authorized paying out up to 90%, so the most you can get is 20% [more]... I think the reality is we’re maybe looking at 7, 8, 9, somewhere between five and 10%.”

USDA Projects Smallest US Wheat Harvest Since 1972 Due to Plains Drought

Tue, 12 May 2026 17:43:23 GMT

U.S. farmers this year will harvest their smallest wheat crop since 1972, as a severe drought in the U.S. Plains has curbed production of hard red winter wheat, the largest variety grown in the U.S., the Department of Agriculture said on Tuesday.

This autumn, U.S. growers will also harvest their second-largest soybean crop on record, while corn production is expected to drop 6% from last year, the USDA said in its first official forecast of the 2026/27 crop season.

Rising fuel and fertilizer prices due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have sent grain production costs sharply higher, heaping further stress on the U.S. farm economy already reeling from trade disruptions caused by U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff battles.

May 12, 2026 WASDE Winter Wheat

(Farm Journal)

U.S. growers expanded plantings of soybeans, which require less fertilizer than grains like corn and wheat. Winter wheat was already planted when the war began at the end of February, but soaring fertilizer costs curbed spring nutrient applications for winter wheat and spring-seeded crops like corn, soy and spring wheat.

Benchmark hard red winter wheat futures KWv1 and soft red winter wheat futures Wv1 on the Chicago Board of Trade rallied by their daily 45-cent-per-bushel trading limits.

The USDA projected U.S. wheat production in the 2026/27 season at 1.561 billion bushels, down from 1.985 billion in 2025/26, as a severe drought in the U.S. Plains was likely to slash the hard red winter wheat crop by 25% from a year earlier. Analysts polled by Reuters, on average, expected the USDA to project a 1.735-billion-bushel all-wheat crop.

The USDA rated just 28% of the U.S. winter wheat crop in good-to-excellent condition in a weekly crop conditions report on Monday, the lowest rating for this point in the growing season in four years.

May 12, 2026 WASDE Corn & Soybeans

(Farm Journal)

The USDA pegged the 2026 U.S. soybean harvest at 4.435 billion bushels, up from 4.262 billion bushels last year, but below the average trade estimate of 4.445 billion.

Corn production was forecast to decline to 15.995 billion bushels from a record 17.021 billion bushels last year. The estimate was above the average analyst estimate of 15.934 billion bushels.

But soybean demand remains unclear as top importer China has slashed purchases from the U.S. amid ongoing trade tensions between Washington and Beijing and abundant supplies from rival exporters Brazil and Argentina.

China and the U.S. may reach a farm deal at their summit this week that expands Beijing’s purchases of grains and meat, but market watchers said they did not expect major new soybean purchases beyond what was agreed in a deal last October.

The USDA projected U.S. soybean exports in the current 2025/26 season at 1.530 billion bushels and at 1.630 billion bushels in the 2026/27 season.

U.S. soybean stocks were forecast to shrink to 310 million bushels by the end of the 2026/27 marketing year, from 340 million at the end of the current season on August 31.

Corn supplies were expected to remain ample at 1.957 billion bushels at the end of the 2026/27 season, down from 2.142 billion for 2025/26.

(Reporting by Karl Plume in Chicago; Editing by David Gregorio)

DOJ, USDA Ramp Up Antitrust Investigation Into "Big 4" Beef Packers

Fri, 08 May 2026 18:34:40 GMT

The Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Agriculture are intensifying scrutiny of concentration and pricing practices across the meat industry, announcing this week that federal investigators are ramping up a criminal antitrust investigation into the nation’s four largest beef packers.

During a joint press conference Monday at DOJ headquarters, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the effort as part of a broader push to address competition issues in agriculture and food pricing.

“Today we are here to talk about our progress here at the Justice Department to hold meat packers accountable,” Blanche says.

Federal officials allege price-fixing and collusion may have contributed to higher meat prices for consumers, while also limiting competition within the cattle industry.

“We prioritized investigating potential antitrust violations in U.S. cattle and beef markets,” Blanche says. “In the beef industry, the Big Four processors control over 85% of the beef processing market. Two of the Big Four are primarily foreign-owned.”

The “Big Four” — referenced during the press conference — are JBS, Cargill, Tyson and National Beef. The administration argues the current structure of the meat industry allows competitors to exchange competitively sensitive information across the protein sector — practices DOJ says it is now investigating.

DOJ Encourages Whistleblowers to Come Forward

Blanche also encourages whistleblowers within the meatpacking industry to provide information to federal investigators. DOJ says individuals who provide information leading to antitrust convictions or major enforcement actions could qualify for financial rewards.

“The idea of whistleblowers of people coming forward with information they have is one of the best and most efficient ways that we can solve antitrust violations criminally or otherwise,” he says. “And so we just want to make sure people realize that people in this industry realize that we’re putting money where our mouth is. We’re not asking you to come forward and then see what happens. We’re saying if you come forward and if your information results in a finding, in a conviction, and the amount of money is over a million dollars, which in this industry is not a very high bar, that you stand to recover up to 30%. And so we have to incentivize people to make a very difficult choice and come forward with information if they had it.”

R-CALF USA Applauds Investigation

R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard says the biggest takeaway from Monday’s announcement is that DOJ is actively seeking public assistance through its antitrust whistleblower program.

“The biggest takeaway was that the Department of Justice is reaching out to the public seeking help through DOJ’s antitrust whistleblower program, to find out what the public knows
about these anticompetitive practices,” Bullard says.

Bullard says R-CALF USA has spent years warning policymakers about growing concentration in the cattle industry.

“We’ve been calling attention and warning that this is a threat to our national security, our economy, and particularly to our food safety here and food security in the United States,” Bullard says.

Rollins Links Herd Decline to Regulatory Pressure

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins also focused heavily on the shrinking U.S. cattle herd and declining number of ranchers during Monday’s event.

“In the past decade alone, we’ve lost over 17% of our cattle ranchers,” Rollins says. “More than 100,000 ranches across this country are no more.”

“The low herd size inherited by the Trump administration can be attributed to a variety of factors,” she says. “The biggest one, at least from our perspective, is the radical left’s ongoing assault against ranching as a way of life.”

Today, just four companies — JBS, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and National Beef — control roughly 85% of the cattle processing market. That level of concentration has surged from just 25% in 1977 to 71% by 1992, and now to an astonishing 85%.

Together, these companies operate through… pic.twitter.com/s4naYFcjt7
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) May 4, 2026

Rollins argues drought alone is not responsible for cattle liquidation.

“For years, they used climate alarmism to wage a war on cattle in America,” Rollins says. “And when you pair that with droughts, wildfire, overregulation from previous administrations and volatile markets, this is how we have ended up here today.”

The administration also outlined several policy initiatives it says are designed to support cattle producers, including:

Opening more federal land for grazing
Implementing new “Product of USA” labeling rules
Supporting small processors through a grading pilot program
Updating dietary guidelines to emphasize the role of meat in the American diet

Rollins says additional announcements are expected later this week.

Agri Stats Settlement Targets Information Sharing

The DOJ’s broader push against anticompetitive behavior escalated Thursday when the department announced a proposed settlement with Agri Stats .

Federal officials accuse the company of helping major meat processors share confidential pricing and production data involving chicken, pork and turkey markets for decades.

Under the proposed settlement , Agri Stats would be prohibited from continuing several data-sharing practices DOJ alleges distorted competition and increased prices.

The agreement would also increase market transparency by making more information available to buyers and sellers throughout the supply chain.

Although the Agri Stats case does not involve beef, Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing Peter Navarro referenced the pending settlement during Monday’s press conference.

“This is like the mathematician’s worst nightmare in terms of monopoly behavior,” Navarro says. “Basically, what the companies in this concentrated industry were doing was individually sending in data on everything, consumers, production, everything in between. And what did that computer do? It spit back what the monopoly price should be.”

With the settlement he explains, “Justice Department said no more. That’s not going to happen on our watch and that case I believe is going to be settled well or at trial in a way which not only will take care of that problem but implicate some of the bad actions that we’ve seen by the two American companies Tyson and Cargill and JBS on the Brazilian side along with National Beef.”

1 – The Department of Justice continues to bring affordability to the American people. Today, we announced a historic settlement with Agri Stats, whose business model directly raised the price of chicken, turkey, and pork in local grocery stores across our nation. 🐔🐖⚖️
— Acting AG Todd Blanche (@DAGToddBlanche) May 7, 2026

On X, Blanche says the settlement will create a more level playing field by making Agri Stats reports available to all buyers and sellers and calls it part of the administration’s broader push to fight anticompetitive behavior in the food supply chain.

Rollins also confirms the DOJ antitrust investigation into meatpackers originally announced in November remains ongoing.

“As ranchers face fewer options for selling their animals, the Big Four grow stronger and stronger,” Rollins says. “These companies now have an unprecedented ability to wield market power and influence prices paid for cattle — definitely more so than if we had greater competition.”

Industry Analysts Push Back on Concentration Claims

Not everyone in the cattle industry agrees that concentration itself is evidence of anticompetitive conduct.

John Nalivka, president of Sterling Marketing, says consolidation largely reflects economics and efficiency within the packing sector.

“As a business, you have to continually look to lowering costs,” Nalivka says. “And you can manage costs and you can manage revenue both. But the cost, you can have a direct impact on your cost structure. And one way of doing this, consolidating and gaining greater capacity and economies of scale.”

Nalivka also disputes the administration’s market concentration figures.

(Sterling Marketing Inc.)

“Well, to begin with, it’s not 85% now, it’s something more close to 78%, or even maybe a little bit lower than that when the Greeley strike was on,” he says.
The timing of the investigation is notable as packer profitability remains under pressure.

Nalivka says Sterling Marketing’s profit tracker showed beef packers losing nearly $200 per head at the end of April.

“From 2011 to 2015, we had the same set of circumstances, significant herd liquidation and pulling the numbers down,” Nalivka says. “And with the packing plant, the capacity is driven by — and I generate the numbers based on slaughter capacity — so it’s all about cattle numbers.”

Nalivka says his data shows the market share of the four largest beef packers has declined in 2026, with Tyson Foods’ share decreasing.

(Sterling Marketing Inc.)

According to Nalivka, the four largest beef packers now account for approximately 73% of fed-cattle slaughter capacity, leaving nearly one-quarter of processing capacity outside what the administration refers to as the “Big Four.”

“I have told people who have made these comments about these big bad packers,” Nalivka says. “I’ve said, first of all, I’ll start out with a statement, what would you do if you didn’t have one, a packer? And secondly, if you think it’s easy and you think you know so much about it, go build one.”

Producers Need Packers

Justin Tupper, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association president, says the DOJ action is less a brand-new effort than a continuation of long-running scrutiny. Tupper was a guest on AgriTalk Thursday .

Tupper acknowledges the seriousness of DOJ’s work, saying, “I sure do” believe they’re ramping it up, and called the probe “long-awaited and long-needed.” But he repeatedly warns about unintended consequences for producers if the investigation disrupts slaughter capacity.

“We like to vilify the packers all the time, but there is one truth to it, we need them,” he says, adding that if a major plant closed, it, “would cause more disruption than any good that could come from it.”

His concern is when cattle numbers rebuild, predicting, “When we get back to cattle numbers that they can control us, then they’re going to use that and weaponize that against us.”

Tupper stresses producers are not trying to deny packers a profit. “All we want as cattle producers is a fair shake; we don’t want to be used and abused when the cattle numbers are high.”

He warns the administration must understand “how tight that supply is and how few of places that slaughter them” and avoid “big disruptions.” He calls for thoughtful, balanced solutions developed with “cool heads and a lot of the smart people in the room” so the investigation doesn’t “disrupt the chain.”

Calls for Structural Reform Continue

Bullard says R-CALF USA continues pushing for significant structural reforms in the cattle industry.

“We’re asking them to do one of two things,” Bullard says. “Either break up the packers to provide more competition within the industry, or regulate those packers to ensure that they don’t engage in the antitrust conduct and anti-competitive practices.”

Bullard says the group is also urging the Trump administration to investigate what it describes as a “formula pricing scheme,” where cattle are increasingly sold through contracts instead of negotiated cash markets.

Critics argue those arrangements give major meatpackers greater influence over cattle pricing.

When asked whether the administration is listening to cattle producers’ concerns, Bullard points to Monday’s press conference as evidence of a major shift in Washington.

“Well, clearly it is,” Bullard says. “The press conference that was held talking specifically about the problems associated with beef packer concentration was unprecedented for the past 100 years. We have not seen our policymakers stand up and take a stand against the concentration of the cattle market. And so we’re excited that this administration is focused on this issue, understands that it is a national security issue, understands that as a result of our failure to properly enforce our antitrust laws, we’ve hollowed out rural American communities all across this country.”

Whether the federal investigation ultimately leads to major reforms within the cattle industry remains uncertain. But the debate over market concentration, competition and who controls pricing power in the U.S. cattle market is now squarely at the center of Washington policymaking.

Your Next Reads:

Not Done Yet: Despite Packer Investigation Price Shock, Cattle Prices Could Keep Climbing Through 2030

Tue, 05 May 2026 16:12:17 GMT

Fresh policy headlines injected new uncertainty into cattle markets this week, but they haven’t changed the bigger picture driving beef prices higher.

On Monday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced an intensified antitrust investigation into the so-called “Big Four” packers — JBS, Cargill, Tyson Foods and National Beef — which together process the vast majority of U.S. cattle. The probe, which the Trump administration says includes millions of documents and a push for whistleblower testimony, underscores growing concern in Washington over market concentration, pricing behavior and the impact on both producers and consumers.

That news sent cattle prices sharply lower.

While policy developments like Monday’s news can dominate the markets on any given day, they don’t necessarily alter the deeper supply-and-demand forces shaping the cattle market. And right now, those forces remain firmly intact: Record-high beef demand and historically low cattle supplies mean these strong cattle prices aren’t just here, but they may be here to stay through the end of the decade.

Cattle Prices Not Done Climbing Yet

Oklahoma State Extension livestock economist Derrell Peel says he’s never been this bullish for this long. And the reason is such strong fundamentals at play. The market’s direction is still being driven far more by biology and consumer behavior than by policy headlines. And while the investigation may shape the industry over time, it does not immediately create more cattle or reduce beef demand, which are two factors that remain at the core of today’s price strength.

The result is a market where short-term volatility — whether sparked by policy, disease concerns or geopolitical events — continues to play out against a longer-term bullish trend. And as long as supplies stay tight and consumers keep buying beef, the broader trajectory points toward the same conclusion: Cattle prices may not be done climbing yet.

What makes the current environment so unusual is not just the volatility in cattle prices, but how long demand has held together despite those increases. Consumers have continued to buy beef even as retail prices climb and supplies tighten, resisting the typical shift toward lower-cost proteins like pork or chicken. That resilience has been a cornerstone of the market’s strength, helping sustain the rally even as production constraints persist.

The Supply Side of the Story

Even with that looming concern, the supply side of the equation continues to dominate the broader market narrative. In fact, one of the most striking aspects of the current cycle is how little progress has been made toward rebuilding the U.S. cattle herd, despite strong price incentives that would typically encourage expansion.

“This is the longest in my entire career that I’ve basically had the same outlook,” Peel says. “This thing really started in the fall of 2022, as far as the current price run that we’re on. It continues. And the story hasn’t changed, and we really haven’t changed anything yet that sets up the idea that it’s going to change anytime soon.”

That consistency reflects a deeper theme within the industry. While high prices might suggest an imminent increase in production, the biological and economic realities of cattle production make rapid expansion difficult, especially when producers remain cautious.

“Very, very limited at this point — so essentially no,” Peel says when asked if there are signs the U.S. cattle herd is starting to rebuild. “I mean, we just have very limited indications of a little bit of interest in heifer retention, but not a lot happening yet. We’re watching the weather at springtime. There’s a lot of concern about drought conditions that could derail anything we might want to do anyway.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by U.S. Farm Report (@usfarmreport)

Without meaningful heifer retention, Peel explains the process of herd rebuilding cannot truly begin. And until that process starts, he thinks the market remains locked in a pattern of tight supplies and upward price pressure.

“The bottom line is we really haven’t started the clock yet on the things that would eventually lead to a top in this market,” Peel says.

That delay has pushed expectations further into the future, extending the timeline for when increased production might finally ease the market. Each passing season without expansion reinforces the same dynamic: limited supply supporting prices.

“Oh, yeah, we keep pushing it out,” Peel says. “You know, I’ve already extended it probably two years. We’re still waiting again for that clock to start at this point. So until we see some definitive signs of substantial amount of heifer retention, you know, the path continues as it is.”

Even if producers were to begin retaining heifers immediately, the lag time between that decision and its impact on beef production would stretch for years. That built-in delay is a defining feature of the cattle cycle and one reason why price trends tend to persist once they are established.

“And it’ll be some months after that,” Peel says. “Typically, a year to a year and a half after we start heifer retention would be when we would expect these markets to peak out. So we’re on a timeline now where, if we start saving heifers right now, it’s going to be the end of the decade before we really change overall beef production significantly.”

The Bullish Run in Cattle: How Long Can It Last?

That long runway helps explain why Peel remains firmly bullish — even at today’s record price levels. In his view, the market simply hasn’t reached the point where supply can begin to catch up with demand.

“Still predicting higher highs, as scary as that is for me to say,” Peel says. “We’re at record-high prices, and I expect that we’re going to go higher. I don’t think the peak in prices happens in 2026. I think it’s somewhere after that.”

Those supply constraints and demand dynamics point toward a market that could remain elevated well into the latter part of the decade.

“It’s really hard to say right now until we sort of know how it’s playing out,” Peel says, referring to how the eventual peak might unfold. “It’s all really kind of ahead of us as far as that goes. I don’t see it happening. We’re on such a slow build that I think it’s going to be more of a measured approach rather than a sharp peak.”

Still Some Uncertainty Ahead

Still, while the long-term outlook remains bullish, the short-term environment is anything but stable. Day-to-day market action continues to be shaped by uncertainty, with external shocks triggering rapid price swings that can complicate marketing decisions for producers.

“In the meantime, we’re dealing with a lot of risk and uncertainty in this market,” Peel says. “So we’re in this unusual situation where we have a bullish outlook and yet a really strong need for producers to be doing risk management just because the market is so volatile on a short-term basis.”

One Risk: High Gas Prices

One of those risks is the fact outside economic pressures are beginning to build. Gas prices recently jumped 33¢ in a single week, reaching their highest level since July 2022. While that may seem disconnected from cattle markets at first glance, fuel costs play a direct role in shaping consumer purchasing power, especially when increases persist over time.

“Economists define demand as willingness and ability to purchase products,” Peel says. “The willingness is there. But the ability, high gas prices is probably the biggest threat out there.”

That distinction between willingness and ability is critical to understanding where the beef market could be headed next. So far, consumers have shown little hesitation in purchasing beef, even at elevated price levels. However, sustained increases in everyday expenses like fuel can gradually erode disposable income, forcing households to make tougher decisions at the meat counter.

“If the current geopolitical situation persists and keeps gas prices high for another few months, at some point in time it may impact consumer incomes enough that it forces them to make more adjustments,” Peel adds. “And that would be the biggest threat to beef demand at this point.”

That potential shift has not yet materialized, but it represents one of the few risks to an otherwise bullish outlook. For now, demand remains strong, helping support prices even as supplies remain historically tight. But the longer external cost pressures linger, the more likely it becomes that consumer behavior could begin to change.

New World Screwworm Risk

Animal health concerns have been one of the more visible drivers of that volatility, particularly when it comes to New World screwworm . Even unconfirmed reports or isolated cases have proven capable of moving markets, highlighting just how sensitive current conditions are to uncertainty.

“These animal health issues are certainly one of them,” Peel says. “We’ve got a lot of things going on right now that are kind of like that. We get news, and markets don’t like uncertainty. And so that’s what we’re dealing with here.”

Peel says in some cases, the uncertainty is worse than the reality, which means the market is even more sensitive to any type of news.

“But the market is also very resilient. So when we do see these impacts, whether it’s from New World screwworm or concerns about infrastructure or geopolitical events, whatever it is, the market tends to react, but then it bounces back pretty quickly,” he points out.

But for producers, Peel says volatility is a major risk.

“And the challenge for producers is to not get caught where you have to be marketing something in the middle of one of these short-term shocks in the market,” he says. “And so that’s the challenge for them to try to manage around that volatility.”

Is the U.S. Prepared?

From a policy and preparedness standpoint, Amy Hagerman, Extension specialist for agriculture and food policy at Oklahoma State University, emphasizes risks like New World screwworm extend beyond cattle imports alone. The pathways for introduction are broader, requiring a more comprehensive approach to monitoring and response.

“This is a pest that likes anything that’s warm-blooded,” Hagerman says. “And so it’s going to catch a ride with anybody that it can catch a ride with.”

Yet, there’s a general assumption that even though the Southern border remains closed to live cattle imports, that if NWS enters the U.S., it won’t be because of cattle. Instead, it could enter the U.S. via wildlife or something else.

“I think a higher level of awareness, education and vigilance is really important, whether we’re talking about pets for somebody who has vacationed in Mexico, or even individuals, or whether we’re talking about wildlife,” Hagerman says. “We’ve seen a real effort, publicly and privately, to kind of enhance that awareness.”

The latest NWS case, according to Hagerman, is less than 70 miles from the U.S. border and points to the urgency of ongoing monitoring efforts in the region.

“As somebody who does a lot of emergency preparedness, I can tell you that all plans never survive interaction with reality,” she says. “But I do think we’ve put a lot of effort, a lot of time into preparing for this — setting up the infrastructure and educating producers because this is going to be a producer-management issue by and large.”

Possible Permanent Changes of Flow of Cattle From Mexico to the U.S.

Peel adds that while such issues may be costly and complex at the individual level, their broader market impact may be limited compared to supply fundamentals.

“I think the risk here for the impact of New World screwworm is not so much a broader market one, because it’s going to be a very costly issue for producers individually to manage, for regional efforts to control it,” Peel says. “It’s probably not going to impact the overall market all that much.”

Beyond animal health, trade policy remains another uncertain variable. The continued closure of the southern border to live cattle imports has already reshaped supply flows, and prolonged disruption could lead to more permanent structural changes.

“I think we could,” Peel says when asked whether trade patterns might shift for good. “I mean, arguably the biggest impacts of all of this in terms of the economic impact of the border being closed, we’ve already felt up to this point.”

“You know, we probably didn’t get 700,000 or 800,000 head of Mexican cattle last year that we would have gotten,” Peel adds. “And so, you know, we’re past that now, but the thing is, those cattle have been dealt with. They’re using them in Mexico. They have infrastructure to utilize those cattle in their domestic market.”

Peel says the longer this goes on, the more supply chains and production systems need to adjust to the fact the normal or historic trade flows have changed.

“The risk is that maybe we lose it permanently. It changes things on a permanent basis,” Peel says.

No matter the day-to-day noise, the market remains defined by a rare combination of strong demand, constrained supply and mounting external pressures. While higher fuel costs could eventually test consumers’ ability to keep paying record prices, the lack of herd expansion continues to underpin a bullish outlook, one that may keep cattle prices elevated through the end of the decade.

USDA Says Details On $1 Billion Specialty Crop Aid Payments Expected Within Weeks

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:50:52 GMT

Specialty crop producers are likely just weeks away from learning how much support they’ll receive from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s $1 billion aid package , as officials work through final acreage data needed to calculate payments.

In an interview with Farm Journal, Richard Fordyce said the timeline for details depends on information gathered through the recently closed acreage reporting period.

“We’ve reached the acreage reporting signup deadline, and now we need to understand the full universe of acres,” Fordyce says. “Once we have that, we can move quickly into developing payment rates per acre by crop.”

Fordyce indicated producers could see an announcement soon.

“I would expect that we’ll have an announcement in a couple of weeks, hopefully,” he says. “It may be a little longer than that, but we’ve got some math to do and we want to make sure we get that right.”

Acreage Data Drives Payment Rates

The reporting deadline Fordyce referenced was extended by U.S. Department of Agriculture earlier this spring to ensure more producers could participate in the Assistance for Specialty Crop Farmers (ASCF) program.

According to Farm Service Agency (FSA), the acreage reporting window for 2025 specialty crops was reopened and ultimately closed April 24, 2026. The additional time was intended to capture a more complete picture of planted acres nationwide—data that will now be used to set commodity-specific payment rates.

Those payments will be based directly on reported 2025 planted acres, making accuracy in reporting a critical step in determining how the $1 billion in aid is distributed.

Program Aims to Offset Market Pressures

The ASCF program, announced by Agriculture Secretary Brooke L. Rollins in February, is designed to help producers weather a range of economic challenges. These include market disruptions, rising input costs, persistent inflation and increased competition from foreign suppliers engaging in unfair trade practices.

Authorized under the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, the program covers a wide array of specialty crops, from almonds, apples and berries to vegetables like broccoli, lettuce and tomatoes, as well as nuts and other high-value crops.

However, not all crops qualify. Dry edible beans and peas covered under separate assistance programs are excluded from ASCF eligibility.

What Happens Next

With acreage reporting now complete, USDA officials are focused on translating that data into per-acre payment rates across dozens of eligible crops, a process Fordyce acknowledged is complex given the diversity of the sector.

“There’s a lot of crops when we start talking about that specialty crop category,” he says.

Once payment rates are finalized, USDA is expected to open the application period. In the meantime, producers are encouraged to prepare by setting up accounts through Login.gov, which will allow for faster application processing when signups begin. Applications will also be available through local FSA county offices.

While crop insurance is not required to participate in ASCF, USDA is encouraging producers to consider risk management tools available under recent legislation to help guard against future price volatility.

For now, all eyes are on USDA’s forthcoming announcement, which will determine how the $1 billion in aid is allocated across the specialty crop sector.

Trump Admin to Roll Out Major Fertilizer Plan This Week, Accelerate U.S. Production Push

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:36:27 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins says the Trump administration will unveil a sweeping set of fertilizer initiatives this week, warning that surging input costs are putting intense pressure on American farmers. Speaking at a Missouri farm on Friday, Rollins told those in attendance that fertilizer has become an issue of national security, which is why she says this week’s announcement will be broader than just USDA, also including EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce and Department of the Interior.

While at GR Farms in Higginsville, Mo., on Friday to roll out an announcement on the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) top-up payments, Rollins described the Trump administration’s upcoming announcement on fertilizer as a large-scale investment initiative. She says while she hoped to roll out the plan while in Missouri, the administration is still finalizing the size of the funding package.

Rollins says the plan will address both immediate actions to stabilize fertilizer prices and a longer-term roadmap aimed at ensuring affordable, domestically produced supply for U.S. farmers.

Washington analyst Jim Wiesemeyer says the plan will likely need to include a mix of financial and policy tools, such as grants, tax incentives, loan guarantees outside of existing USDA programs and greater consistency in U.S. trade policy, while noting imports will still play a role, particularly for key nutrients like potash sourced from Canada.

Short-Term Fertilizer Price Pain

During her comments Friday, Rollins highlighted how quickly fertilizer prices have increased since the conflict started in Iran, outlining the additional strain it is placing on producers.

“We know that urea prices have gone up 50% over the last month. Ammonia is up 30% or more,” she said, adding that “our farmers are feeling that pinch.”

Rollins also told the crowd fertilizer has been a longer-term challenge, even before the situation in Iran caused the latest price spike.

“To be clear, this has been a problem for years. The actual numbers are lower, believe it or not, than they were even in 2022,” she says. “But nevertheless, that jump in prices overnight, we have to address.”

Framing the issue as more than just an economic challenge and one that is a matter of national security after decades of offshoring fertilizer production, Rollins says the administration views the issue as part of a broader structural problem within the fertilizer industry.

“The loss of competition in the fertilizer industry has obviously led to higher fertilizer costs over time,” she says. “When combined with what’s happening overseas with the current geopolitical issues facing our world, certainly we have come to a crossroads that requires immediate action. This is indeed a matter of national security, and we are working to tackle it head on.”

Focus on Domestic Fertilizer Production

While Rollins didn’t give details, she hinted the centerpiece of this week’s announcement will be a major push to reshore fertilizer production, backed by federal investment to accomplish that. Working with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, she says the administration is preparing to direct significant funding toward building new fertilizer plants across the country, while also supporting existing projects.

“I have asked Howard to do, and his team to do, and what we’re doing in partnership is to identify a significant number ... that we can deploy into building out fertilizer plants in America,” she says.

Rollins emphasizes cutting regulatory delays will be critical to making that plan work. She says projects are already being identified nationwide, but permitting delays remain a major obstacle — with the goal of getting that process down to months versus the current years it takes.

“We’ve already begun to identify all over the country. Some are under production. How do we move them along more quickly? Some are in the permitting bureaucracy, which sometimes takes years to get through permitting,” she says. “Our goal is to, instead of years, to get to permitting in a matter of weeks, or perhaps months, so that even in one year, two years and three years, we will have facilities up and running that we will never have had that opportunity or option before.”

United States’ Energy Advantage for Nitrogen Fertilizer

Rollins also points to domestic energy resources as a key factor in expanding fertilizer output, particularly for nitrogen production.

“We became, in a matter of just a short period of time, a net exporter of LNG versus importer, meaning we were producing our own energy in America, so much so that we no longer had to rely on other countries,” she says. “The reason that is important is, as our farmers are facing these exponential nitrogen fertilizer costs, we now have the resources in America. We just have to build the facilities, the manufacturing facilities, to turn that LNG into nitrogen. So this is going to happen quicker than you would normally expect, I think because of the pieces of the puzzle that have already been put into place.”

In the meantime, Rollins says the administration is continuing short-term efforts to improve supply availability and reduce costs.

While the longer-term strategy ramps up, she says the administration is continuing short-term interventions to ease pressure on farmers. These include:

Extending a waiver of the Jones Act
Opening new import channels
Working and meeting with industry/fertilizer companies

Highlighting cooperation with domestic producers, she pointed to CF Industries as an example.

“They have said, in order to protect our farmers, we are going to stop maintenance. We are going look at holding our prices steady,” she says.

She also points to ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice.

“Last year, we signed a joint agreement, USDA did, with the Department of Justice, ensuring that farmers have access to competitive and affordable inputs,” she says. “Looking into the activities of our fertilizer companies and what has happened over the last few years, but with a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Long-Term Goal: Reduce Foreign Dependence

Looking longer term, Rollins says the administration is focused on reversing decades of reliance on foreign suppliers.

“America has offshored for far too long, far too much of our fertilizer production, leaving us dangerously reliant on Russia and China,” she says. “Changing that long-standing industry that is reliant on global markets won’t happen overnight,” she says. “But working with our farmers and across industry and government, we will find ways to make fertilizer that we can do here in America and make sure it is a price that our great farmers can afford.”

At the same time, the administration is increasing scrutiny of fertilizer markets. Rollins noted ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice, saying officials are taking “a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Ultimately, she framed this week’s announcement as the beginning of a broader shift away from foreign dependence.

Rollins says additional details, including funding levels and project specifics, will be included in next week’s announcement.

“We’re at a crossroads that requires immediate action,” she says.

Watch Rollins’ full press conference here:

USDA Expands Farmer Surveys to Improve Data Accuracy, Relocates Staff Closer to the Farm

Fri, 24 Apr 2026 12:59:40 GMT

USDA is moving to adjust how it collects and communicates agricultural data following an April 22 meeting with stakeholders in Kansas City, pairing expanded farmer surveys, increased transparency efforts and new performance tracking with a sweeping reorganization that will relocate staff closer to agricultural regions.

Leading into the USDA Data Users meeting on Wednesday, Farm Journal spoke one-on-one with USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden. While he wasn’t in the room physically on Wednesday, instead joining virtually, Vaden made clear he intended to play an active role in the discussion.

“I’m excited about that because one of the things that both the Secretary and I are committed to is better transparency, especially when it comes to our data,” he says. “USDA data needs to be the gold standard, and we need to be brave enough to take feedback. Everyone can always improve.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by U.S. Farm Report (@usfarmreport)

That theme, being “brave enough” to hear criticism, carried through both the meeting and the department’s broader outreach effort. As USDA, ERS, NASS, World Board and others participated in a panel on stage followed by Q&A, they had unified message that they’ll do whatever it takes to rebuild farmer trust and restore confidence in USDA data and reporting.

Earlier this month, USDA closed a public comment period inviting anyone who interacts with its data to weigh in on how it could improve.

“What we have done is we had a public comment process which just closed on the 9th of April, where we asked everyone who has any interaction with our data, tell us what you think,” Vaden says. “Are there ways that we can collect data better? Are there ways that we can report data better?”

Data Users Meeting Highlights Concerns Over Participation, Accuracy

At the Kansas City meeting, one issue stood out: falling farmer participation in USDA surveys and what that means for the reliability of widely watched reports.

Officials from USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) acknowledged that response rates have dropped to historically low levels. The March 31 planting intentions report drew responses from just 37.6% of surveyed producers, down from 44.3% a year earlier and the lowest on record. But they also talked about plans to improve those numbers.

That decline has raised concerns across the agriculture sector, particularly after USDA made sizable revisions to 2025 corn acreage estimates earlier this year. Because markets rely heavily on USDA data for price discovery, risk management, and policy decisions, even small questions about accuracy can ripple widely.

In response, NASS plans to significantly expand its farmer survey efforts in an attempt to rebuild participation and improve data quality.

USDA Plans Expanded Farmer Surveys to Improve Data Reliability

According to NASS Administrator Joseph Parsons, the agency intends to increase the number of farmers surveyed for major acreage reports, pending approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

The most immediate change would come with the June 30 acreage report, where USDA plans to boost its sample size by roughly 35%. Additional increases of about 10% are planned for the September, December, and March reports.

The goal is straightforward: generate more usable responses and improve the precision of crop estimates.

Beyond simply expanding outreach, USDA is also working to improve how it communicates uncertainty in its reports. Parsons says the agency will incorporate more “plain language” explanations to help producers, traders, and policymakers better understand confidence levels and potential variability in the data.

Reorganization Announcement Follows Immediately After Data Meeting

Just one day after the Data Users meeting, USDA underscored how quickly change is unfolding across the department by announcing a sweeping reorganization that will relocate major divisions, including positions tied to data and research, out of Washington, D.C.

The agency announced the broad reorganization and relocation of staff, saying it will modernize operations. But some stakeholders warn the changes could strain staffing levels and institutional expertise at data-focused offices, including NASS and the World Agricultural Outlook Board, following recent departures tied to the Deferred Resignation Program.

According to USDA’s Thursday announcement, the overhaul will shift key components of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area closer to agricultural regions, in what officials describe as an effort to modernize operations and better align staff with the producers they serve.

At the center of the changes is the creation of a new National Food Safety Center in Urbandale, Iowa, which will serve as the primary hub for FSIS administrative, technical, and support functions. The facility is expected to house roughly 200 employees and become the agency’s largest office. A separate science center in Athens, Georgia, will expand capabilities in microbiology, chemistry, and epidemiology.

USDA officials emphasize that frontline inspection operations, which account for roughly 85% of FSIS personnel, will not be affected, and no reductions in force are planned. Additional staff tied to international operations will be located in Fort Collins, Colorado, while about 100 positions will remain in Washington for policy and congressional work.

The restructuring also reaches into the department’s data and research arms.

The Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) will relocate additional positions to Kansas City, reinforcing a move first initiated during the previous Trump administration. NASS will also shift certain Washington-based roles to St. Louis and other regional offices while maintaining its nationwide data collection network.

Meanwhile, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will begin decommissioning the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland, redistributing research programs across the country to better align with regional agricultural needs and modernize aging infrastructure.

USDA leaders frame the reorganization as a move to reduce duplication, improve accountability, and strengthen connections between federal agencies and the agricultural sector. Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden says the changes are intended to better align staff with mission needs, while agency leaders emphasize improved workforce support, training, and recruitment.

Greater Transparency and Accountability Ahead

The timing of the reorganization, coming immediately after a meeting focused on data credibility, highlights the broader scope of USDA’s efforts to rebuild trust and improve performance.

Alongside expanded surveys and structural changes, the department is also taking steps to more directly evaluate its forecasting accuracy.

Vaden says USDA is planning to launch an annual report, potentially beginning this fall, that will compare its crop forecasts against final production totals after the marketing year concludes. The effort is designed to give stakeholders a clearer picture of how USDA estimates stack up over time.

“This is not something that will be solved in a day,” Vaden says. “But we have to be brave enough to take feedback and issue public reports on how we did and how our numbers ended up stacking up against the final facts, so that we can begin the process of ensuring that there is continuous improvement with regard to the quality of USDA data.”

Behind the scenes, that process is already underway. Vaden says he is receiving internal briefings on the feedback submitted through the Request for Information and is meeting directly with trade groups and farmer representatives.

“I, as a matter of fact, am receiving a briefing later today on what the comments that came in as part of our request for information show, and how we can have further areas of improvement,” he says. “And I am meeting with some of the commenters… to hear from them personally about how we could do our job better.”

Is USDA’s Reorganization Impacting Data Accuracy?

Even before the formal announcement, questions had already been circulating about whether internal restructuring could affect USDA reporting.

Vaden dismisses that idea.

“Well, first, with regard to your question about whether there’s a link to the data, the answer is no,” he says. “Our WASDE professionals are professionals in the Office of the Chief Economist. They are unbothered by the reorganization. It doesn’t affect their day-to-day work at all.”

In practical terms, he suggests the impact on those teams is minimal.

“The only thing they’re going to have to do is leave the South Building and come over here to the Witten Building for lockup,” he says.

Still, the scale of the changes is significant. USDA is looking to shrink its Washington footprint, where the South Building is more than 70% vacant and carries over $1.6 billion in deferred maintenance, while relocating employees closer to rural communities.

“No private sector company in the world would pay for real estate that is more than 70% vacant,” Vaden says.

Q&A Underscores Concerns Over Trust, Participation, and Transparency

The question-and-answer session at the close of the Data Users meeting made clear that concerns about USDA data go beyond methodology.

Several attendees pressed officials on how the agency plans to reverse declining farmer response rates, with some noting that lower participation could introduce bias into key reports. NASS officials acknowledged the concern and pointed to expanded survey efforts as a primary solution, while also emphasizing outreach to better explain why farmer participation matters.

Officials say they are exploring additional ways to engage producers directly, including clearer communication about how survey data is used and stronger assurances around confidentiality.

Questions also focused on large revisions to recent crop estimates, with market participants asking whether those changes signal deeper issues in data collection or modeling. USDA representatives stressed that revisions are a normal part of the statistical process but acknowledged the need to better communicate why those adjustments occur and what they mean for users.

Another recurring theme was transparency, specifically, how USDA conveys uncertainty in its reports. Attendees urged the department to provide clearer indicators of confidence levels and potential variability, particularly during periods of market volatility. NASS officials pointed to planned “plain language” additions as one step toward making reports more accessible and easier to interpret.

Some participants also raised concerns about whether internal changes, including the department’s broader reorganization, could disrupt data quality or continuity. USDA officials reiterated that statistical staff and processes remain intact and said efforts are being made to ensure consistency regardless of organizational shifts.

Finally, several questions centered on accountability, and how USDA evaluates its own performance over time. Officials confirmed that the department is working toward publishing a regular assessment comparing forecasts to final outcomes, a move widely viewed by attendees as a meaningful step toward rebuilding confidence.

USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden Says High-Level Washington Meeting Puts Fertilizer Industry on the Spot

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 20:09:58 GMT

The fertilizer market has been a growing point of tension in agriculture for years, but USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden says recent meetings in Washington marked a more direct and wide-ranging confrontation between federal officials and the companies that dominate input supply. Those discussions, he says, were not limited to USDA alone but included a broader slice of the administration’s economic leadership, signaling how central fertilizer costs have become to the national conversation on food production and inflation.

Vaden says cabinet-level officials from the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative were present, alongside USDA leadership and state agriculture commissioners from Iowa and Georgia. Fertilizer executives were also in the room, making the meeting a rare setting where policy makers, regulators and industry leaders sat together to address pricing, supply constraints and long-term market structure.

He says the purpose was not simply informational, but confrontational in the sense of putting real-world farm impacts directly in front of industry decision-makers.

“It was an opportunity for those other cabinet officials to hear from the fertilizer company executives,” Vaden says, “and for those fertilizer company executives to hear from the secretary and me, as well as our two state counterparts who joined, about the real harm that farmers are facing from uncertainty in the market and, equally as importantly, years of elevated prices.”

Vaden says what often gets lost outside agriculture is that the current fertilizer environment is not a short-term disruption, but the continuation of a multi-year pricing trend that has reshaped farm budgets.

“For people who don’t pay attention to ag every day like your listeners do, they may think this fertilizer thing came out of nowhere,” Vaden says. “But American farmers know that we’re on year five or more of elevated prices for fertilizer, and questions about adequate supply of all fertilizer types.”

He adds that the timing of the discussions is critical, as global geopolitical tensions are only adding pressure to already strained markets.

“So I see this as an opportunity now that the attention of everyone is focused on fertilizer, not just agriculture, to begin to solve the problem that has taken years to develop and that has been exacerbated by the current situation in the Middle East,” Vaden says. “So that we don’t find ourselves in another long-term question about fertilizer supply going forward.”

USDA Pushes Industry: Bring Projects Forward or Explain the Bottlenecks

As discussions continue with fertilizer companies, Vaden says USDA is shifting the conversation from general concern to specific accountability. Rather than broad discussions about market conditions, he says officials are now asking companies to identify concrete projects that could increase supply and to explain why those investments have not yet materialized.

This approach, he says, reflects a broader strategy inside the department to move beyond analysis and toward action, particularly in areas where supply constraints have persisted for years without meaningful change.

In meetings held both jointly and separately with industry leaders, Vaden says USDA has been consistent in its message to fertilizer companies.

“We are saying the same thing to everyone who comes before the department,” Vaden says. “Be a part of the solution, don’t be a part of the problem.”

He says that includes detailed questions about whether expansion projects are already in development but stalled due to permitting delays, regulatory barriers or capital constraints. In some cases, he says, USDA is asking companies to identify where federal or state action could realistically speed up timelines.

“We are asking them what projects they have in the pipeline that they can bring on board to create new fertilizer supplies, hopefully here domestically, but if necessary, near-shoring overseas,” Vaden says. “And are there steps that we can take to make those projects move faster? Are there permits that are held up? Are there states or localities that are holding up their expansions? Are there investments that they are looking for with regard to needing capital to be able to expand their production capacity?”

He adds the department is not approaching the issue passively, but actively pressing for answers.

“We’re asking as many questions as we are making declarative statements, and we’re trying to see what levers we can pull to get more supply on the market,” Vaden says.

Market Concentration at Center of USDA Concerns

Beyond supply timelines and permitting issues, Vaden says one of the core structural concerns in fertilizer markets is the level of consolidation, particularly in phosphate production where a small number of companies control a dominant share of supply.

He says that level of concentration raises fundamental questions about how prices are formed and whether farmers are receiving signals that reflect true market conditions.

With that in mind, Vaden says USDA is focusing heavily on competition and price discovery as part of its broader review of input markets.

“With one of our fertilizer markets, there are two companies that control 90% market share,” Vaden says. “Anybody, I don’t care whether it’s fertilizer or what any other commodity you want to talk about, if there are only two major players, how can anyone be sure that the price you are paying reflects actual market conditions?”

He says the issue is not simply about individual price spikes, but about whether enough competition exists to keep pricing behavior transparent and responsive.

“In order to have adequate price discovery in a market, you need multiple players,” Vaden says.

That concern, he adds, is one of the reasons fertilizer investigations already underway by federal agencies predate recent geopolitical disruptions and continue to expand.

Vaden Details Heated Meeting With Mosaic: “A Different Tune in My Conference Room”

Among the most pointed parts of Vaden’s interview are his comments about a recent face-to-face meeting with Mosaic, one of the most influential players in the phosphate fertilizer market. He says the discussion, held in his conference room just this week, was direct and, at times, uncomfortable, focusing heavily on production decisions, capacity investment and the company’s role in a highly concentrated global market.

Vaden says he challenged Mosaic on why additional production capacity has not been brought online in the United States over a long period of time, and what barriers the company believes are preventing expansion.

He says he left the meeting with clear expectations for follow-up information from the company, describing it as an assignment rather than a casual discussion.

“I gave them a homework assignment,” Vaden says. “I told them what I expected to see, and I hope that they will get back to me as soon as possible.”

But what stood out most to him, he says, was not just what was said in the room, but how it contrasted with the company’s public messaging.

So disappointed in this response, @MosaicCompany, especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market. 🚨

Our Great President and this Administration have our farmers' backs. 💪🌾

Any sleight of hand will not be… https://t.co/GTCxcBQNgi
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 13, 2026

In his view, there was a noticeable difference between internal discussions and external communications, particularly on social media, where fertilizer policy debates have increasingly played out in public.

“And I will say, without being able to go into details, when they were in my office, they were singing a slightly different tune than they were signing on Twitter responding to the president’s Truth Social message that you noted,” Vaden says.

He uses that contrast to underscore what he sees as a broader disconnect between industry messaging and the realities USDA believes farmers are facing.

“We need more supply, we need answers, your company hasn’t provided either of those two things,” Vaden says. “It’s about time that you did.”

Industry Responses, Trade Policy Pressure and the Mosaic Question

While Vaden applies pressure to Mosaic, he notes that not all fertilizer companies are taking the same stance on trade policy and tariffs. He points specifically to Nutrien, which he says has indicated support for removing certain trade enforcement measures.

“I was very happy after I met with the Nutrien CEO that they came out and announced we don’t need this CVD order anymore,” Vaden says.

By contrast, he says Mosaic’s position on countervailing duties and phosphate trade enforcement remains unresolved, and that broader policy decisions are now effectively waiting on the company’s response.

He characterizes the situation as fluid but heavily dependent on industry input.

“Right now the question is in Mosaic’s court, if you will,” Vaden says. “And we’re waiting for an answer from them.”

He adds that regulatory or executive action is unlikely to be taken in a vacuum while negotiations and responses are still unfolding.

“One thing that I know as a lawyer is that there’s a whole lot more possible if you have consent of the parties than if you don’t,” Vaden says. “With consent, nearly all things are possible.”

Investigations Expand as USDA Seeks Farmer-Reported Data

Alongside industry meetings, Vaden says USDA is working with the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission on ongoing fertilizer market investigations, with a particular focus on pricing behavior and market transparency.

He says one challenge is the nature of pricing information itself, which often reaches farmers through informal channels and can change quickly.

“We’re asking questions and waiting for answers, and we need farmers’ help as part of our question asking,” Vaden says.

He describes a pattern many farmers have reported directly to USDA, where fertilizer prices are quoted in a way that encourages immediate purchase rather than delayed buying.

“I know in my own family’s operation that you get phone calls, and those phone calls tell you ‘Here’s what the price is now, and if you wait, here’s what the price will be later,’” Vaden says. “And that later price is never lower than the price that it is now.”

To address that, he says USDA is working on a confidential reporting system designed to protect farmer identity while improving data quality for investigators.

“If they trust us with their information, if they trust us with the facts that they have, they’ll be able to remain anonymous,” Vaden says. “And the companies under investigation will not know who shared what data with us.”

“This Has Been Going On for Too Long”

Vaden closes by emphasizing that fertilizer prices and supply constraints are not a new challenge for agriculture, but an entrenched issue that has persisted through multiple years and market cycles.

He says the administration is trying to shift both short-term supply conditions and long-term structural dynamics at the same time, adding that USDA’s goal is not temporary relief, but sustained changes in supply, competition and pricing stability.

“We are focused on getting new supplies here now, and not just now, but next year and the year after that and the years after that,” Vaden says. “So that we can have guaranteed new supplies over the long term.”

Vaden’s Message to Farmers: “We’re Saying the Same Thing in Public and in Private”

At the end of the conversation, Vaden returned to what he described as the central audience for everything USDA is doing on fertilizer: farmers themselves. He acknowledged frustration is not just growing, but it has become a defining sentiment across much of farm country as input costs remain elevated and supply questions persist year after year.

He emphasized USDA’s posture is not different depending on the room or the audience, whether speaking with industry executives, other federal agencies, or producers themselves.

“I want farmers to know that when I am sitting with representatives of other cabinet departments or when I am sitting with big fertilizer CEOs, I am saying the same thing in private that you hear me saying in public,” Vaden says. “I do not change my tune. I may be slightly more polite, but I am equally as direct in terms of telling them what I think the situation is.”

Vaden says that directness is rooted in what he believes farmers are already experiencing on the ground, particularly when it comes to fertilizer pricing volatility and uncertainty in purchasing decisions. He says producers are not misreading the situation — they are responding to real, long-running pressures.

He also acknowledges the emotional toll on producers is part of the reality USDA is hearing more frequently.

“I especially communicate to them that farmers have gone from exasperation to anger with the situation that we have now,” Vaden says. “They are not wrong to be feeling those emotions because they understand that this is not a new situation.”

Looking ahead, Vaden says USDA’s goal is not just to address short-term pricing spikes, but to change the underlying conditions that have kept fertilizer costs elevated for years. That includes expanding supply, increasing competition and improving long-term stability in input markets.

“This is an issue that has bedeviled American agriculture for at least five years, and it is time that it stopped,” Vaden says.

Trump Warns Fertilizer Giants Against "Price Gouging" as Costs Soar 40%

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:46:51 GMT

Fertilizer market volatility is once again taking center stage as geopolitical tensions disrupt global supply lines and push input costs sharply higher. New analysis shows the increase in fertilizer prices may not be over, even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens soon.

Even with the situation in Iran pushing prices even higher, the sharp increase in fertilizer prices from 2020 to now is catching attention in Washington. Not only did President Donald Trump take to social media to warn of ‘price gouging,’ but Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins also posted on X Monday, specifically expressing frustration over Mosaic’s response to farmers.

While Rollins and USDA Under Secretary Stephen Vaden have raised concerns over fertilizer prices this year, the president posted on Truth Social over the weekend that he is closely monitoring fertilizer prices and pledged support for American farmers.

Trump said Saturday on his Truth Social platform he is “watching fertilizer prices CLOSELY” during what he described as the US “FIGHT FOR FREEDOM in Iran”, adding that the administration “will not accept PRICE GOUGING from the fertilizer monopoly”.

On Monday, Rollins posted on X, saying she was “So disappointed in this response” from Mosaic, “especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market.”

So disappointed in this response, @MosaicCompany, especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market. 🚨

Our Great President and this Administration have our farmers' backs. 💪🌾

Any sleight of hand will not be… https://t.co/GTCxcBQNgi
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 13, 2026

Mosaic announced last week the decision to shut down major phosphate operations in Brazil, a move the that will cut production, reduce jobs, and signal a *strategic shift in how the fertilizer giant deploys its capital.

Mosaic Company announced Thursday it will idle two phosphate facilities in Brazil as part of a broader effort to cut costs and shift capital. Mosaic expects idling of the facilities to reduce annual phosphate production by approximately 1 million tonnes. CEO Bruce Bodine says the decision reflects what he calls a disciplined focus on long-term returns.

.@MosaicCompany, you’re right that U.S. farmers are facing a difficult economic situation, only made worse by the extra $6.9 BILLION they have had to spend on fertilizer since you petitioned the government to place duties on imported phosphorus. This has played a major role in… https://t.co/UuOqjE0jBu
— National Corn (NCGA) (@NationalCorn) April 13, 2026

Mosaic and Simplot have also been in the cross hairs of the push to remove countervailing duties on Moroccan phosphate . Groups like the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) claim the CVDs are costing U.S. agriculture $1 billion each year.

The CVDs on Moroccan phosphate were put into place by the International Trade Commission (ITC) in 2021. As the sunset review begins, more than 50 state grower groups including the Texas Corn Producers Association, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the ITC to revoke the countervailing duties on imported phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia.

In separate filings by Mosaic and Simplot to the ITC and the Department of Commerce, both companies said the continuation is necessary to maintain a “level playing field.”

In a written response to Farm Journal, Mosaic said:

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

Iran War’s Current Impact on Fertilizer Prices

The message from the Trump adminstration comes as tensions escalate in the Strait of Hormuz, where the United States is weighing a potential full naval blockade. Ship traffic through the critical waterway has already dropped from roughly 135 vessels per day to the single digits. A complete shutdown could halt flows entirely, further increasing fertilizer prices.

The stakes are high as roughly one-third of global fertilizer shipments move through the strait, and the disruption is already sending prices higher, up more than 40% compared to a year ago.

It is the 6-week anniversary of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Fert price comparisons:

NOLA urea - +$230 or 49%
NOLA UAN - +$145 or 38%
Midwest NH3 - +$245 or 32%
NOLA DAP - +$130 or 21%
NOLA potash - +$10 or 3%

...corn - 2-cents or 0.5% higher#sickeningforfarmers
— Josh Linville (@JLinvilleFert) April 10, 2026

Market data shows the impact Iran is having on already high fertilizer prices. According to StoneX analyst Josh Linville says in the six weeks since the war started:

Urea prices have surged by $230 per ton, a 49% increase
UAN is up $145 per ton, or 38%
Anhydrous ammonia has climbed $245 per ton, a 32% jump.
In contrast, corn prices have barely responded, rising just two cents, or about half a percent. The divergence is putting additional pressure on farm margins.

DOJ Probe Into Fertilizer Costs Seeks Input From Farmers

The Trump administration is asking farmers to help provide information as part of an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation into elevated costs for fertilizer, machinery and other key agricultural inputs, according to reporting from Bloomberg.

Bloomberg reported the effort is aimed at gathering more on-the-ground data as regulators examine whether fertilizer producers may have coordinated to raise prices. The DOJ investigation was first reported in early March, when Bloomberg said federal officials had begun looking into whether fertilizer companies engaged in price coordination.

According to the Bloomberg report, Vaden said he has already met with officials at both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to discuss potential lines of inquiry. He also noted that farmers could play a key role in the process.

Vaden said farmers “have a lot of information that might be relevant to these investigations.”

Bloomberg previously reported in early March that the Department of Justice is investigating whether fertilizer producers colluded to increase prices.

Speaking at the North American Agricultural Journalists’ annual conference in Washington on Monday, Vaden encouraged farmer participation in the probe, emphasizing confidentiality protections.

“We need farmers to help provide us with that information on a confidential basis, so that that can help inform the investigations that are ongoing,” Vaden said, according to Bloomberg. “I think we will have a mechanism in order to help encourage that exchange of information.”

NCGA Surveys Show Not All Farmers Have Fertilizer Secured for 2026

Against that backdrop, along with fertilizer prices climbing even higher in the six weeks after the conflict started with Iran, new surveys results from NCGA highlight how those market pressures are translating to on-farm realities.

Krista Swanson, chief economist for NCGA, says the organization conducted the survey to better understand fertilizer availability from the farmer perspective. Ag Secretary Rollins has told mainstream media that 80% of farmers have fertilizer locked in for 2026, but NCGA data contradicts that figure.

“We’re hearing that number being thrown around too, which is why we really wanted to find out directly from farmers what the status is for them,” Swanson says.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

A Significant Gap in Fertilizer Readiness

The surveys show that only 60% of farmers report having their nitrogen fully purchased or secured for the 2026 growing season, while 64% say the same for phosphate. That leaves a sizable portion of producers still working to lock in supplies.

“When you think about over 500,000 corn farmers in the U.S., this isn’t a small number,” Swanson says. “Our survey results indicate that over 200,000 farmers still need at least some fertilizer for this year.”

Nitrogen remains a critical input for corn production and is closely tied to yield potential. Any shortfall, whether driven by availability or cost, can directly affect productivity and profitability.

NCGA Grower Surveys

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

Younger Farmers Feeling the Pressure Most

The survey also points to uneven impacts across the farm sector, with younger farmers facing greater challenges in securing fertilizer.

Swanson says younger producers reported having more nitrogen left to purchase compared to older farmers.

“You think about younger farmers that have less capital already built up in their business, maybe tighter cash flow needs because of their equity position,” she says. “This does seem to have a disproportional impact on younger farmers.”

That dynamic raises concerns about financial strain among newer operations in a high-cost environment.

Corn Acres Likely Stable, But With Reduced Inputs

Despite the challenges, most farmers are not planning to reduce corn acreage. The survey found that 80% of respondents expect to maintain their planned acres.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

At the same time, fertilizer application rates may fall short. Half of the farmers surveyed say they do not expect to apply their full amount of fertilizer.

“Pairing these two together, it seems to me like we are still going to see a lot of corn acres get planted,” Swanson says. “But those corn acres will have less fertilizer than maybe what they would have otherwise had.”

That combination could limit yield potential if input reductions become widespread.

Growing Concern Shifts to 2027

While fertilizer availability remains a concern for 2026, attention is already turning to the next crop year. Fertilizer purchasing follows a rolling cycle, and planning for 2027 will begin soon.

Survey responses show that for every one farmer more concerned about fertilizer price and availability for 2026, nearly two are more concerned about 2027.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

“So farmers are concerned as we look ahead to next year,” Swanson says.

The shift reflects uncertainty about how long supply disruptions and elevated prices will persist.

Supply Chain Recovery May Take Time

Even if geopolitical tensions ease, relief may not come quickly. Swanson notes that the fertilizer market is still dealing with production disruptions and supply chain backlogs.

“A short-term ceasefire has limited immediate impact on this ongoing fertilizer crisis for farmers,” she says. “Even when a permanent end to the situation is reached, we’re still looking at recovery from supply chain backlogs and halted production that could take a long time to recover from.”

Damage to key inputs such as liquid natural gas and sulfur production could take years to repair, keeping pressure on supply.

A Tightening Outlook

The NCGA survey underscores a challenging environment for corn producers. Most acres are expected to be planted this year, but not all will receive optimal fertilizer applications. At the same time, concern is building for 2027 as farmers look ahead to the next purchasing cycle.

For many producers, the issue is no longer just securing fertilizer for this season. It is navigating a period of sustained uncertainty that could shape production decisions, costs, and risk management strategies across the U.S. corn sector.

Longstanding Concerns Over Market Concentration

In September 2025, USDA and the U.S. Department of Justice signed a Memorandum of Understanding, committing both agencies to jointly examine high and volatile input costs, which included fertilizer, by scrutinizing competitive conditions in agricultural markets and enforcing antitrust laws, particularly around price setting and market concentration.

While geopolitical tensions are the latest driver of volatility, many farm groups argue the root of the problem runs deeper. Matt Perdue, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, says ongoing federal investigations into fertilizer pricing must lead to meaningful action.

“We appreciate the administration’s investigations into input costs,” Perdue says. “But investigations don’t do anything if they’re not followed by enforcement, and they don’t do anything if we don’t learn what came out of those investigations.”

Groups like the Texas Corn Producers Association have been raising concerns about fertilizer market concentration for years. Texas farmer Dee Vaughan says the organization began studying the issue in 2020, working with the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M to examine pricing trends.

“We’ve been very concerned about all of our input costs, but specifically fertilizer, because it’s the one that just keeps going up almost exponentially,” Vaughan says.

He adds those studies found a shift in how fertilizer prices are determined . Historically tied closely to natural gas costs, the study found nitrogen fertilizer pricing began tracking corn prices more closely after 2010, a change Vaughan says reflects deeper structural issues.

According to Vaughan, the small number of firms controlling the market have the data and market awareness to price inputs based on farmers’ revenue potential, rather than production costs.

“They all have economists on staff,” Vaughan says. “They know exactly what our costs are, what our income is, and they’re able to extract value based on what they see as the gross income of a farmer. It’s not based on cost of production any longer.”

USDA’s "Male-Only" Fly Breakthrough to Transform Screwworm Eradication

Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:27:39 GMT

USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is advancing the next evolution of the long-trusted sterile insect technique (SIT) to protect U.S. livestock from New World screwworm (NWS) by introducing a 100% male-only sterile fly strain. This breakthrough will effectively double the production capacity of sterile fly facilities without expanding physical infrastructure. By eliminating the production of “useless” female flies, the USDA-ARS innovation aims to push the NWS fly further south, providing a more robust and cost-effective defense for American livestock producers.

A USDA spokesperson explains, “USDA is using gold standard, proven scientific methods to manufacture NWS flies to produce only male flies and increase the efficiency of SIT. USDA is simply making a proven tool even more efficient and effective to better protect America’s farmers and ranchers.”

USDA currently produces sterile flies for dispersal at the COPEG facility in Panama. USDA is also investing $21 million to support Mexico’s renovation of an existing fruit fly facility in Metapa — which will double NWS production capacity once complete.

Moore Air Base: On Time and On Budget for 2026 Production

Dudley Hoskins, USDA under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs, was a guest Tuesday on AgriTalk. He discussed sterile fly dispersal efforts.

“We’re doing two things,” he says. “One, the Secretary has us modernizing our infrastructure and our production capacity. She has us working on Moore Air Base, which will be a sterile fly production facility, that when it’s finally complete and at max-capacity production, will be producing about 300 million sterile flies per week. ”

Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden recently reported USDA is on track and on time with regard to the Moore Air Base facility near Edinburg, Texas.

The Science of Stopping the Spread: Why Male-Only Matters

SIT, when paired with surveillance, movement restrictions and education and outreach, is an effective tool for controlling and eradicating NWS. Female NWS flies only mate once in their lives, so if they mate with a sterile male, they lay unfertilized eggs that don’t hatch. Releasing sterile flies just outside of affected areas helps ensure flies traveling to new areas will only encounter sterile mates and will not be able to reproduce.

Hoskins says concurrent to the process at Moore Air Base, USDA is working with its partners at the ARS and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate the genetically-engineered fly — the NovoFly — which would help get more male flies in the sterile fly production facility.

Vaden calls the possibility exciting.

“Basically we’ve been losing half of the production at every facility because what we need are sterile male flies, but of course with nature, half of what you get are female flies, and those to this particular enterprise are useless,” he explains. “Thanks to our agricultural research service, we now have the ability to pump out 100% sterile male flies only, no wastage. That has the effect of doubling production without any change in the available facilities.“

He adds, “We expect to be able, once EPA approves that innovation is safe later this year, to have all those facilities, including the one under construction at Moore Air Base, pumping out 100% sterile male flies, which will make our ability to push this pest back further south where it belongs to take root and begin to have great effect. Not just to hold it, but to push it further south.”

Hoskins summarizes, “All of those things are in motion, all things happening concurrently, and all those will be critical in modernizing our toolbox to take the fight to the screwworm.”

Listen to the conversation on AgriTalk :

Regulatory Road Map: The EPA Public Comment Period

USDA is following established regulatory pathways and submitted to EPA an Emergency Use Exemption and Application for Registration. EPA published the notice of receipt and request for comments in the Federal Register on March 27 and is accepting public comments until April 27 before making a determination.

According to the notice, the application from USDA states: “To register a new pesticide product containing an unregistered pesticide, NovoFly male-only genetically engineered (GE) New World screwworm (NWS) in USDA’s Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) programs. Additionally, the Agency received a Section 18 quarantine emergency exemption application requesting use of the same pesticide to maintain broad suppression of and help prevent the pest from moving further northward from Mexico toward the United States.”

EPA is providing the notice in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

The notice says, “Due to the urgent nature of the emergency, the limited time available to authorize the Section 18 quarantine emergency exemption request and the related FIFRA Section 3 product registration application under review for the same use, EPA is waiving the comment period associated with the emergency exemption request but is soliciting public comment in conjunction with the application for Section 3 product registration of NovoFly.”

To make comments or learn more, visit the EPA website .

Read more about sterile flies and current distribution:

USDA Updates New World Screwworm Response Playbook for Ranchers and Vets

Thu, 09 Apr 2026 21:08:56 GMT

The “ New World Screwworm Response Playbook” was developed as a resource to help animal health officials and responders manage and adapt their response if NWS is found in the U.S. The first draft of the Playbook was released in October 2025.

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) released an updated Playbook to serve as a comprehensive guide to support coordinated, science-based action should NWS be detected.

“USDA continues to execute Secretary Rollins’ five-pronged plan to keep NWS out of the United States,” says Dudley Hoskins, USDA under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs. “While we are aggressively safeguarding American agriculture and working with Mexico to prevent further northward spread, we must also ensure that our domestic response plans are ready for immediate activation. Strong coordination with states, producers, veterinarians, sportsmen and other partners is essential to achieving that goal.”

Hoskins was a guest Tuesday on AgriTalk. He discussed NWS preventative and response measures, including the sterile fly dispersal efforts.

He explains the goal of the Playbook is to try to balance that constant posture of vigilance, prevention and emergency response coordination.

“We want to be as least disruptive to the industry and commerce as possible,” he explains.

Hoskins stresses APHIS is asking for feedback on version two of the Playbook as they continue to fine-tune the response plan.

“We’re asking that same community of states and industry partners to continue to review the playbook,” he explains. “We want to continue to have those discussions and and those deliberations to improve the can and hopefully perfect have to use it, and hopefully never have to use it.”

Refining the Rules: Key Updates to the 2026 Playbook

The updated Playbook outlines critical science-based strategies for federal, state, tribal and local responders, including how to:

Coordinate response operations
Reduce spread and prevent establishment of NWS in new areas
Manage the pest in infested animals
Implement NWS fly surveillance and control measures
Maintain continuity of business
Support efficient information flow and situational awareness

APHIS has released the updated New World Screwworm Response Playbook - strengthening preparedness via coordination with states, producers, veterinarians, wildlife & other partners.🤝
It guides rapid, science-based action should NWS be detected in the U.S.https://t.co/lgplvaNjDy pic.twitter.com/kq4wKbqkGY
— USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (@USDA_APHIS) April 8, 2026

Collaborative Design: Incorporating Tribal and Industry Expertise

After sharing the draft Playbook in October 2025, APHIS worked to gather feedback from state animal health officials, federal partners, livestock and wildlife industry groups, tribal partners, veterinary organizations and other key stakeholders to prepare the updated version.

According to the APHIS press release , “Their expertise and operational experience were essential in shaping practical, field-ready guidance for real-world response scenarios.”

Based on this feedback, APHIS made several key updates to the Playbook including clarifying and expanding:

Terminology — NWS establishment, suspect, zones, types, phases, quarantines — treatment versus preventative NWS animal drugs and pesticide products
Agency roles, responsibilities and authorities
Animal movement requirements
Wildlife management, including:
- Improved description of roles, responsibilities and authorities related to wildlife
- Added and improved definitions of confined, farmed, and free-ranging wildlife
- Refined guidance on use of antiparasitic drugs and pesticide for use on/in wildlife
- Development guidance on wildlife surveillance

Accessing the Playbook: Resources for Producers and Responders

APHIS updated four supplemental guidance documents that were posted with the draft Playbook and added an additional eight supplemental guidance documents, all referenced in the Playbook .

(USDA APHIS NWS Playbook)

“To ensure continued alignment with state-level plans and industry practices, APHIS will continue to revise the Playbook as preparedness activities advance and evolve,” the release explains. “The agency will continue to work directly with states, territories, tribes, federal agencies, industry wildlife and other partners to refine response tools, strengthen coordination and support joint planning efforts.”

Your Next Reads:

USDA Faces Record-Low Acreage Survey Response as NASS Seeks to Rebuild Trust with Farmers

Wed, 01 Apr 2026 17:48:45 GMT

The USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) released the March 2026 Prospective Plantings report Tuesday, and with no major surprises, the story this year may not just what farmers plan to plant, but how few farmers actually responded. Only 37.6% of producers participated, marking the lowest response rate in the survey’s history.

(Source: USDA)

For NASS , the implications go beyond a number. According to Lance Honig, chair of the Agricultural Statistics Board, the low participation highlights a growing trust gap between farmers and the agency.

“We’ve got a bit of a trust issue out there,” Honig tells U.S. Farm Report. “That’s what I read on social media. That’s what I read in various farmer comments. That’s an issue right now… something we’ve got to work on rebuilding. We’re open to hearing what we can do to help rebuild that. We had a session at the Outlook Forum to talk about it. We’ve got the data user meeting coming up in just a few weeks on April 22nd. And we’ve got a request for information out there. We are seeking input from our users and our customers to tell us what we can do better, what we can do to help reestablish that trust. That’ll hopefully get farmers willing to respond to these surveys again.”

NASS @usda_nass is a small group of statisticians. They're good people. They have a tough job. Big Ag is much more nefarious. I think lots of people have it backwards. https://t.co/14ZOQW4m6m
— Joe Vaclavik (@StandardGrain) April 1, 2026

Even before the results were released this week, Honig told Farm Journal farmer participation is more important than ever, but he was concerned fewer farmers may participate, especially if they’re frustrated .

Honig emphasizes that rebuilding trust is critical because accurate data ensures farmers have a level playing field in agricultural markets.

“What we’re doing is to benefit everyone in agriculture, specifically the farmers, because we’re out here level in the playing field,” he says. “If we don’t produce accurate numbers, there are large companies out there that are going to be in a much better position to know what’s going on. We don’t want farmers to be at a disadvantage. But in order to keep that working smoothly, we do also need the cooperation of the farmers. We need to work together. We want to work together. And anything I can do to help make that better, I’d love to hear it because I’d love to do it.”

Regional Patterns, Response Challenges

Even with a low response rate for this report, Honig says response rates vary across the country each year, with certain regions consistently harder to reach. Honig noted that the Plains states—from Kansas up through the Dakotas—pose ongoing challenges.

“Response typically varies across the country,” he said. “Some of the toughest areas to get cooperation are through the Plains states… this time was no exception. But when you know where you’ve got these regional dips, we make some adjustments with our sampling in those areas. We didn’t see any change in the pattern of where response is higher and lower this time.”

Seth Meyer, who was the chief economist for USDA for the past five years, before returning to the University of Missouri as the director of FAPRI earlier this year, points out this is simply what farmers intend to plant, and these numbers will likely change.

“This is like watching the beginning of a negotiation. And so this is a really a survey based upon farmers’ response of what they might do, what they’re thinking about doing,” says Meyer. “And you’re kind of watching the bid process with the market, but you’re only seeing the farmers offer. Now you got to see the market go back and forth a bit.”

Timing of Responses Could Be Key

In an effort to increase transparency, NASS released daily response rates for the first time, giving analysts and farmers insight into when the data came in, which is key this year due to the ongoing conflict in Iran.

“Well, really two reasons. One is we try to really double down on transparency and rebuilding relationships out there, making it as clear about what these data represent as possible. We felt that was a key piece of information that we could share. So you can see within that two-and-a-half-week window when the data came in, what farmers were thinking when they reported—it’s really critical for this report. Specifically, there have been some events during that period that really had a big impact on what farmers might be thinking. Fertilizer prices spiked and things of that nature. We just wanted folks to be able to look at the data and see for themselves: what do you think the data really mean, knowing that this is when farmers actually told us what their intentions were?”

(USDA)

Meyer says by NASS reporting the share of farmer responses they received by day, from February 27 to March 15, it could help shine light on the share of responses that were submitted before the war started.

“And you know why [Lance] did it this year? Because we had the war with Iran beginning towards the end February and then continuing on. And so I think what happened is there’s something that initially folks might have thought was going to be a short action continues until today,” says Meyer. “So I think it was important for him to know where we were at, how many responses he’s getting because we saw fertilizer prices climb immediately, but then stay high as time went on. I think it was a critical piece of information for NASS, to say this is the response farmers were giving us and putting that in context of high oil and high fertilizer

Noticed this one, good context for this year, what was the response rate? https://t.co/f7YSGyezxG
— Seth Meyer (@SethMeyerMU) March 31, 2026

Market analysts say global events and regional fertilizer access likely influenced farmer responses to the Prospective Plantings survey. Joe Vaclavik of Standard Grain agrees that timing could have played a role in this survey, but it’s hard to put an exact percentage on how many acres could possibly change.

“The surveys were being taken as the Iran and fertilizer situation was all unfolding. I’ve heard differing things about the fertilizer situation. Some of it appears to be regional. Feels to me, and based on what I’ve heard, farmers in the central Corn Belt and maybe in the eastern Corn Belt also had a lot of their nitrogen needs locked up prior to the initial attacks in Iran. And it seems like in some of, call them fringe areas or western Corn Belt areas, maybe not so much,” says Vaclavik.

He also points to market price shifts as another factor affecting planting intentions.

“Corn prices did rise at least momentarily following the initial attacks, and that may have helped to offset some of the fertilizer increase… but now we’ve given back all of those gains,” Vaclavik said.

The combination of global events, regional fertilizer access, and short-term price swings highlights the complexity of interpreting early March planting intentions, underscoring why NASS emphasizes that the report captures intentions, not final plantings.”

Crop Trends

While the report itself revealed some expected shifts, they were largely secondary to the trust and response issues. Corn acreage is projected at 95.3 million acres, down 3% from 2025, while soybeans are projected up 4% to 84.7 million acres. Wheat acreage continues a long-term decline, hitting a record low, with both winter and spring wheat contributing to the drop. Rice acres also declined slightly.

Honig describes these numbers as consistent with trends but reinforced the importance of interpreting them carefully.

“There weren’t a lot of surprises in this report,” he said. “But certainly some interesting numbers, and we want people to know this is what farmers were thinking in early March, given the economic environment and input prices at that time.”

Even with declining corn acreage and rising soybean intentions, analysts say the March Prospective Plantings report was largely in line with expectations. Dan Basse, president of AgResource Company, describes the report as “rather an even keel situation.”

“No, I think it was tied,” Basse says. “When you lose three and a half million acres and gain three and a half million of soybeans, three and a half million acres of corn loss, you end up with rather an even keel situation. We need those extra, if you will, soybean acres. I would still say the market has a lean to buy more soybean acres relative to corn, but there’s also a strong historical tendency that we find additional corn acres by the June report. Over the last five to ten years, we tend to go up somewhere around two million acres in total. So again, maybe not that much this year because of [market conditions].”

With historical trends suggesting corn acreage may still rise slightly before final plantings are set, keeping the market closely watching June acreage updates.

Looking Ahead to June

With planting season underway, the June acreage report will provide an updated picture of plantings. As Basse pointed out, if you look at what history shows, corn acreage tends to increase by 2 million acres from March to June. But NASS officials emphasize that rebuilding farmer participation is critical for the reliability of all future reports.

“Absolutely,” Honig said. “I want to do everything I can to help reestablish that trust. I want to hear from folks: tell me, from your perspective, what we can do to help rebuild that trust. This is a partnership. Accurate numbers are critical for farmers. We need your cooperation, and we want to work together.”

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

Fri, 20 Mar 2026 18:56:43 GMT

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

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

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

USDA Evaluating Implementation Strategies

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

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

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

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

Economic Concerns Over Ad Hoc Assistance

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

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

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

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

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

Status of Farmer Bridge Assistance Program Payments

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

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

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

Why the Iran Conflict Could Shrink U.S. Corn Plantings This Spring

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 21:45:43 GMT

At first glance, tensions in the Middle East might seem far removed from the planting decisions farmers across the Midwest are making right now. But in today’s interconnected global markets, disruptions in oil flows, fertilizer supplies and geopolitical alliances can quickly translate into changes in crop economics at home.

As the situation unfolded over the past week, analysts say the reaction across commodity markets illustrated just how closely agriculture is tied to global energy and political dynamics. While commodity markets ended the week on a high note, farmers are now feeling the impact in Iran with not only higher fertilizer prices, but also the concern they may not even be able to find enough fertilizer for spring.

Fertilizer Availability and Affordability

Those economic pressures are already building across farm country.

If the conflict drags on, Dan Basse, founder and president of AgResource company, believes fertilizer availability and affordability could become a major global issue and impact crops already in the ground.

“I was just back from Brazil, and the Brazilians are very concerned about getting enough fertilizer at the right price for their upcoming spring seeding campaign, which starts in early September,” Basse says.

Brazil’s agricultural system depends heavily on imported fertilizer, making it particularly sensitive to global supply disruptions.

“That would be the first country that it affects,” Basse says. “A little bit of effect for India and around the Southeast Asian countries. But Brazil needs to buy a lot of fertilizer.”

In the United States, the fertilizer story is already beginning to influence conversations about spring planting decisions.

Many farmers had delayed fertilizer purchases through the winter, hoping prices would decline before planting season arrived. In some cases, they were waiting on financing or government payments before committing to those input costs.

“Unfortunately, the timing of it with this war couldn’t come at a worse time,” says Chip Nellinger, founder and partner of Blue Reef Agri-Marketing. “I think Dan makes a good point that the Brazilian farmer fertilizes a lot of those bean acres down there. They really rely on that and they need to make purchases.”

But the U.S. situation is slightly different — and potentially more vulnerable to sudden price spikes.

“Unfortunately, the U.S. producer, I think in some cases waited until late winter, early spring hoping that nitrogen fertilizer prices would come lower,” Nellinger says. “They initially started to come lower, and they were seeing the benefit of that.”

Then the geopolitical situation changed with fertilizer prices shooting higher.

“It’s a wheat story as well,” Nellinger notes. “There’s a lot of nitrogen that needs applied on U.S. wheat acres here over the coming three or four months ahead of us.”

This is the list of urea production tons around the world that are "in danger". In war. Stuck behind the Strait. Not exporting. Low operating rate.

Excluding Russia who is exporting well, the remainder of that list combine for nearly 24M tons of urea exported per year. pic.twitter.com/8i65xczfL0
— Josh Linville (@JLinvilleFert) March 6, 2026

But the most significant planting implications may fall on corn.

Corn is far more fertilizer-intensive than soybeans, particularly when it comes to nitrogen. When fertilizer prices rise sharply, the relative profitability of soybeans often improves quickly. That dynamic was already influencing acreage expectations even before the conflict escalated.

“Price alone with what new-crop beans had been doing was shifting some acres as it was,” Nellinger says.

Corn Acres at Risk As Conflict Continues

Now the fertilizer shock could accelerate that shift, according to Nellinger.

“Now with the fertilizer situation and the effects of the war, I think you could see additional acres move out of corn to beans,” he says. “Particularly on the fringe areas.”

He doesn’t expect the shift to dramatically alter planting plans in the highest-producing Corn Belt counties.

“Maybe not so much in the 50 or 60 million acres right in the heart of the I-states with the highest-yielding ground,” he says. “Certainly away from that area, it could be a definite impact on acreage.”

The satiation has caused Basse to already adjust his acreage projections accordingly.

“I’ve taken my corn planting estimate down about 1 million to 1 million and a half acres relative to the war and fertilizer,” he says.

Before the conflict escalated, his projection called for roughly 94.5 million acres of corn.

“So I was at 94.5,” Basse says. “Now [I’m] down around 93 to 93.5.”

At the same time, he’s increasing expectations for soybean plantings.

“I’ve taken my bean acreage estimate up to 86.5 or 87,” he says. “So, we have made adjustments.”

Still, Basse emphasizes fertilizer prices are only one factor in the complex decision-making process farmers face each spring.

“I do think fertilization prices are very important for the farmer heading into the spring,” he says. “Weather will still be more important, but that’s a place to start anyway.”

And the full extent of any acreage shift may take months to fully understand.

“I’m fearful we may not find out about this until June,” Basse says. “I’m not sure the March NASS report is going to catch it right off the bat.”

Planting decisions often evolve as conditions change during the spring season.

“We may have to wait a few weeks to get into it before we really understand the breadth of the switching that could be going on,” he says.

Ultimately, the long-term impact on agriculture will depend largely on how long the geopolitical tensions persist.

“Obviously we’re seeing the energy situation,” Nellinger says. “Longer term, I’m not so sure.”

Much of the global focus right now remains on reopening critical energy shipping lanes and restoring stability to oil markets.

“I think the first item of business, in the United States’ mind, is going to be getting that Strait of Hormuz open and flowing again. That’s got to be high on the list,” Nellinger says.

If that happens quickly, the agricultural ripple effects may prove temporary.

“I think it can be a temporary situation here,” Nellinger says, “assuming that it’s over in a matter of weeks and not years.

Fertilizer Prices Spike and Supply Concerns Grow

Nitrogen fertilizer production is heavily tied to energy costs. When energy prices rise, fertilizer costs often rise with them. That connection is especially important this time of year, when farmers are finalizing spring input purchases and locking in crop plans.

And in the past week, fertilizer markets have reacted sharply.

According to Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer at StoneX Group, prices in some markets have surged dramatically in a matter of hours. Urea is one key example.

“I’ve actually heard prices there are up over $100 a ton in one 24-hour period,” Linville says. “And we’re not even sure that’s even available still.”

That type of price spike is unusual even for fertilizer markets, which are known for volatility. But Linville says the concern now goes beyond just higher prices. There are growing fears about actual supply shortages if the conflict disrupts global fertilizer trade flows for too long.

To understand why, he points to the concentration of fertilizer production around the world.

“But urea, it’s the more visible market that we have out there,” Linville says.

Linville says when you look at the top 10 global exporters of urea around the world, many of those exporters are located in regions now directly or indirectly affected by geopolitical instability.

“Russia — do you feel real confident that Russia’s always going to be there for us? I certainly don’t,” Linville says.
“Qatar, Iran, Egypt — we start to talk about Egypt yesterday. Everybody’s focused on the Middle East.”

Even countries not directly involved in the conflict could see production disrupted because of energy shortages.

“Israel is taking their gas fields offline because of the fear of retaliatory attacks,” Linville explains. “Those gas fields are what feed Egyptian manufacturers, and when their gas values get low, they shut it down.”

Other key fertilizer exporters also sit in the same region.

“Oman, Saudi Arabia’s in the region, Algeria’s in Egypt,” he says.

We have all been focused on nitrogen, but do not sleep on tight phosphate supplies:

China - not exporting until August
Saudi Arabia - locked behind the Strait
U.S. - still low 60% operating rate

If nitrogen markets are bad, phosphate is worse...much worse. pic.twitter.com/Q7Kv3FVJPr
— Josh Linville (@JLinvilleFert) March 6, 2026

At the same time, global fertilizer supplies were already constrained before the conflict began.

“China should be a top four, top three exporter,” Linville notes. “But their government was already stopping exports in order to keep those tons at home.”

Europe has also struggled to maintain full production levels after losing access to cheap natural gas supplies.

“Europe largely isn’t on here, but because they shut off those cheap gas flows from Russia, their production rate’s about 75% of normal,” Linville says. “That’s millions of tons of urea not being produced per year.”

Those constraints mean the global fertilizer market has very little cushion if supply disruptions worsen.

When High Prices Become Demand Destruction

If the conflict continues to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, Linville says the industry could move from higher prices into outright shortages.

“If this thing is to stay as it is and the Strait of Hormuz remains shut out, we need to start talking about a limited amount of nitrogen units out there, we need to talk about a limited amount of phosphate units that are out there,” he says.

In a free market, prices rise when supply can’t keep up with demand. But Linville says fertilizer markets are now entering a phase where price increases are meant to do something very specific: force demand lower.

“When we don’t have enough supply for the demand that’s out there, you can’t fix it with supply, which is the case right now with fertilizer,” he says “The price ratchets up higher and higher and higher. It’s trying to kill demand.”

That demand destruction often shows up in agriculture through crop switching.

“That’s 100% what the phosphate market and the nitrogen market is trying to do today,” Linville says. “It is trying to pressure that farmer to the point where they break and say, fine, I’ll put on beans. I’ll put on something else.”

As more farmers look at options, and could opt to not spend the money to plant corn, it could have a major impact on planting decisions this spring.

Corn Acres Looked Ready to Expand — Then Costs and Conflict Complicated the Outlook

The situation this week is a reminder how quickly things can change. Just days ago, the outlook for U.S. corn acreage looked fairly straightforward.

Heading into Commodity Classic, much of the conversation centered on the possibility that farmers could plant even more corn than the 94 million acres currently projected by USDA.

That expectation held even though production costs remain historically high. Corn is one of the most input-intensive crops farmers grow, and fertilizer prices have been elevated heading into the 2026 planting season.

But economists say acreage decisions aren’t always driven by input costs alone.

According to Krista Swanson, chief economist for the National Corn Growers Association, corn farmers are already dealing with a difficult financial environment, even before factoring in new market volatility.

“Negative margins again for 2026,” Swanson says. “This is the fourth consecutive year that we are looking at negative net returns for corn on average across the United States.”

Those losses are significant. On average, she estimates farmers could see losses of roughly $100 per acre growing corn this year.

“And we’re looking at losses of about $100 an acre,” Swanson explains. “And as we think about that, these negative returns have been growing over these four consecutive years as well.”

Farmers are accustomed to navigating occasional down cycles, but extended stretches of losses can create much deeper financial strain.

“We talk a lot about how farmers can often manage a couple bad years,” Swanson says. “But when we start to get to year No. 4, that makes it really challenging in terms of cash flow and liquidity.”

Even so, high production costs alone may not be enough to significantly reduce corn acreage.

Swanson says that’s largely because farmers faced a similar cost environment just one year ago — and still planted a large corn crop.

“That’s something I’ve been thinking about, will production costs make farmers turn away from corn because it’s one of the more costly crops to produce?” she says. “But I would have said the same thing a year ago.”

Looking back at last season, production costs are actually very similar to where they stand today. Yet, farmers planted nearly 100 million acres of corn in 2025.

That’s one reason USDA’s acreage projections remain relatively strong. The agency considers multiple economic signals when estimating planted acres, including crop price relationships.

“That’s probably why last year is part of the modeling that USDA does to project 94 million corn acres,” she explains.

In particular, analysts closely watch the corn-to-soybean price ratio, which plays a major role in determining which crop farmers choose to plant.

“They consider where the corn-to-soybean price ratio is, the other price ratios of other crops,” Swanson says.

Corn and soybeans compete for many of the same acres across the Midwest, meaning small changes in price relationships can shift planting decisions. Still, last year offers an important reminder.

“Despite that high production cost, we still planted so many corn acres,” Swanson says . “So I don’t know that that will be a restraint.”

Swanson said during Commodity Classic that the buzz among corn farmers was not to make a big switch away from corn, which means she said it was likely U.S. corn farmers could plant north of 94 million acres in 2026. Now with the fertilizer situation, analysts argue U.S. corn acreage is only trending lower.

Whether that remains true in 2026 could depend on how input costs, and global events, continue to evolve in the weeks ahead.

NASS Concerned Criticism of USDA Reports Could Keep Farmers From Completing March Acreage Survey

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 16:14:26 GMT

As acreage surveys begin arriving in farm mailboxes across rural America, skepticism about USDA production numbers is still echoing through coffee shops, grain elevators and market commentary. Farmers, economists and segments of the grain trade have openly questioned recent estimates, particularly after sharp market reactions to the January report and a large uptick in USDA’s corn acreage estimates in 2025.

For the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), that skepticism presents a deeper concern than short-term volatility. If doubts about accuracy discourage participation in farmer surveys, it could weaken the very foundation of the reports critics are scrutinizing.

Lance Honig, chair of the Agricultural Statistics Board at NASS, says as the 2026 acreage survey collection period ramps up, farmer participation is more important than ever, but he’s concerned fewer farmers may participate, especially if they’re frustrated.

Mounting Doubts After Big Acreage Revisions

According to reporting from Reuters , USDA, which has been long viewed as the global gold standard for crop data, is facing mounting doubts about the reliability of its estimates. The scrutiny intensified after deep staff losses within the department and a sharp upward revision in harvested corn acreage. That’s caused confidence in USDA reporting to erode.

Farmers, traders and food manufacturers worldwide rely on monthly USDA reports on production, supplies and demand to anticipate price direction and inventory levels. When those numbers shift significantly, the ripple effects move quickly through commodity markets.

At issue is how dramatically USDA’s corn acreage estimate evolved over the past season.

In June, USDA estimated farmers planted 95.2 million acres of corn, up 5% from the prior year. At the time, plantings were nearly complete, which gave many in the trade confidence in the estimate. But by August, USDA raised its planted acreage estimate by more than 2%, contributing to a 3% drop in corn prices. Another upward revision followed in September.

By January, USDA estimated corn plantings at 98.8 million acres, 3.8% higher than its initial June estimate. For some farmers and analysts, the size of that swing was unsettling.

“Given the turmoil and turnover at the USDA at the time, there were already concerns about data quality, with the miss from June to final doing everything to reinforce those fears,” Angie Setzer, partner at Consus Ag Consulting, told Reuters. “A swing of this size from June to final plantings has never happened before, making many feel it is more difficult to adequately manage risk.”

According to Farm Journal’s January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor , released at Top Producer Summit , the majority of economists, producers and retailers say their confidence in USDA reports has declined compared to past years.

68% of economists say they are less confident in USDA reports.
73% of producers say their confidence has declined.
78% of retailers report waning trust.

Some producers told Reuters they did not understand why USDA could not produce a more accurate assessment in June, especially with planting largely complete.

That context is now shaping how farmers view the acreage survey currently underway.

How the Acreage and Harvested Numbers Evolved

Honig says it’s important to understand how USDA constructs those estimates.

USDA based its June acreage estimate on surveys of nearly 68,000 farmers. Those responses were used to estimate planted acres and, initially, harvested acres. Farmers were surveyed again in December, and updated harvested acreage results were incorporated into the January report.

“In January, it made sense to increase the number of acres harvested for grain because poor weather had not hindered farmers,” Honig explains. “Plantings were larger than previous years, and the number of acres harvested for silage stays relatively unchanged annually.”

Silage acres tend to remain fairly stable from year to year. If total plantings rise significantly and weather does not prevent harvest, the share of acres harvested for grain can logically increase as well.

Still, the magnitude of the revision has prompted USDA to take a closer look.

As part of its review, Honig says USDA and NASS will confirm its procedures functioned as intended. But contrary to some media reports, USDA NASS does a review every year.

“We actually always reevaluate,” Honig says. “We do hundreds of surveys a year, and every time we finish a process, we look back and say, ‘All right, is there anything that first off went wrong? Is there anything that didn’t go the way it was supposed to?’ You always want to make sure you rule that out.”

The review process, he emphasizes, is not reactionary — it is routine. But unusual outcomes, like historically large acreage revisions, provide an opportunity to refine methodology.

“When you plant the largest number of acres in a long, long time, it changes the dynamics of how your harvested and planted relationship works,” Honig says. “We’re going to take a hard look at that and say, ‘Okay, do we need to do something a little bit different when we get these extremely large planted acreage numbers, whether it’s corn, soybeans or any other crop, moving forward?’”

Acreage Survey Collection Is Already Underway

All of that makes the current acreage survey especially significant. USDA’s March acreage survey, which will then be turned into USDA’s Prospective Plantings report released at the end of March, is already hitting mailboxes.

“We’re basically in the middle of it now,” Honig says. “What we’re looking at right now is trying to capture farmers’ planting intentions.”

Surveys have already been in farmers’ mailboxes for about a week. As February closes, NASS is increasing follow-up efforts by phone and through on-farm visits.

“Now’s when we’re really going to start doing some follow-up via the phone, maybe send some folks out to the farms where they’re at and capture some information that way,” Honig says. “We’ll be doing that for probably the next three weeks. It’s a fairly long window because we’re looking at 60,000 to 70,000 farmers we’re trying to get a hold of.”

While private analysts are already publishing acreage guesses based on price ratios and profitability projections, Honig stresses USDA’s March Prospective Plantings report will be the first farmer-reported indication of actual intent.

“Obviously there are some numbers floating around out there already,” he says. “But they’re largely based on what it seems like economics might suggest are going to happen. So this is really the first opportunity to hear from the farmers themselves, ‘What are you actually planning to do this season?’”

Participation: The Critical Variable

Honig acknowledges response rates have grown more challenging in recent years.

“I don’t think it’s any secret that getting farmers to respond has been a little bit more challenging recently,” he says. “And any time you’ve got a little bit of controversy surrounding some numbers, that raises the concern level a little.”

That’s where his concern lies. If skepticism over prior revisions leads to lower participation, the quality of future estimates could suffer.

“Honestly, I would say this is the time to double down,” Honig says. “Because if there’s concerns about how accurate the numbers are, there’s several things we can do to always make things better, but the biggest thing is if we can get more and better information coming in the door. There’s no question that’s going to make a better product going out the door at the end of March.”

Lessons from the 2025 Crop Season: Bigger Acres, Resilient Yields

As the 2025 growing season wrapped up, Hong says it was a year full of lessons, from managing historically large acreage to understanding how modern genetics are changing the resilience of crops.

Honig points to the challenges and insights of planting record acreage in 2025 and the impact that can have on an overall yield, which proved to be a record in 2025.

“When you plant the largest number of acres in a long, long time, it changes the dynamics of how your harvested and planted relationship works. We’re going to take a hard look at that and say, ‘Do we need to do something a little bit different when we get these extremely large planted acres, whether it’s corn, soybeans or any other crop moving forward.’ That’s a marker we can leverage to make sure we do an even better job in the future,” Honig says.

Looking across the Corn Belt, the analyst highlights high yields weren’t limited to traditional “I states.”

“We definitely saw some problems through the heart of the Corn Belt, but it is not all about the I-states. Tremendous yields north and south more than made up for some of those challenges,” he says.

He also notes the role of modern crop genetics in mitigating stress.

“With these advances, some problems don’t seem to have quite the impact they used to because the crop is much more resilient than it was in past years, especially from a drought perspective. Some of the dry conditions we saw in 2025 — if that had happened 10 years ago, it would have been a completely different story. We need to focus on what today’s genetics are telling us, not what a similar situation 10, 15 or 20 years ago would have meant.”

A Defining Moment for Trust in the Data

The current acreage survey arrives at a pivotal moment. Global grain markets are tightly linked, price volatility remains elevated and confidence in official data is being publicly debated.

USDA’s numbers influence everything from local basis levels to export competitiveness and crop insurance guarantees. But those numbers begin with farmer-reported data. For Honig, the message is straightforward.

If farmers want the reports to reflect what is happening in their fields and communities, participation is the most direct way to ensure it.

In a season defined by scrutiny, the strength of USDA’s next set of estimates may hinge less on methodology debates and more on how many producers choose to answer the survey now sitting in their mailboxes.

House Ag Committee Starts Farm Bill Mark Up

Mon, 02 Mar 2026 16:24:40 GMT

The push to get a five-year farm bill has been renewed in the House Ag Committee as Chairman G.T. Thompson released language and mark up began on Tuesday.

One Big Beautiful Bill Omits Farm Bill Titles

While some question why a new long term farm bill is needed, a cross section of the nation’s farm groups explain the bill did not cover all the titles normal included in a long-term farm bill.

“We had a lot of the provisions of the farm bill that were included in the One Big Beautiful Bill — the increase in reference prices, some changes and improvements to crop insurance, etc. But there’s still some really important aspects of the farm bill that need to be passed,” says Steve Censky, chief executive officer of the American Soybean Association.

Sam Kieffer, chief executive officer of the National Association of Wheat Growers, points out the One Big Beautiful Bill did not touch the conservation title or reauthorize programs like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Nor did the legislation deal with credit or expand farm loan limits.

“It is time to give our folks some certainty when it comes to conservation programs, when it comes to credit. The cost of doing business is drastically different than it was in 2018. And the 2018 Farm Bill was based off of data from three, four years prior. So, we want to make sure that we improve the credit section of of the farm bill, get that finished,” Kieffer says.

Farm Safety Net Needed

Kieffer adds a farm bill is also needed to provide certainty to farmers and offer a farm safety net in times of negative margins.

“There’s three years of market loss that our growers are struggling with at the moment, and they’re making hard decisions. Some of them are reducing acres, some of them are letting land go and there’s a price to be paid for that as well,” Kieffer says.

House Ag Committee Language Includes Prop 12 Ag Labeling Uniformity Act

Chairman Thompson’s farm bill language includes a Ag Labeling Uniformity Act, which covers pesticide registrations, according to Censky.

“Which means that the EPA is going to have preeminence when they make a health and safety determination of a pesticide, a crop protection product. You can’t have a state adopt different rules,” Censky says.

The House language also includes a national fix to California’s strict Prop 12 sow production standards and the possible patchwork of rules in other states.

However, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) would lose around $1 billion in budget authority over the next four fiscal years under the House Agriculture Committee’s GOP farm bill draft, according to calculations by the Congressional Budget Office. EQIP was essentially used as a funding source for other priorities in the legislation.

Include Food for Peace Program

Kieffer says NAWG also wants Congress to move the Food for Peace Program to USDA in the language of the Farm Bill.

“USDA knows how to deal with farm commodities. USDA is already in the business of engaging in food aid programs globally. They have the infrastructure. They have the personnel and they understand agriculture. So, the farm bill that is ready to be moved in the house here soon has a provision that would include that,” Kieffer adds.

Senate Preparing for Farm Bill Mark Up

While the Senate Agriculture Committee has not released farm bill language or scheduled a mark-up, chairman John Boozman told Agri-Pulse his committee will take up a farm bill of its own in the coming months. Timing will be dependent in part on how debate over a House version proceeds.

Will Congress Pass a Farm Bill?

Still there’s uncertainty about the appetite for passage of a farm bill in Congress according to Tim Lust, chief executive officer of National Sorghum Producers.

“A lot of these details honestly have been negotiated for a year or two, and it’s maybe little tweaks to them, but a lot of the main things haven’t really changed. It’s a matter of how do we get that across the finish line and find a way to get it signed into law?” he says.

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

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 22:03:50 GMT

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

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

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

USDA Ag Outlook Forum

(Lori Hayes)

Costs: Finally Turning a Modest Corner?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Biggest Wild Cards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ripple effects could extend beyond Washington.

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

The Numbers You Need to Know

USDA Ag Outlook Forum Acreage Projections

(Lori Hayes )

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

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

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

(Lori Hayes )

Soybeans and Stronger Profit Potential?

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

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

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

(Lori Hayes)

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

Acreage Shifts: Fewer Corn Acres, More Soybeans

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

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

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

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

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

(Lori Hayes)

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

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

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

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

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

Cotton: Sustained Headwinds

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trade: A Global Balance Sheet Approach

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

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

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

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

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

(Farm Journal )

Fewer Headwinds — But Not Clear Skies

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

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

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

Confidence in USDA Reports Erodes as USDA Launches Internal Review

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 19:48:17 GMT

Confidence in USDA reporting is slipping across the agricultural economy, and it’s not just talk in the countryside.

According to Farm Journal’s January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor , released at Top Producer Summit , the majority of economists, producers and retailers say their confidence in USDA reports has declined compared to past years.

68% of economists say they are less confident in USDA reports.
73% of producers say their confidence has declined.
78% of retailers report waning trust.

The findings framed a candid conversation on stage at Top Producer Summit featuring Seth Meyer, director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri; Grant Gardner of the University of Kentucky; and Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk.

At the center of the discussion: A June acreage “miss” and subsequent revisions left many in the industry questioning how such large shifts could occur in a short window and whether the data driving markets can be trusted.

The June Acreage Shock

Flory points to a key frustration voiced by producers: How could USDA show such a drastic acreage change in a short amount of time?

Meyer, former USDA chief economist, acknowledges the issue.

“Quite honestly, I think this is a problem,” he says. “If you’ve lost confidence, we have to ask why.”
He emphasizes, however, the issue is not political interference or hidden agendas in USDA or the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS ).

“It is not that these people have a political agenda,” Meyer says. “They want to do a good job. I hated being wrong.”

Instead, he pointed to structural challenges, including survey fatigue among producers and confusion about how acreage numbers are constructed and revised.

The June planted acreage miss triggered a chain reaction. Planted acreage revisions led to harvested acreage revisions. Add in larger September carryout stocks, and the cumulative effect was a bigger crop supply than the market anticipated.

Several adjustments in a row, some related, some not, all moved in the same direction.

“That September acreage adjustment gave me a better understanding of how misunderstood the process is by producers,” Meyer says. “You certify planted acres, not harvested acres. Harvested acres is where the big change occurred.”

Why Not Just Use FSA Data?

A frequent question from producers: If acreage is certified with the Farm Service Agency (FSA), why doesn’t USDA simply use those numbers?

Meyer says they do use FSA numbers and increasingly earlier in the process than in the past.

Four years ago, FSA-certified acreage data wasn’t fully incorporated until the October report. Today, USDA has moved that integration forward into August, releasing certified data alongside other reports to improve transparency and eliminate timing confusion.

If anything, Meyer argues, FSA data is being used better now than it was in the past.

He also notes private industry analysis of FSA data pushed USDA toward earlier use, increasing transparency in the process.

Can Satellites Replace Farmer Surveys?

With fewer farmers responding to surveys, another question surfaced: Why not rely more heavily on satellite imagery?

Meyer says Earth observation tools have improved, but they are not yet a substitute for field-level survey data.
Satellite tools can get close. But he warned there is a threshold effect: Once survey quality drops below a certain point, the value of the report doesn’t slowly decline, it collapses.

“You’ve got to ground-truth it,” Gardner adds. “Even if satellite data improves, you still need to go look.”

Meyer says he would want to see satellite systems consistently match field survey results for years before replacing traditional methods.

Workforce Reductions Come Into Play

Since January 2025, USDA’s workforce has been cut by more than 20,000 staff members, which former acting deputy undersecretary Spiro Stefanou says hampered FSA from processing planting data last summer and feeding it to NASS.

Meyer admits that experience can’t be replaced.

“I would say the cushion we have in terms of knowledge base is largely gone,” he says. “We wouldn’t want to go through another period of losses where I would have lost more people in those units who did the WASDE report.”

Internal Review: Will It Restore Confidence?

Following the January WASDE report, in which USDA raised harvested corn acres by 1.3 million for a record 4.5-million-acre increase since July, the agency launched an internal review of its data collection processes. Will that help?

Gardner says economists’ concerns often focus less on methodology and more on staffing and budget cuts.
“From the economist perspective, it wasn’t as much, ‘Is this the best data we have?’” Gardner explains. “It was, ‘Do we have the best people in place?’”

From the producer perspective, however, the frustration is different, involving surprise adjustments and a perception that official reports don’t match what’s happening at the farm gate.

Meyer believes the review might restore some confidence, but he doesn’t expect sweeping findings.

“It’s 100% the best data out there,” he says. “Follow it, because you’re not getting anything better.”

Still, he acknowledges the partnership between USDA and producers must be strengthened.

“This is an important partnership,” Meyer says. “USDA has to prove its value proposition to producers. They have to prove this is good for producers, and that it creates symmetry of information in the marketplace.”

Confidence Tested, Not Broken

While trust in USDA data might be eroding, panelists stopped short of declaring the system broken. The message from the stage was clear: The data remains the best available, but maintaining its credibility will require transparency, engagement and renewed participation from producers themselves.

A Crisis of Confidence: Inside the Ag Economy and How Farmers Are Preparing for What’s Next

Wed, 11 Feb 2026 15:11:30 GMT

If there is one word that defines the U.S. agricultural economy in early 2026, it’s confidence, or more precisely, the lack of it. It’s not just an eroding confidence in data, but declining confidence in policy and whether the traditional tools used to stabilize farm income still work.

The first Farm Journal Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor of 2026, coupled with input from producers and ag retailers, reveals an industry that broadly agrees it is in trouble, but sharply disagrees on why, who should fix it and how farmers will survive it.

Across the economists, farmers and retailers surveyed, the results paint a picture of a crop sector stuck in recession, magnified by the squeeze caused by high input costs and low commodity prices.

Factors Driving the Health of the Ag Economy Today

Economists in January’s survey pointed to a familiar but intensifying split in the ag economy: strength in livestock, particularly beef cattle, versus persistent financial stress across much of the row-crop sector. Tight cattle supplies and strong global demand for animal protein continue to support profitability in the livestock sector, even as economists warn that future prospects remain uncertain. At the same time, global surpluses of corn, soybeans and wheat, combined with weak export demand for certain commodities, are weighing heavily on crop prices.

(January 2026 Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor)

Across nearly all responses, margin pressure emerged as a dominant concern. Elevated input costs, rising interest rates and tightening access to operating loans are pushing break-even costs above market prices for many producers, especially in grain production.

Economists repeatedly cited policy uncertainty, ranging from trade relations to biofuels policy, as a pivotal factor. While government assistance and expectations of additional ad hoc payments are providing some near-term relief, many note those funds are largely being used to service debt rather than reinvest in operations, underscoring ongoing liquidity challenges in farm country.

In the anonymous survey, when asked the two factors driving the health of the ag economy today, the economists said:

“Continued strength in the cattle business and that the world is awash in corn, wheat and soybeans.”
“Cost-price margins: Agriculture’s economic health is being driven first by whether commodity prices are high enough to cover still-elevated input, labor and operating costs.”
“Policy uncertainty hurting export demand and biofuels demand — cattle receipts providing lucrative returns but with uncertain future prospects.”
“Break-even costs above market prices, demand uncertainty on multiple fronts.”
“Persistent high input costs and uncertainty regarding trade, particularly trade with China.”
“Access to operating loans and the amount of debt producers are carrying from the previous two years of down revenue.”
“Positives include strong beef cattle margins and relatively stable land prices; negatives are burdensome crop supplies, high input prices and very low liquidity.”

A Crop Sector in Recession By Consensus

January 2026 Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

On the state of the economy itself, there is little debate:

76% of economists say the U.S. crop sector is in a recession.
74% of producers agree.
More than 76% of economists believe conditions are worse than a year ago.

January 2026 Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Economists warn this environment is accelerating consolidation, with 72% expecting low prices and high costs to push weaker operations out of the market with 80% of retailers saying it will increase consolidation in the industry.

When you look at what’s preventing profitability, high input costs remain the dominant hurdle for producers:

67% of producers cite input prices as their biggest obstacle.
62% of economists agree that high input costs are a hurdle for farmers in 2026.

Sticky costs for fertilizer, labor, interest rates and materials, combined with soft commodity prices, have pushed many producers to sell at or below break-even.

January 2026 Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes)

“Maximum Is Rarely Optimum:” How Farmers Say They’ll Stay Alive and Competitive in 2026

When asked a simple but heavy question: “What can you do to be successful in 2026,” farmers didn’t sugarcoat the challenge. Their answers reflect pressure, fatigue and uncertainty. But underneath the blunt language is a clear, consistent strategy emerging across operations: protect cash, defend ROI and stay flexible long enough to outlast the cycle.

While several producers said they’re looking to diversify as a key to success, the most dominant theme was cutting costs to the bone, especially when it comes to capital spending. Farmers repeatedly emphasized zero, or near-zero, capex, delaying equipment upgrades and scrutinizing every purchase.

January 2026 Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

The mindset is not panic, but discipline. In this month’s survey, farmers said the key to success is:

“Zero capital spending or as close to zero as possible.”
“Don’t buy anything that isn’t absolutely necessary.”
“Hold off on major capital expenditures.”
“Ask yourself before you purchase something, is it a want or a need. Wants can break you fast.”

Many farmers framed this as a return to fundamentals: preserving working capital, maintaining flexibility, and avoiding irreversible decisions in an uncertain margin environment.

The Federal Aid Gap: Band-Aid or Lifeline?

January 2026 Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Few issues expose the disconnect between economists and producers more clearly than federal aid.

There is broad agreement on one point: Ad hoc farm payments are not a long-term solution. Just under 60% of both economists and producers describe them as “a Band-Aid that won’t heal the wound.”

January 2025 Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Beyond that, thoughts on federal aid differ.

51% of producers believe more than $20 billion in additional aid is required to stabilize the ag economy.
28% of economists believe no additional aid is needed at all while the remainder are split across ranges from $11 billion to $20 billion.

January 2026 Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes)

This gap matters because it directly influences behavior. Both groups agree that government policy will be a major driver of planting decisions in 2026, with a clear bias toward corn . Expectations around payments, programs and biofuels demand are shaping acres before a seed ever goes in the ground.

January 2026 Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Biofuels: One Industry, Two Visions of Salvation

No policy area reveals the philosophical divide between “on the ground” agriculture and “on the spreadsheet” analysis more clearly than biofuels. Producers want more demand now, whereas economists are looking five to 10 years out.

Producers and retailers overwhelmingly prioritize E15 expansion, viewing it as the single fastest way to generate real, immediate demand for corn and reduce reliance on government support.

January 2026 Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes)

Economists, while supportive of E15, are more focused on structural, longer-term demand drivers, particularly:

45Z tax credit
Development of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) markets

Among economists, 39% ranked the 45Z tax credit as the most impactful policy, while SAF ranked much higher than it did among producers where 44% ranked SAF as least impactful.

The Collapse of Trust in USDA Data

USDA’s January Crop Production Report was a point of contention last month. With much debate about the validity of the latest yield, acreage and production data from USDA, Farm Journal’s January survey results is the near-universal erosion of trust in USDA data, not only among producers, but also economists and retailers.

68% of economists say they are not as confident in USDA reporting as they were in the past.
73% of producers agree.
78% of retailers say their confidence in USDA has waned.

January 2026 Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes)

For economists, the concern centers on revisions, lagging indicators and the challenge of modeling markets amid policy uncertainty. For producers, the distrust is far more emotional and personal. Open-ended responses frequently referenced “market manipulation,” “bearish curveballs” and a sense that official numbers no longer reflect what’s happening at the farm gate.

In a market environment already defined by thin margins, the loss of confidence in baseline data further complicates marketing, risk management and lending decisions. When trust in the numbers erodes, so does the ability to plan.

Political Support Remains, But Confidence Is Slipping

One year into the Trump administration, producers remain broadly supportive of the president. But confidence in Washington’s ability to improve the ag economy is fading.

52% of economists say they are less confident the administration can improve agriculture.
44% of producers report declining confidence as well.

January 2026 Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes)

The divide between the groups is notable. Only 8% of economists feel more confident than a year ago, while 34% of producers say their confidence has increased, suggesting optimism on the farm still exists, even as economists grow more skeptical.

Trade uncertainty, shifting biofuels policy signals and questions about the future of ad hoc aid have all contributed to a sense that political alignment does not automatically translate into economic relief.

Strategy vs. Survival

Where the survey becomes most revealing is in the open-ended responses about survival. Economists see a severe but cyclical downturn. Many producers see a structural breaking point.

Economists speak the language of optimization. Their recommendations include:

Margin-first decision-making
Defensive marketing
Strategic planning
Focusing on high-productivity acres
Driving down per-unit input costs

Producers speak the language of survival, saying the key to weathering this story will be:

“Find an off-farm job”
“Send my spouse back to work”
“Sell out”

Some responses went further, referencing bankruptcy and financial collapse, a level of personal desperation absent from economists’ professional analysis.

One producer wrote: “I am facing financial crisis and homelessness … in the worst financial situation ever.”

An economist, by contrast, said: “Key to profitability lies in driving input costs down… a shift from maximizing inputs to optimization.”

Navigating 2026: From Maximum Yield to Maximum ROI

Despite the pressure, confidence in farmers themselves remains surprisingly strong.

Between 62% and 80% of respondents believe producers will find a way through, by abandoning the long-held pursuit of maximum yield in favor of maximum return on investment.

January Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes)

How that transition looks will vary, according to economists and producers, including:

More defensive marketing
Reduced input intensity
Greater scrutiny of every acre
More off-farm income
Tough conversations with lenders

The 2026 ag economy will not be defined by a single policy fix or market rally. It will be shaped by trust, or the lack of it, by how quickly demand can be grown without government intervention and by how much pain producers can absorb before the structure of the industry permanently changes.

Bottom Line for the Ag Industry

The U.S. ag economy enters 2026 in a clear crop-sector recession, but the deeper crisis is one of confidence. High input costs, weak prices, policy uncertainty and eroding trust in data have pushed many producers from planning for profitability into fighting for survival. Economists largely view the downturn as cyclical and manageable through optimization, while farmers experience it as a structural stress test on their operations and livelihoods.

How 2026 ultimately unfolds will depend less on short-term aid and more on rebuilding trust, growing demand without permanent government support and farmers’ ability to preserve cash, adapt quickly and endure a prolonged margin squeeze.

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

Tue, 10 Feb 2026 15:02:08 GMT

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

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

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

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

Financial Stress Is Already Building in Farm Country

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

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

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

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

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

Crop Insurance: One of the Bill’s Biggest Wins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prevent Plant Still a Pain Point

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

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

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

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

Beginning Farmers See Expanded Incentives

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

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

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

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

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

Prevent Plant Remains a Lingering Concern

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARC and PLC Changes Offer Ongoing Protection

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

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

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

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

The Structural Shift Farmers May Not Be Ready For

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Note of Caution on Taxes and Spending

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

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

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

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

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

Guidance Still Needed Before Big Decisions

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Cattle Inventory Hits 75-Year Low at 86.2 Million Head

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 21:08:09 GMT

As of Jan. 1, 2026, the U.S. beef cattle herd stands at 86.2 million head, continuing a downward trend. Despite a year of strong prices, USDA’s annual Cattle Inventory Report released Friday shows the U.S. cattle inventory shrank another 0.35% and now sits at its smallest size in 75 years.

“I would say the story continues,” summarizes Derrell Peel, extension livestock marketing specialist from Oklahoma State University. “I mean, it really doesn’t change the pattern that we’ve been in for the last three years now.”

Quick Report Stats:

Total Cattle and Calves Inventory: 86.2 million head (Down 0.35%)
Beef Cow Herd: 27.6 million head (Down 1%)
2025 Calf Crop: 32.9 million head (Smallest since 1941)
Beef Replacement Heifers: 4.71 million head (Up 1%)

Patrick Linnell, CattleFax director of market research, calls the report bullish.

“I think the big picture message of this report is expansion, while there was some signs of it within this report, by and large expansion remains elusive at this point,” he says.

What Are the Big Takeaways from the USDA Report?

According to Peel, the data highlights two critical areas:

1. Shrinking Cow Herd: The beef cow inventory fell 1% to 27.6 million head.
“The industry technically got a little smaller in 2025,” Peel says.

Linnell adds, “As you looked at just how tight beef cow slaughter was this past year, us and other groups had expected we would actually see an increase in the beef cow herd. Small, but an increase nonetheless. However, that’s not what this report showed.”

2. Heifer Retention Signs: Beef replacement heifers rose 1% to 4.71 million.
“There was a slight uptick in beef replacement heifers, not enough to amount to any growth in 2026, or probably even in 2027, but maybe it’s the beginnings [of a rebuild].”

John Nalivka, Sterling Marketing Inc. president, says the report indicates while replacement heifers was up 1% and those expected to calve were also up 1% from 2024 or 17% of the beef cow herd.

“From 2015 to 2018 when producers began aggressively building herds, the average number of heifers that were identified as replacements on the Jan. 1 inventory was 6.2 million or an average heifer retention rate of 21%,” he explains.

Nalivka says heifer slaughter during 2025, at 9.5 million, was down 7% from the prior year but still represented 52% of the heifers weighing more than 500 lb. on Jan. 1, 2025. In 2024, the industry slaughtered 56% of the January 1 heifers weighing more than 500 lb.

“When the industry was retaining heifers to build herds, the percentage of heifers weighing over 500 lb. that were slaughtered ranged from 39% to 49%,” he adds.

Why is the 2025 Calf Crop Significant?

The calf crop estimate was reduced to 32.9 million head — a 2% drop from 2024. This marks the smallest U.S. calf crop since 1941. This scarcity will be the primary driver for market dynamics in the coming years.

The calf crop in 1941 was approximately 31.8 million head. While the industry saw a significant liquidation in 2014, the calf crop that year only dropped to roughly 33.5 million. This means the current contraction has pushed production levels back more than 80 years.

Outlook: What Will Cattle and Beef Prices Do in 2026?

Peel predicts the small calf crop and tightening feeder supplies will push prices even higher.

“We’ve got record-high prices, and we’re going to see them push even higher for cattle and beef,” Peel says.

He reminds producers it’s important to keep in mind that it’s not just about supply.

“Demand has also continued to be remarkably good for beef as prices have gone up,” he says. “Beef prices have increased relative to pork and poultry. There are alternative proteins that consumers could be turning to, and they’re not. So that’s a very positive sign from a beef industry standpoint.”

The “Historically Slow” Rebuild

Unlike the rapid expansion seen 10 years ago, Peel expects this cycle to be much slower. Producers are cautious, remembering how quickly record prices vanished in the past.

“I do think we’re probably beginning, but it’s certainly not a concerted effort,” Peel says. “There’s not a strong, broad-based initiative in the industry. It will probably grow, but I think it’s going to continue to grow pretty slowly.”

He explains the industry has outlasted the previous cycle highs by two-plus years.

“I think producers are coming around to the idea that this is a more sustained story,” Peel says.

What is the Take-Home Message for Producers?

The market is signaling a desperate need for a rebuild.

“The incentive is there, the value of forage is there,” he says. “If you’ve got forage you can use to raise calves, the market wants you to do that. And if you aren’t fully stocked, then it’s encouraging you to think about doing that. I think the main message for producers is to take advantage of this market.”

He also encourages producers to maintain the productivity of their herds.

“We have cut cow culling so far in the last two to three years that some of these cows are going to have to be culled going forward,” he explains. “So, we got to have a few more replacement heifers just to maintain the productivity of the herd. Take care of that first and then if you need to restock. I understand the tradeoff between selling them now for what is a record price versus investing in the future, but you know, sooner or later, we have to make that investment and look a little bit farther down the road.”

Other January cattle report highlights include:

Of the 86.2 million head inventory of all cattle and calves, cows and heifers that have calved totaled 37.2 million.
The number of milk cows in the U.S. increased 2% to 9.57 million.
The number of cattle on feed was down 3% to 13.8 million.

Nalivka adds, “Only time will tell as the year progresses to determine if USDA’s Cattle Inventory is on track. One cross-check will be cattle slaughter which is an actual number reported to USDA by the packers. The inventory is generated from an annual survey number. I understand that USDA aligns annual surveys with the five-year Agricultural Census. To say the least, I have greater confidence in numbers reported to USDA that can cross-check the validity of the survey.”

He does not expect the Cattle Inventory Report to have an impact on cattle numbers or the market going forward through 2026 and into 2027, particularly with a 2% smaller 2025 calf crop.

“Numbers will continue to tighten and when coupled with continued strong demand for beef will support the market at levels at and likely above the market peak seen during third quarter 2025,” he summarizes.

Glynn Tonsor, Kansas State University ag economist, posted on LinkedIn his analysis of the report. He shares state-level beef cow inventory estimates (of seven states with more than 1 million head) Kansas’ 7% decline stands out while Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and Texas are estimated to be down 1-3% and Oklahoma and South Dakota are flat. Only Texas has a sizeable increase in estimated replacement heifers.

He shares two broader points:

While it certainly is valuable to count the number of beef cows, understand status of herd expansion, and other factors that is far from a complete story on industry supply dynamics. In short, the industry has implemented a number of efficiency gains resulting in the net effect of more edible beef production per cow in the industry.
It has become way too common to focus on supply and overlook demand dynamics. In fact, recent work with Brian Coffey documents how recent beef price patterns have been impacted more by strong consumer beef demand than any supply-side adjustments .

Analyzing the inventory numbers Peel summarizes, “It’s just amazing to me that we continue down this path. We’ve kept extending the timeline. You know, technically, with the beef cow herd and the way we look at cattle cycles, I thought 2025 would turn out to be officially the low. Well, now we’re even smaller in 2026, so we will have to wait until next year’s number to see whether this is the low. We just keep pushing this timeline out that provides even more opportunities for producers to take advantage of this market.”

Bi-annual Cattle report would be called lightly positive. 1) There was no sign of any type of January 2015 expansion (retained beef heifers +9.5%). 2) Overall, numbers came in just below the four analyst expectation. pic.twitter.com/lvNaDBusz3
— Rich Nelson (@RichNelsonMkts) January 30, 2026

To obtain an accurate measurement of the current state of the U.S. cattle industry, NASS surveyed approximately 35,000 operators across the nation during the first half of January. Surveyed producers were asked to report their cattle inventories as of Jan. 1, 2026, and calf crop for the entire year of 2025 by internet, mail, telephone or in-person interview.

Your Next Reads:
Tightest Cattle Supply Predicted in The Next 60 to 90 Days
CattleFax Predicts Profitability Despite Increased Uncertainty

Inside the Room: What Farmers Heard as USDA Rolled Out Its $700M Regenerative Ag Plan

Tue, 27 Jan 2026 20:54:32 GMT

When USDA quietly selected a small group of farmers to help roll out a new $700 million regenerative agriculture pilot program, most producers never knew the meetings were happening. Missouri farmers Jon and Brittany Hemme did, because they were invited into the room, sitting face-to-face with two cabinet secretaries and hearing firsthand how Washington plans to reshape soil health policy.

“We are very average farmers,” Hemme says. “It was a very humbling experience that we were chosen. My biggest takeaway is that I truly believe they’re trying to do the right things, bringing better health options to people through the way food is produced.”

Reinventing a Small Dairy to Stay Viable

Jon is one of three Hemme brothers continuing a dairy operation their father started 30 years ago. Today, the Hemmes operate the only dairy left in Saline County. Survival hasn’t come easily. As small dairies disappeared, the Hemmes reinvented their business model, adding on-farm processing and direct-to-consumer sales.

“That’s where our direct market part of our business came in, the creamery,” Hemme says. “Being able to go to processing and then direct market that end product has made us a viable operation yet as a small dairy.”

Their Hemme Brothers cheeses are now sold throughout Kansas City and central Missouri, but what also caught the attention of USDA was how they manage their land.

“We started planting cover crops the first time in 2017, got really aggressive by 2018 to where we tried to have all of our acres covered in one way or another,” Hemme says.

That shift began at the request of a landlord nearly a decade ago. Hemme says it pushed him to learn what regenerative agriculture really meant and how it could pencil out.

“We initially started just looking to try to reduce inputs to where we could keep a little more of our income,” he says. “For quite a few years we managed them that way trying to reduce our herbicide and we were successful, but that takes a lot of time and management. Here recently we’ve kind of mainstreamed it to where the main reason for them is erosion control.”

A Text Message From USDA

That work that started nearly a decade ago led to an unexpected invitation from Washington.

“We got a text message on Dec. 8 saying: ‘Would you and Jon want to come to USDA and be a part of Secretary Rollins’ announcement?’” Brittany Hemme says. “Thought it was a joke maybe at first, because it was so random. But we were on a plane the next morning and then with them in D.C. on Dec. 10.”

In the midst of the madness of the holiday season and school activities for their kids, the Hemmes went ahead and said yes, knowing this could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

A First-of-its-Kind $700 Million Pilot Program

Not knowing exactly what USDA was going to unveil, at the event, USDA and HHS announced what they call a first-of-its-kind, $700-million Regenerative Agriculture Pilot Program, administered through NRCS. The goal is to test a farmer-first model that improves soil health while maintaining long-term farm viability.

“We’re doing things a little bit differently than typical Washington, D.C.,” said U.S Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins during the announcement at USDA. “We have encouraged the states to think differently and creatively as our laboratories of innovation about how to solve the many health issues facing America ... but really today is about the next step in making America healthy again, and that is talking about regenerative agriculture.”

During thee announcement, Rollins said the focus of USDA and HHS for the new pilot program was on protecting soil and is critical for farm productivity and longevity.

“Protecting and improving the health of our soil is critical not only for the future viability of farmland, but to the future success of American farmers,” she said. “We must protect our top soil from unnecessary erosion and boost the microbiome of the soil.”

But it wasn’t just USDA unveiling the new program. Rollins was standing beside Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who called the program a milestone tied to promises outlined in the MAHA Report.

“Among the recommendations of the report was the promise to make it easier for farmers in this country, farmers who are dependent on chemical and fertilizer inputs, to give them an off-ramp,” Kennedy said in December. “An off-ramp where they can transition to a model that emphasizes soil health. And with soil health comes nutrient density.”

An ‘Off Ramp’ for Farmers

When “U.S. Farm Report” recently caught up with the Hemmes to get their reaction, Jon says one of the key takeaways from the announcement is the structure of the pilot program and why that matters.

“It’s a five-year program, a five-year contract,” he says. “You can address multiple things in the same contract that you want to address. The farmer gets to pick his goal. They’ll develop a plan to help them achieve that goal, and then they’re going to quantify it with a soil test up front and one at the end.”

Along with the announcement, the Hemmes then had the chance to take part in a closed-door roundtable discussion with Rollins, Kennedy and Dr. Mehmet Oz, who serves as administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under Kennedy.

“They notified us that we would be in a roundtable discussion with Secretary Kennedy, Secretary Rollins and Dr. Oz; that made us pretty nervous,” says Jon, laughing.

Brittany says one word stood out during that discussion.

“He said ‘off-ramp’ several times,” she says. “I really appreciated that, because this is voluntary. There’s nobody forcing anyone to do this program. It’s not all or nothing. You can work with USDA NRCS and come up with a plan that is going to work for you on your farm, in your context.”

With no cameras in the room, Hemme says the conversation felt genuine.

“They wanted some feedback from farmers,” he says. “They allowed us to each go down the line and explain our operations, our motivations behind using regenerative agriculture, and then they followed it up with some really good questions.”

Those questions included market access and how long the transition takes.

“You could see him, the wheels turning,” Hemme says of Kennedy.

What Was (And Wasn’t) Discussed

Before Kennedy joined the cabinet, some farmers worried his focus would be on restricting tools like glyphosate. The Hemmes say that never came up.

“It’s been more voluntary, putting something out there instead of coming in with a stick,” Jon says.

“There was mention of tools in the toolbox, and there was no mention of taking any of those tools away,” Brittany adds.

As Brittany has watched Jon’s regenerative journey on their own farm, she says regenerative agriculture is often misunderstood.

“Some of the negative connotation has come in from an all-or-nothing mindset,” she says. “They demonize certain tools in the toolbox, and that’s unfortunate. True regeneration is what works in your context.”

Lessons From Their Nearly Decade-Long Journey in Regenerative Ag

For Jon, this really isn’t unconventional or something new. He says regenerative ag, to him, all comes back to building resilience in your soil.

“It is conservation, but it’s also trying to build resilience into your soil,” he says. “If you follow the soil health principles, minimize disturbance, keep residue on the surface, a living root in the soil, you will start to build carbon. You’ll hold more water, perform better in dry conditions, and handle weather shifts.”

But in the nearly 10 years of diving into regenerative ag, Jon says that journey didn’t come without mistakes.

“I was very aggressive when I started out, and I kind of set myself back,” Hemme says. “If I were to give any advice, it would be to start slow and safe.”

He points specifically to cover crops. He says by trying to put cover crops on every acre at the start, he learned the hard way that if you let those cover crops get too tall, it can actually negatively impact crop production.

“If you’re too aggressive up front, you almost constipate your soil,” he says. “Eventually that residue has to leave.”

As the Hemmes say, they still want to pinch themselves over a trip that seemed like a dream, it was those direct conversations with President Donald Trump’s cabinet members that made them believe USDA’s support of regenerative ag will be a practical approach and one any farmer can try or do.

What else should you expect when it comes to regenerative ag? That’s exactly what “AgriTalk” Host Chip Flory asked Richard Fordyce, USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation, just last week.

Trump Confirms Support for Year-Round E-15 Deal

Tue, 27 Jan 2026 23:17:51 GMT

President Donald Trump made a planned visit to Iowa — his first since July 2025 — on Tuesday, focusing on affordability, saying Iowa families are “winning” again under his leadership. Standing in front of a packed crowd in Clive, Iowa, with signs posted on the stage and scattered throughout the crowd that said “lower prices” and “bigger paychecks,” the visit unofficially kicked off the midterm elections where costs for consumers are expected to be one of the main political talking points.

While in Iowa, President Trump highlighted what the White House calls improving economic conditions for Iowa families, pointing to lower fuel prices, tax savings and agriculture-driven growth as signs the state is “winning again.” The President touted all the trade wins, including China buying soybeans and the EU agreeing to buy U.S. ethanol. He says by removing those trade barriers, exports are starting to flow to countries that had stopped buying U.S. ag goods before he took office.

But the reality is agriculture is at a crossroads, especially on the row crop side. Even with the recent trade deals, current economic pressures are creating a crisis in agriculture. Trump did briefly mention that crisis, blaming it on former President Joe Biden.

Trump Pushes Year-Round E15 During Iowa Visit

During his speech in Iowa, President Trump reaffirmed his campaign promise to support year-round E15, signaling a major win for corn growers and the ethanol industry.

“But I’m also working hard to expand your markets domestically,” Trump says. “In the campaign, I promised to support E15 all year round. I did. E15 all year round if I get elected, and I want to let you know, we’ll start right now.”

The statement sparked applause as Trump emphasized that efforts are underway in Congress to finalize approval, calling on House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Leader John Thune to deliver a deal that benefits farmers, consumers, and refiners, including small and mid-sized operations.

“I’m trusting Speaker Mike Johnson, who’s great, and Leader John Thune, who’s great, to find a deal that works. They’re very close to getting it done,” he says. “And I will sign it without delay.”

The president framed year-round E15 as a key part of his broader strategy to expand markets for U.S. corn, support rural communities, and strengthen domestic energy production.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump announces Congress is actively working on a deal to allow E15 ALL YEAR ROUND that works for farmers, consumers, & refiners.

"Congress is working on a deal, and when they send it to my desk — I will sign it without delay."pic.twitter.com/TOpo3VUDI4
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 27, 2026

Trump Highlights “Historic Turnaround” for U.S. Manufacturing, Touts Deere’s Stock Hitting All-Time High

During his Iowa visit, President Trump touted what he called a historic one-year economic turnaround, pointing to manufacturing growth and new investments across the country.

“And America is respected all over the world like they’ve never been respected,” Trump says. “I thought it would take us two years. This has been the most dramatic one-year turnaround of any country in history in terms of the speed.”

Trump spotlighted John Deere as an example of American manufacturing success. He welcomed the company’s chairman at the event and praised the expansion of production facilities, including what he called two massive new plants.

“You’re opening one in North Carolina, one someplace else, and then you’re expanding all over the place. You’re doing a great job,” he says. “I bought a lot of John Deere stuff. Great country, great company, it’s an honor to have you here.”

The president attributed much of the growth to tariffs and economic policies aimed at attracting investment back to the U.S.

“It is because of tariffs and it is also because of the fact that we had such a tremendous November 5th. That November 5 brought spirit back to our country,” Trump says.

Trump then said that proof in the growth is in the stock market’s performance, including Deere stock hitting an all-time high of 529.51 on January 21, 2026.

But with strains in the farm economy, farm equipment sales saw a steep decline in 2025. Deere and Company, which has a large footprint in the Quad Cities and Des Moines, has laid off over 3,500 employees since October 2023. That downsizing, which the company says is driven by decreasing demand and lower sales, has hit the company’s manufacturing facilities hard, including locations in Waterloo and Ankeny.

John Deere Expands U.S. Manufacturing with Two New Facilities

President Trump highlighted John Deere’s plans to open two major U.S. facilities, marking a significant boost for American manufacturing and rural jobs. The president saying Deere’s decision was due to tariffs.

After the president’s remarks, the company sent out a press release, with John Deere announcing a major expansion with two new U.S. facilities coming soon to the U.S .

Dere says it will build:

A state-of-the-art distribution center near Hebron, Indiana, and a $70 million excavator factory in Kernersville, North Carolina, both set to open within the next year.
The North Carolina factory will bring excavator production back from Japan to the U.S., making John Deere the top domestic producer of excavators.

Together, Deere says the projects are expected to create hundreds of new American jobs, strengthen local economies, and advance John Deere’s commitment to $20 billion in U.S. manufacturing investments over the next decade.

John Deere executives emphasized the expansion as a continuation of their mission to “build America”, enhance innovation, and support the nation’s agriculture, construction, and manufacturing sectors.

The Strong Push for E15 to Help Turn The Ag Economy Around

As corn growers pressed for year-round E15 ahead of the president’s visit, ethanol advocates say the issue is no longer about executive action. It’s about Congress finishing the job.

Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy, says the Trump administration has already taken every step available to it through regulatory action.

Leading into Tuesday’s talk, biofuels leaders pushed for the president to focus on E15, saying rural America’s financial stress is colliding with a narrow policy window to get things like E15 done, and that could generate more demand, quickly changing the outlook for corn and soybean growers.

“What we hear from the team around the president is he did what he could,” Skor told Chip Flory during “AgriTalk” on Tuesday. “He issued an executive order. EPA gave us the summer waivers for last summer. We all know that what we need right now is an act of Congress.”

Skor says the White House wants lawmakers to deliver a bill that can be signed into law and end the seasonal E15 debate for good.

“The conversation has to be ‘Congress, do your job,’” she says. “The White House wants to see Congress get something done so they can bring a bill to his desk, so he can sign it and we can be done with this once and for all.”

That urgency is being echoed across agriculture, she says.

“I’ve got CEOs of all kinds of agriculture trade groups calling me saying: ‘What can we do to be helpful? We’ve got to get this done,’” Skor says. “All of agriculture is supportive of this.”

Iowa’s Reality: Corn Prices Below Cost of Production

Ahead of Trump’s second visit to Iowa in less than a year, corn growers and renewable fuels advocates used the moment to renew pressure for nationwide, year-round access to E15. Corn groups say the timing is critical, as lawmakers continue to stall on permanent E15 access despite strong Midwestern support. To make the push even more visible, Iowa Corn and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA) released an open letter on Tuesday , thanking the president for his past support of E15 and urging him to help push the policy across the finish line in Congress, while also running a full-page ad in Tuesday’s “Des Moines Register”.

ICGA and @iowafuel today released an open letter thanking @POTUS for his constant support of nationwide, year-round #E15 and asking for his help to finally push E15 access through Congress @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/cxACXijKMN
— Iowa Corn (@iowa_corn) January 26, 2026

According to the letter, corn growers across the country, and especially in Iowa, are struggling as prices remain well below the cost of production. That pressure, they say, is rippling through the broader state economy.

The groups cite recent data from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank, which ranked Iowa 50th among states for economic growth. They say expanding E15 is one of the fastest ways to reverse that trend.

“The best way to boost corn prices and create meaningful market demand is the immediate authorization of nationwide, year-round E15,” the letter states.

After Trump’s announcement on Tuesday, saying a deal is close, Iowa Corn Growers Association Vice President and farmer from Knoxville, Iowa, Steve Kuiper, expressed Iowa Corn’s appreciation, while highlighting what this could mean for farmers at a critical time.

“Iowa’s corn growers appreciate President Trump shining light on E15 and recognizing the weight this legislation holds to us as corn growers. Farmers are struggling with low commodity prices, high input costs and lack of markets. Passage of year-round E15 is the lifeline many of us need to be able to continue farming,” says Kuiper. “A recent study by Iowa Corn and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association shared the positive effects year-round E15 would mean for corn growers. This is a goal we have been working towards for over a decade and getting this issue to the president’s desk and across the finish line is a win we all desperately need. The fact that the President sees this problem and promises a solution is coming is very encouraging and valued by us as farmers.”

Fun fact: today when @realDonaldTrump referenced supporting year-round E15 on the campaign trail, that started on January 19, 2016 at the Iowa Renewable Fuels Summit, where he was a speaker.

The next Summit is on February 5th and is FREE and open to the public. You might want to… https://t.co/g0G57UWrbF
— Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (@iowafuel) January 28, 2026

Leading up to today’s statements by Trump, both Iowa Corn and Iowa Renewable Fuels reminded the Trump administration that year-round E15 would immediately expand domestic demand for corn at a time when farmers are under intense financial pressure. Even with the latest round of financial aid through the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program payments, 92% of agricultural economists surveyed in Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor said the row crop side of agriculture is in a recession. More than 90% said that will accelerate consolidation in agriculture — something Iowa agriculture is seeing firsthand.

Biofuels Seen as Economic Pressure Point and Opportunity

Kurt Kovarik, vice president of federal affairs at Clean Fuels Alliance America, appeared on “AgriTalk” before Trump’s talk on Tuesday. He says the group sent a letter to the president earlier this week urging the administration to focus on two immediate policy opportunities.

“We’re excited to see him head to Iowa,” Kovarik says. “We were briefed that the purpose of the conversation was to highlight economic opportunity, perhaps domestic energy dominance.”

Kovarik says Clean Fuels asked the administration to spotlight progress on renewable fuels, particularly finalizing renewable volume obligations under the Renewable Fuel Standard and issuing long-awaited guidance on the 45Z clean fuel production tax credit.

“I’m sure you’ve had a lot of conversations around E15 — that’s in the hands of Congress,” he says. “So, what we want to do is highlight for the president the EPA’s efforts to finalize the renewable volume obligations under the RFS as an opportunity to provide market certainty and growth for our industry, as well as finalizing the 45Z clean fuel production tax credit guidance, which we do not yet have.”

That certainty, Kovarik says, has been missing, and the consequences have been felt across rural America.

“Our industry had a really, really tough 2025,” he says. “Following a really great ’24, ’25 was really poor, as it was along the farm economy.”

He says the downturn wasn’t driven by demand alone, but by uncertainty around federal policy.

“It was a lack of profit, lack of margin, which meant reduced capacity,” Kovarik says. “In fact, we’ve had a lot of plants idling.”

After producing more than 5 billion gallons of clean fuels domestically in 2024, Kovarik says output dropped sharply in 2025. Plants across the industry operated at just 60% to 70% of capacity.

“In some cases that may be a plant dialing back to 80%,” he says. “In a lot of cases, particularly the smaller plants, maybe in Iowa, those that don’t produce their own feedstock came offline entirely.”

But it’s not just corn at a crossroads. He says that slowdown directly affects farm demand, especially for soybean oil.

“If our industry got those two things in the near term, we would flip around this industry nearly immediately,” Kovarik says. “Turn these plants back on, buy more soybean oil, add value to the soybean farmer and get this fuel to the consumer.”

Kovarik points to renewable volume obligations as a key pressure point. Under the Biden administration’s final three-year RFS rule, biomass-based diesel volumes for 2025 were set at 3.35 billion gallons — well below what the industry was capable of producing.

“We produced over 5 billion gallons in 2024,” he says. “So, that’s part of the reason our industry had a tough year.”

Looking ahead, Clean Fuels, petroleum refiners and agriculture groups asked EPA to raise 2026 volumes to 5.25 billion gallons. EPA’s proposal came in even higher.

“EPA actually proposed an estimate around 5.6 billion gallons,” Kovarik says. “They were even above ours.”

If final numbers land near that range, Kovarik says it would send a powerful market signal.

“Our feeling is if it comes down anywhere in the neighborhood between what we asked and what EPA proposed, it’s going to be a very, very strong market signal,” he says.

Timing matters, too. Kovarik says EPA has indicated the rule could be finalized soon.

“Our expectation is EPA is committed to have it done within the first quarter of 2026 — that means the end of March,” he says. “Hopefully early- to mid-March.”

As corn growers push for year-round E15 and broader biofuels support during Trump’s Iowa visit, Kovarik says optimism is returning, even after a difficult year.

“Although most folks are really feeling bad about how ’25 was, they’re also very optimistic about 2026,” he says. “Because of what we feel we’re on the cusp of.”

Corn Growers Disgusted as Congress Leaves E15 Out of Government Spending Bills

Just last week, E15 and corn groups were dealt a blow. That’s because year-round E15 was left out of the latest spending package , something corn and renewable fuels groups had been pushing to get included in the latest bill.

When asked how year-round E15 failed to advance earlier this year, Skor points to political realities inside the House.

“Parochial politics,” Skor said on AgriTalk Tuesday. “It’s incredibly frustrating.”

Despite broad ag support and mounting corn supplies, Skor says narrow vote margins and competing interests stalled progress.

“We have been a chorus saying, ‘We want markets, not handouts. We want markets,’” she says. “Look at how much corn we’ve grown in the U.S. We need to find markets.”

Skor says House leadership ultimately pulled the issue from budget negotiations due to concerns over securing enough votes, particularly from members tied to small refinery interests.

“He knew that he could not get the votes he needed to pass the budget,” she says. “So he said, ‘We’re going to table this. We’re going to create a council. We’re going to deal with this separately.’ And that’s what happened.”

Looking ahead, Skor says attaching year-round E15 to a must-pass spending bill remains possible, but unlikely in the near term.

“I’m never going to say never,” she says. “But I think the realistic, immediate path for us is trusting our champions.”

She points to Rep. Randy Feenstra of Iowa as a key leader on biofuels policy.

“He’s fantastic on our issues,” Skor says. “He proved to be very, very strong in advocating for the Clean Fuel Production Tax Credit, 45Z.”

Skor says biofuels groups are now unified behind a legislative compromise that protects liquid fuels while expanding growth opportunities for American ethanol.

“We have the vast majority of liquid fuels united behind a legislative proposal,” she says. “We’ve done a really good job coming up with a compromise that has a future for liquid fuels and growth opportunities for American biofuels.”

As farmers look for demand-side solutions amid tight margins and large corn supplies, Skor says the message to Washington during Trump’s Iowa visit is straightforward: permanent E15 isn’t a wish list item. It’s a market fix agriculture needs now.

In the letter Iowa Corn and IRFA sent this week, both also pointed to Congress’ decision to sidestep E15 language in recent spending bills, instead creating a task force to study the issue. That task force, which is co-chaired by Feenstra, is scheduled to take action by February 28.

“Without permanent access to this market, the long-term viability of our state’s largest economic driver is at serious risk,” the groups wrote. “Today, we are asking for your help to finally push E15 access through Congress.”

It’s that same sentiment that was relayed in a statement from National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) president Jed Bower last week, who said corn growers “were disgusted, disappointed and disillusioned” after spending years of calling on Congress to pass E15.

“I met with Speaker Johnson back in November. He said he was frustrated because DOGE had pulled this out last year. He said he would get something done, and here we are again,” said the Ohio farmer. “The same thing we get all the time. Let’s step on and push on the farmers because there’s not very many of them and we can get away with it.”

Small Refiners Still a Roadblock to Year-Round E15

Even with support from major oil groups, Skor says a small group of refiners continues to wield outsized influence in Washington — enough to stall year-round E15 despite broad backing from agriculture and much of the energy sector.

“Well, enough that they could hamstring the speaker and they could hold up the votes on the budget,” Skor says, responding to questions about whether small refiners still carry weight in Congress.

Skor says the current proposal on the table represents a significant compromise, one she believes should be moving now.

“Let’s get year-round E15. Let’s reform the small refinery program so fewer refiners get it and we have more clarity,” she says. “We are supportive of that.”

She argues the small refinery exemption program has been abused, pointing to a growing number of legal challenges.

“There are over 15 lawsuits that have been filed in 2025 because of these small refiners. They’re greedy,” Skor says. “They’re whiny. They claim and allege hardship, and then they get on investor calls and talk about all the money they made in the quarter. You can’t have it both ways.”

Skor says the ethanol industry and its allies are now focused on exposing what she calls that hypocrisy while maintaining pressure on lawmakers.

“We have a very strong coalition now that should win the day,” she says.

Corn Growers Argue E15 Is a ‘No-Cost’ Solution

Iowa Corn and IRFA frame E15 as both an economic and regulatory fix, calling the current restrictions outdated and unnecessary.

“Removing the outdated regulatory hurdle for E15 is exactly the type of government efficiency you’ve worked for,” the groups wrote, urging Trump to continue applying pressure as Congress debates the issue over the coming weeks.

They also emphasize permanent E15 access would come at no cost to taxpayers, while strengthening American energy dominance and providing a critical lifeline to corn producers.

“Permanent nationwide access to E15 is a common-sense, no-cost solution,” the letter sent earlier this week concludes. “Now is the time.”

With the task force deadline looming and the president back in Iowa, corn growers hope the renewed push will translate into action and finally deliver year-round E15 access they’ve been seeking for more than a decade.

Trump Defends Tariffs, Says Farmers Will Be “Biggest Beneficiary”

Ahead of his Iowa talk, President Trump made an appearance at the Machine Shed restaurant in Urbandale, where he had an exclusive interview with Fox News. During that interview, Trump strongly defended his use of tariffs, calling them “indispensable” to economic growth and long-term benefits for farmers.

“Tariffs have been indispensable toward success,” Trump says. “We’ve taken in $600 billion in tariffs.”

Trump says some of that revenue has already been directed back to agriculture, including the Farmer Bridge program payments, which are scheduled to be in farmers’ bank accounts by the end of February.

“I gave the farmers $12 billion last week and took them out of tariff money,” he says.

When asked about concerns from Iowa farmers who worry tariffs could hurt exports and commodity prices, Trump says the benefits will take time to materialize.

“It’s going to take a little while to kick in,” he says. “But I think the farmers are going to be the biggest beneficiary.”

Trump points to protections against foreign crops being sold into the U.S. at below-market prices.

“When you used to have people coming in and dumping their crops into the United States, you guys were hurt,” he says. “They’re not allowed to do that because we’re tariffing those crops.”

He also draws parallels to his first-term trade battles, particularly with China.

“The farmers stuck with me the first time, and I was right,” Trump says. “We gave them $28 billion then. Now we gave them $12 billion, sort of a minimal payment.”

While acknowledging legal challenges could arise as the Trump administration awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump still signaled tariffs, or similar tools, will remain part of his strategy.

“If the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs, we will find something — some other way of doing a similar thing,” he says. “But it’ll be more inconvenient.”

As Trump delivers his message in Iowa, tariffs remain a flashpoint for rural America, balancing promises of long-term protection with near-term uncertainty for farmers navigating tight margins and volatile markets.

In The Bull's-Eye For USDA: Foreign-Owned Land, Breaking Up Anti-Competitive Practices and More

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 19:12:17 GMT

USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden outlined a list of priority topics for the agency in 2026 during a recent webinar hosted by the National Ag Law Center. Vaden leads the department’s operations and implements policies that support America’s food and farm systems.

Included in his remarks:

Antitrust and Competition. Vaden says antitrust laws exist for a reason: when an industry gets too concentrated, certain actions undermine free enterprise.

“There are signs that that may be happening in American agriculture. That’s why President Trump has signed at least two executive orders asking USDA to work with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate these antitrust concerns,” he says.

He shares three examples — two in farm equipment and one in crop inputs.

“This administration thinks farmers should be able to repair their own equipment, and the industry’s efforts to prevent them from doing so are illegal,” he says. “That’s why this administration’s Federal Trade Commission is currently suing John Deere and some of the fellow equipment manufacturers to stand up for American farmers’ rights to repair their own equipment and to not to have to suffer under a system where, when their equipment breaks down in the field, they have to call a John Deere dealer, for example, and wait for them to send out someone to fix a simple issue that the farmer can repair him or herself — costing them time, productivity and money.”

He also says the administration is looking into how manufacturers distribute and sell their equipment. Specifically, the geography assignment and trade territories of dealers are being questioned in light of any price differences.

“If you should happen to pick any other dealer than the one they designate as your local dealer, they’ll charge you more for the same piece of equipment — the exact same piece equipment. There’s a financial penalty, which is prohibitive to you exercising choice over which dealer you use to buy your equipment — eliminating the ability to compete on the basis of price,” Vaden says.

He adds the exclusive use of OEM parts at the dealership adds costs to farmers.

“So, all of these three things, when added together, limiting your choice of where you can buy, and then when you have purchased a piece of equipment, preventing you from repairing it, and preventing you from using anybody else’s other than their own parts, give them more pricing power and allow them to drive up the cost of not only purchasing the equipment, but of ownership and operating the equipment — all which goes directly to their bottom line,” Vaden says.

John Deere provided Farm Journal with the following statement from Deanna Kovar, President, Worldwide Agriculture & Turf Division for Production & Precision Agriculture:

“For nearly 190 years, John Deere has been committed to providing best-in-class support for farmers and ranchers, and we know just how important our network of more than 1,600 Agriculture & Turf dealer locations supported by more than 50,000 dealer employees across the U.S. are to that commitment. Importantly, because dealer trade areas are not exclusive, our customers can choose to work with any John Deere Agriculture & Turf dealer in the U.S. and John Deere does not penalize customers or dealers for doing business outside of a dealer’s assigned area of responsibility.

At the same time, we wholeheartedly agree that farmers should be able to repair their own equipment, and that’s why John Deere offers an industry-leading self-repair tool like John Deere Operations Center PRO Service. Our approach is simple - whether you want to work with your trusted John Deere dealer, a local service provider, or do the work yourself, we empower you to choose how your equipment is maintained, diagnosed, and repaired. For more on our commitment, customers are encouraged to visit www.JohnDeere.com/RunItYourWay.”

Vaden directed his farm input comments to the fertilizer sector.

“The duopoly that is Mosaic and Nutrien and their successful efforts over the past several years to constrain fertilizer supply in this country and drive up the costs that farmers are paying,” he says. “This administration is going to do everything it can to ensure that farmers have the fertilizer they need, at a price that they can pay, and a price it allows food to be purchased at the price the consumer can pay.”

He says a new company, BHP, will enter the mining sector for potash in Saskatchewan, Canada, with a $13 billion investment in a mine that should be operational by mid-2027, with exports coming into the U.S.

“We’re not going allow these two companies to do anything to undermine this or any other new market participant that wants to come in, provide new fertilizer supply and break up the cute little game that Mosaic and Nutrien have been playing for the last several years,” Vaden says.

Farm Journal reached out to Mosaic and Nutrien for comment, but they did not respond.

In a previous role, Vaden served on the U.S. Court for International Trade and oversaw the case regarding countervailing duties on Moroccan phosphate.

Foreign Land Ownership. USDA recently unveiled a new online portal to report foreign-owned agricultural land transactions. Vaden previewed this new tool as a modernized way to help USDA enforce regulations that have been on the books since 1978.

“AFITA, the Agriculture Foreign Investment Disclosure Act, has required any time a foreign person comes in possession of farmland here in the United States, they are required to register with USDA. Now in all honesty, over the past nearly 50 years, that statute has probably been ignored more often than it has been followed,” Vaden says.

Biofuels Policy. “We need a proper biofuels policy to open up domestic demand. The Secretary has endorsed E-15,” Vaden says. “We need Congress to pass that. That’s going to instantly result in at least 50% more corn usage for ethanol, meaning millions of more bushels will need to be purchased from American farmers to meet that increased biofuel demand.”

Vaden credits EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and his team for their RVO rule, which sets ‘aggressive’ targets.

“The targets that they have set are aggressive. Some of the most aggressive that have ever been set,” Vaden says. “But what’s equally critical is that, for the first time, the EPA is proposing to make those targeted numbers — which make the headlines, real. Because they’re proposing, for the first time ever, to reallocate volumes that have been waived through the small refinery waiver exemption.”

He adds: “For the first time ever, that top line number — which gets so much attention as to how many gallons of biofuels we need to blend — it’ll be true. And that’s saying something. That will make a difference.”

Pesticide Regulation. Late last week, it was announced the Supreme Court would take up the Durnell case, which is related to Roundup litigation.

“I’m glad the Supreme Court saw that. I’m glad that they took the Solicitor General’s suggestion that they hear this case. And I hope they’ll listen very carefully to what Solicitor General Sauer and his team have to say as this case is briefed and argued. Because this really could make the difference in between whether America is able to retain its status as the innovation leader in agriculture or whether we potentially have a threat to lose that crown because we’re going to let juries second guess PhD experts who’ve spent decades at this work,” Vaden says.

In favor of federal preemption, Vaden goes on to detail the years of paperwork, approval and regulatory steps EPA regulates every commercially available chemical under.

“We have the EPA relying on decades and decades of scientific study, which shows the label they have approved is sufficient to tell farmers how to use the product without harming themselves or the environment, or anyone else,” Vaden says. “And we have that being second-guessed by juries located in jurisdictions specially selected by trial lawyers who know where there is a jury pool that is more than willing to engage in jackpot justice, listen to them weave their tale and then write incredibly large numbers down on the verdict floor. And those two things cannot coexist in a world where the statute is clear that it is EPA that regulates these chemicals.”

USDA Reorganization. Vaden says the agency is being transparent, thoughtful and strategic in its announced reorganization.

“We have a footprint in D.C. that calling it ‘underused’ is diplomatic. The south building can seat 7,500 employees. On its busiest day — we require everyone to come into the office — that building hasn’t reached 40% occupancy,” he says. “As a business manager or managing tax payer money, it makes no sense to keep up facilities that are largely empty.”

Vaden says it’s time to make the department footprint match its needs. Regular updates are being posted to USDA.gov/reorg, but the under secretary says implementation is going on right now with forthcoming announcements on locations for its new hub model.

“I signed a memorandum, USDA can start to enter into leases. They are already government owned or leased. But they are newer, tech adept and ready for us to move into,” he says. “This is at no additional cost to the taxpayer, but at less cost, because they don’t have the $2.2 billion in backlog maintenance. As we go forward this year, you’ll see leases, you’ll see notices to employees who we request to move to the hub. And taking into account employees have kids in school, the move will take place after the end of this school year. So they are able to move during the summer and are settled before the school year begins.”

'Dust Bowl' Agency at USDA Looks to Cut Red Tape and Speed Up Slow Computers That Frustrate Farmers

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 19:50:43 GMT

USDA’s reorganization plan in 2025 drew criticism over the number of job cuts and headcount reduction’s potential impact on farmers, with fears it would hinder field office staff and county offices, many of which were already understaffed. However, third-generation California farmer Aubrey Bettencourt, who’s now serving as chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), says those local constraints aren’t due to staff reductions. She says those issues stem from outdated infrastructure and processes that are creating bottlenecks for farmers and ranchers trying to sign up for programs through USDA agencies such as NRCS. And that’s something she’s now working to change.

By any measure, Bettencourt did not come to Washington to keep things the same. But then, her background for a government official isn’t that traditional either. Bettencourt was raised on her family’s farm in Hanford, Calif. But her political interest really started with her efforts to help lead California’s fight over water.

During the first Trump administration, she first served as the state executive director for USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA). She was then selected to work with both the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and USDA as a deputy assistant secretary with the DOI, where she oversaw water and science policy.

Bettencourt says conservation policy has never been theoretical for her. Instead, it is personal and it is operational, as she’s experienced the frustration firsthand with the slow speed at which many USDA agencies were forced to work.

As she entered into her role as chief of NRCS, Bettencourt says the changes she’s working to implement are about time and how much of it farmers lose navigating paperwork and how much time NRCS staff lose staring at what she calls the “spinning wheel of death” on outdated systems.

“I’ve always said my whole goal has been to keep farmers farming, get water to people who need it, take care of the resources that take care of all of us, and have high-speed internet everywhere in the United States, the indoor plumbing of the 21^st century,” Bettencourt says. “NRCS gets to do all of that.”

Now, nearly 90 years after the agency was created in response to the Dust Bowl, Bettencourt says NRCS is again confronting a foundational threat. This time, it is not erosion or war but the pace at which farmland is disappearing and the friction farmers face trying to stay productive on what remains.

“We are losing 5,000 acres of farmland a day in the United States,” she says. “Two thousand acres of prime farmland a day.”

To meet that challenge, Bettencourt is driving sweeping internal reforms, many of them invisible to farmers at first glance, that aim to reduce the number of times producers have to sign up, re-sign up, re-enter data or wait for answers. The goal, she says, is to get NRCS staff out from behind desks and back into the field, and to make USDA work at the speed agriculture actually operates.

From Policy to Processing, NRCS Is Undergoing Rapid Change

One of the most consequential changes underway is how NRCS processes applications for its flagship programs, EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) and CSP (Conservation Stewardship Program). Bettencourt explains years of layering subcategories, scenarios and hyper-specific ranking criteria slowed everything down, not just for farmers, but also for USDA field staff.

“The reason it took so long for us to get an answer back as a customer of ‘where is my application and where am I in this process’ is because we had so many individualized and subcategories and scenarios of practices that we would have to rank and score the application for every scenario, every single time,” she says

Rather than forcing applications through dozens of narrowly defined pathways, NRCS is shifting toward higher-level practice codes that still rely on vetted science but allow district conservationists, those who she says are closest to the land, to make judgment calls based on local conditions.

“I think it’s getting people to where they need to be, and it’s giving them the tools they need to be there. So one is freeing up time. Time is a huge component, and the ability for someone to have less time in front of a computer,” she says. “And the numbers, I kid you not, just by going to email notifications, we’re going to save 96,000 hours a year. 96,00 hours. Just by going to a singular ranking that then, you on your adventure. We’re going to save over 75,000 hours. That amount of time is a huge capacity builder for us, for our staff.”

Fixing the Infrastructure Farmers Never See

While some reforms focus on simplifying rules, Bettencourt points out some of the most significant barriers to faster program delivery have nothing to do with policy at all. They are physical and technological shortcomings inside USDA field offices, and problems farmers rarely see, but ones they often feel.

“I already knew we had rough bandwidth capacity at our offices,” Bettencourt says drawing on her experience at FSA. “What I didn’t realize is statistically how bad it was.”

She says industry standards call for five to eight megabits per second per person. Many NRCS offices, she says, operate with roughly 10 megabits total per office, regardless of whether that office has four employees or two dozen employees. She says the result is a system where applications stall through no fault of the farmer or the staff.

“You get your application in on time, and staff is working their rear ends off trying to get these things uploaded,” she points out. “And you miss out on the opportunity, not by any fault of your own, not by fault of the staff’s own, but because of a failure of the basic infrastructure to support the operations of our mission.”

As USDA programs have become more digital and data-heavy, those limitations have only been compounded. Bettencourt says improving connectivity might not sound exciting, but it is essential to restoring fairness and predictability in the process.

“It may sound boring. It may just sound not that sexy,” she says, “but it is so vitally important that we get the basic structure available to our staff, because that is doing respect to them and doing respect to our customer.”

The payoff, she says, is capacity. When staff are not losing hours to failed uploads and system delays, they can spend that time where it matters, and that’s working directly with farmers on conservation solutions.

“That’s how you build capacity,” Bettencourt says. “Not by asking people to work harder but by removing the friction.”

New Initiative Called ‘One Farmer, One File’

If infrastructure fixes address how fast data can move, the new “One Farmer, One File” initiative tackles how often that data has to move at all.

Bettencourt says USDA agencies routinely ask farmers for the same information, even though that data already exists elsewhere within the department, just often with a different agency within USDA.

“That’s why I have to fill out the same eligibility form twice,” she says. “That’s why I have to fill out the same direct deposit form twice. It makes no sense. It’s the exact same form with the same information.”

Working with FSA and RMA, NRCS is building a unified, protected back-end system that allows agencies to securely share core farmer information. Privacy protections remain unchanged, Bettencourt emphasizes, but usability improve dramatically.

“We share so much data between us to operate our different programs,” she adds. “But we don’t actually have it in one place where we can see it … It saves time, it saves energy and it saves my dad having to drive 50 miles back to the office to sign the same farm file that he signed four months earlier for FSA.”

For farmers who participate in multiple USDA programs, Bettencourt says redundancy has been a persistent barrier, especially during busy seasons. One Farmer, One File is designed to remove that friction by allowing USDA to view farmers holistically rather than as separate program participants.

“When we can see the farmer as a whole. It improves the customer experience, and it improves our operational capacity,” she says.

The More Talked About Issue: USDA Faces Major Workforce Shake-Up Amid Departures and Reorganization

The reality in 2026, though, is USDA has seen a sharp decline in staffing over the past year, with more than 20,000 employees leaving between mid-January and mid-June 2025, which was a 20% drop in total workforce during that time. Data also shows roughly 15,000 employees accepted voluntary buyouts through the Deferred Resignation Program, while others retired or resigned. Reports also show agencies such as NRCS and FSA experienced some of the steepest losses.

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the downsizing last summer and said she would oversee a rapid reorganization aimed at reducing bureaucracy. That included the relocation of 2,600 Washington-based staff to five regional hubs and aligning staffing with budget constraints. That relocation plan is still underway.

At the time, Rollins framed the restructuring as a move to make USDA “efficient, nimble and innovative” while bringing staff closer to rural farmers and ranchers.

“Over the last four years, USDA’s workforce grew by 8%, and employees’ salaries increased by 14.5%, including hiring thousands of employees with no sustainable way to pay them,” USDA’s announcement stated last summer. “This all occurred without any tangible increase in service to USDA’s core constituencies across the agricultural sector.”

Still, it’s those cuts that critics say will further strain field staff. But Bettencourt says it’s current changes underway with processes and infrastructure that will help relieve some of the time constraints on staff, ultimately getting staff back in front of farmers and bringing NRCS back to its roots as a field-based agency.

Bringing the Office to the Farmer

Through a new Integrated Field Tool, NRCS staff will be able to build conservation plans with farmers in real time, on the farm and in the field.

“Our staff will be able to go out in the field with you and design your farm plan in the field with you,” Bettencourt says. “Auto-populate your application, verify it, sign it, send it off and get the process going.”

Rather than requiring multiple office visits, Bettencourt says NRCS wants to reverse the dynamic.

“This will actually be a digital and mobile-based platform where our staff at NRCS will be able to go out in the field with you, the farmer, and design your farm plan in the field with you in real time and say, ‘All right, here’s your options. What would you like to focus on? Let’s go ahead and do these EQIP practices here, here and here. Let me auto-populate your farm and your application. Can you verify this is right for me? Great let’s go ahead and just sign that and send that off and get this process going,’ and we’ll be able to do that in the field with the farmer in real time,” she says. “Again that’s back where we should be; that’s where we’re working with you instead of, you know, trying to make you come to the office and go back and forth 9 million times. We’re just going to be out in the field and bring the office to you.”

County offices will still play a role, she says, but the future of NRCS is face-to-face where it’s convenient for farmers.

A New Sense of Urgency Inside USDA

Behind the scenes, Bettencourt says collaboration across the administration is happening at a pace she has not seen before, including with USDA’s recently announced $700 million Regenerative Ag Pilot Program , which will be administered through NRCS.

“The conversations are happening lightning fast, and there is that sense of urgency,” she says.

That urgency, she says comes from a shared understanding that redundancy, inconsistency and delay cost farmers real money.

“As a Californian, I pay for the privilege to farm to 86 separate agencies,” she adds. “I know that frustration.”

Her charge at NRCS is to ensure farmers feel the difference, not through press releases but through fewer forms, fewer trips to the office and faster answers.

“We’re judged by one lens every day,” Bettencourt says. “Farmer first, and how are we producing in practical and measurable terms?”

For Bettencourt, she says it’s vital NRCS gets back to the basics, which is exactly what this new plan intends to do.

You can watch the full episode of “Unscripted” on the Farm Journal YouTube page.

USDA Responds to Farmer Frustration After January Report Delivers Major Surprises

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 19:09:29 GMT

The January USDA reports, considered the most influential data releases of the year, delivered unexpected increases in corn yield, harvested acreage and total production , pushing the U.S. corn crop above 17 billion bushels and sending futures sharply lower.

Ahead of the reports, average trade estimates pointed to only minor adjustments, a typical pattern for January. Instead, USDA delivered one of the more consequential end-of-season revisions in recent years, triggering frustration among farmers who struggled with disease pressure and weather challenges during the growing season.

Key takeaways from the report:

Corn yield: 186.5 bu./acre, well above expectations
Soybean yield: 53 bu./acre; production at 4.26 billion bushels
Corn production: Record 17 billion bushels
Harvested corn acres: 91.3 million
Dec. 1 corn stocks: Over 13 billion bushels, above trade estimates
Soybean stocks: 3.3 billion bushels
Wheat stocks: 1.6 billion bushels

Ending stocks estimates from USDA were also higher than anticipated with corn at 2.2 billion bushels. Soybeans came in at 350 million bushels.

In January 2026, USDA released record corn yield and production numbers.

(USDA/Lindsey Pound)

The biggest surprise came as USDA raised corn yield despite expectations for a cut, driving record production and adding pressure to an already well-supplied market.

“Acres times yield,” says Joe Vaclavik of Standard Grain. “There were too many corn acres, and the yield was larger than what the trade had expected. And that combination left us with a U.S. crop estimate for 2025, north of 17 billion bushels, more than 1 billion larger than the previous record. So, the trade was caught totally off guard by the size of the crop.”

Vaclavik says not only did those changes surprise the market, but it also sparked debate.

“There’s a lot of debate,” Vaclavik says. “Was the yield number accurate? Were the acres accurate? The acres ever been accurate? A lot of debate about that, but that was the big surprise.”

Accuracy of USDA’s Latest Reports in Question

The accuracy of the reports, and how USDA came up with such a large jump in acres, is what’s aiding the farmer frustration. USDA Deputy Secretary Vaden was asked about that while speaking to farmers during the Kentucky Bowling Green this week.

“Why does USDA continue to find corn acres and similar data that destroy markets as soon as they get too high,” was the question from one farmer.

“We may not like the report, but it is not necessarily inaccurate,” Vaden responded. “USDA market moving data will be more closely scrutinized going forward, and will begin to be held accountable for large revisions if it is a fault of the agency. We plan to have NASS staff available at the Ag Outlook Forum this year to answer questions as well. We will find out in September of 2026 if their current estimates were off based on revisions made at that time. If we notice a trend in errors we will review the way the statistics are calculated.”

Industry expectations compared to what NASS published.

(USDA NASS )

Small National Increase in Corn Yield, Big Regional Differences

Lance Honig, chair of the Agricultural Statistics Board and a senior official with USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), also addressed those concerns in a one-on-one interview with Farm Journal this week, offering detailed explanations on how and why the January data changed so significantly.

While the national corn yield increased in the January report, Honig stresses the adjustment itself was relatively modest.

“The yield increase we saw was pretty small, about six-tenths of a bushel from where we had previously published,” Honig says.

However, the national average masked wide regional variation. Honig acknowledges yields declined in parts of the central Corn Belt, including Iowa, where disease pressure received significant attention throughout the season.

USDA NASS shows where the changes to yield came from in 2025.

(USDA NASS )

“We did see a little bit of a drop in yield across parts of the United States, and even really parts of Iowa and such, because of some of the disease pressure,” he says. “But we also saw pretty big yield increases to the North and to the South. Obviously, all the talk and attention was on those disease problems, but even those changes weren’t maybe as large as people had expected, but the real driver, I think, was those increased yields outside of that part of the growing area.”

As Honig points out, those declines were offset by stronger results elsewhere, especially in states that are considered more of the “fringe acres” when it comes to yield production. According to Honig, the final data showed yield losses in high-profile problem areas were outweighed by better-than-expected performance in other regions.

USDA’s 2025 yield projection of 186.5 bu. per acre marks a new record.

(USDA NASS )

The Bigger Driver Came in Harvested Acreage Jump

While yield caught headlines, Honig says the most significant factor behind the production increase was harvested acreage.

Planted acreage had already been revised higher earlier in the season after USDA incorporated Farm Service Agency (FSA) certified acreage data in August and September. By that point, most of the increase in planted corn acres was already known. However, harvested acreage, how many of those planted acres actually went to grain, remained uncertain until after harvest.

“When it comes to the harvested acreage, the survey is really the driver. Planted acreage absolutely is the FSA data,” Honig says. “That’s what you certify as a producer with FSA, how many acres you’ve planted. You do report your harvest intention. There’s some data we can look at there, but the reality is that’s recorded back in the spring, maybe early summer. And so until you find out what actually happened, you really don’t know for sure what that harvested area looks like.”

This chart shows the change in harvested acres compared to the previous report.

(USDA NASS)

This chart shows the change in harvested acres compared to the previous year, according to USDA NASS.

(USDA-NASS)

He says earlier in the year, USDA assumed the ratio of planted acres harvested for grain would remain consistent with what farmers reported in June, and consistent with how much of the crop went to grain versus went to silage or was abandoned, would be similar to past years.

“When we went back and surveyed 73,000 farmers after harvest and collected actual results, what we found was a much higher proportion of those larger planted acres went to grain than we had previously anticipated,” Honig says.

Final Planted Acreage Still a Surprise With Big Changes from June to January

USDA estimates farmers planted 98.8 million acres of corn, about 3.6 million more acres than expected back in March and June. Honig says that number was surprising not only based on what farmers told USDA and NASS earlier in the year, but also based on what most people watching the situation thought back in June, as well.

“This was definitely a larger change between June and January than we would typically see,” he says. “There’s really two components. You really have to break the acreage down though, because you’ve got your planted area and then, of that total, how many of the acres were harvested for grain. Obviously big changes from June to January in both cases, but from a planted perspective, we picked this almost all up back in August and September.”

The change in planted acres shows most states planted more corn acres in 2025, with the heaviest increases in the South and Northern Plains.

(USDA NASS)

Honig says planted area only increased by about 60,000 acres since USDA last published the number, but the big swing that really drove the production change in January was that harvested acreage increase.

“And so we had been inching that up as we moved the planted area up, but what we didn’t know since we didn’t have any new data about how many of those acres would be harvested for grain since June, we were assuming the same planted to harvested ratio that farmers told us back in June,” he says. “But in reality, after going back at the end of the season and getting that final data, what we discovered was that with that big uptick in acres from what they had reported back in June, a larger portion of those quote, I’ll call them extra acres, not really extra, but those additional acres, a much larger proportion of those were harvested for grain than what we would have thought back in June.”

In hindsight, Honig says, you can make sense of the changes as farmers either harvest it for grain, harvest it for silage or abandon those acres.

“And when it comes to silage, we just don’t see that much variation from year to year,” he says. “You don’t suddenly just decide you’re going to utilize a lot more silage. This is not how it works. And of course, with the weather we had this year, no big uptick in abandoned acres either. And so again, hindsight’s 20-20, but I think it does make sense that a higher portion of the large planted total this year, actually got harvested for grain.”

Acreage drivers behind the production jump:

Planted acreage increases were mostly identified by late summer
Harvested acreage was assumed, not measured, until after harvest
More acres went to grain than USDA expected
Silage use remained stable year over year
Abandonment stayed low due to favorable weather

How the Data Was Collected

It’s also important to note how the data was collected for the January report. Honig emphasizes January estimates are built on actual, end-of-season results rather than projections.

“For the end of the season, it’s really largely driven by a large survey we do of producers, about 73,000. We do that in the month of December, which means it’s after harvest,” he says. “So we’re actually asking a large number of producers after everything’s in the bin.”

Those surveys are conducted after harvest and ask farmers directly:

How many acres they planted
How many acres they harvested
How many bushels they harvested
What their final yield was

USDA also incorporates final objective yield survey data, which comes from physical sample plots across key growing regions. So, it’s no longer forecast, and it’s actual data from the crop that’s harvested.

“We do also have final results from the objective yield survey work that we did as well, which means those sample plots that we lay out across the key growing area across the country,” Honig says. “And so a lot of data after the crop has already been not only grown but harvested that are really just giving us actual results.”

Survey Response Rate and Farmer Participation

The December producer survey had a response rate of about 40.2%, down from roughly 46% last year but still strong by industry standards.

“If you compare that to what most folks in the survey business are doing, that’s actually still quite good,” Honig says.

Still, he encourages farmers to participate whenever possible.

“My message to all farmers would be: The more response we get, the more data we have, and the more accurate we can be,” he says.

Acknowledging Farmer Frustration

Honig says he understands why producers are frustrated by large January revisions, particularly in a year when margins are tight.

“These are all data-driven decisions,” he says. “We have one purpose at NASS, and that’s to estimate everything as accurately as we can.”

He notes that earlier use of FSA data helped reduce the size of the January adjustment and says USDA will continue evaluating ways to improve the process.

“We’re going to dig in between now and June and see if there’s anything we can do to make the process even better,” Honig says.

The Part Not Many Are Saying Out Loud

Vaclavik says the changes were surprising, and whether you think they’re accurate or not, Vaclavik points out the USDA reports have produced unprecedented changes all year. He thinks there’s an underlying issue impacting the data from USDA and NASS.

“My personal opinion is that it’s not an opinion. USDA is understaffed,” says Vaclavik. “Understaffed to what degree, I don’t know. That is the simplest answer to the reason that the data has been, the word I’ve been using for acres is ‘janky.’ It’s kind of all over the place. You saw these big moves during the growing season that you wouldn’t typically see. And I know the survey response rates are never great. That was again, the case this year, but I think that the easiest and simplest and most obvious answer. Is that USDA has staffing problems. They’re doing relocations. They, I think, pay people to quit, basically. I think that’s where the problem is.”

What Comes Next

Beyond corn, Honig says winter wheat seedings came in roughly in line with last year, slightly higher than some expected, and emphasized that the March report will provide another opportunity to refine those estimates.

Winter Wheat Seedings

(USDA NASS)

For now, Honig says the January numbers reflect what ultimately happened in farmers’ fields, even if the outcome surprised nearly everyone watching the market.

Grain Markets Gear Up for USDA Data Dump

Fri, 09 Jan 2026 20:48:22 GMT

The January USDA reports are the biggest of the season with final crop production, the WASDE, quarterly stocks and winter wheat seedings for the new season. The reports have been historically a huge market mover and a great deal of the focus will be on final yields and production.

All Eyes on Corn Yield
For corn yield the trade is expecting just a 2 bu. cut to 184 bu. per acre. DuWayne Bosse, with Bolt Marketing says that is too conservative. “On corn, I’m as low as 181, and honestly, I wouldn’t be shocked if it’s below 180. So my numbers are quite a bit below the average trade guesses. I mean, there were good yields out there but man, we planted almost 100 million acres of corn. And that means it’s in fringe areas.”

Other market analysts agree corn yields are under 184 bushels and the trade guesses but they are less confident. Chip Nellinger, Blue Reef Agri-Marketing agrees the national average corn yield is under 184 bu. and the average trade guess but says he’s not confident USDA will make much of a cuts. “I think if they went down to to 182,181, certainly below 181. I think would be a big bullish shock because I don’t think there’s many people out there that believe they will do that.”

A 184 corn yield would still put production at a record 16.6 billion bushels and lower ending stocks just 57 million bu. to just under 2.0 billion bu. So corn yield cuts will need to be larger than 2 bu. to get a market reaction because it is likely to be offset by lower feed and residual according to Garrett Toay with AgTraderTalk. “You’ve you’ve got a feed residual number that’s 600 million bu. larger than this point last year. So, there’s some demand baked in there that could potentially offset production cuts.”

Soybean Changes Could Be Minimal
For soybeans the average trade guess only lowers yield by .3 bu. to 52.7 bu. per acre. But Bosse again thinks a bigger cut is warranted.
“I felt like the hot, dry finish, and, you know, again, we combined beans that were a lot of 8% and 9%, instead of 13%. We learned a year ago that does reduce the yield quite a bit.”

But the conservative yield cut estimate puts production at 4.23 billion bu. and ending stocks at 292 million nearly unchanged from December. That would require USDA to leave demand nearly unchanged, even though export sales are still nearly 30% behind last year. Nellinger says that may not be realistic but he’s not sure about USDA lowering exports further.
“In the case of the exports, I don’t know if we’re deep enough into the season yet for them to come off of, first base, so to speak. So hopefully they don’t, because if they do and they don’t do much as far as a yield cut, that really could be kind of a bearish signal for the bean market.”

USDA Releases Quarterly Stocks
USDA also releases quarterly stocks Monday with estimates of 12.962 billion bu. on corn, up nearly 900 million bu. from last year. Soybeans at 3.3 billion bu. would be up 125million and wheat at 1.64 billion, up 64 million bu.

Winter Wheat Seedings Down
Winter wheat seedings are expected to be down 800,000 acres to 32.413 million. Hard red winter wheat acreage is pegged at 23 million acres, down 500,000 with farmers planting 5.9 million acres of soft red winter wheat, down 200,000 from a year ago. White winter wheat plantings are estimated at 3.5 million acres, down 100,000.