A common question we’ve been fielding since passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill: “with all this money coming from the Federal government, why do farmers keep complaining?”&nbsp;&nbsp;It’s generally followed by: “you just can’t make some people happy.”



There’s no question the Federal government has provided a robust level of assistance. For example, the&nbsp;American Relief Act&nbsp;in December 2024 provided $30.78 billion in relief—$10 billion for economic assistance and $20.78 billion for natural disaster assistance. The recently-passed&nbsp;One Big Beautiful Billprovided approximately $62 billion (10-year total) in improvements to the farm safety net.<a href="applewebdata://63854DE3-8D0D-49B3-9ACF-7216901A3B0C#_ftn1">[1]</a>&nbsp;While these sound like big numbers—because they are—it’s important to put them in context.



First, for the $10 billion in economic relief from the&nbsp;American Relief Act—implemented by USDA as the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP)—Congress required USDA to calculate losses from the 2024 crop year and then limited the amount of assistance to 26% of the loss. In other words, for losses incurred by producers last year, they were required to shoulder 74% of that loss on their own.&nbsp;



Second, for the $20.78 billion in relief for natural disasters in the&nbsp;American Relief Act—implemented by USDA as the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP)—Congress limited USDA to covering no more than 90% of losses incurred in 2023 and 2024. While that certainly sounds like a lot, once the total losses were estimated by USDA, they were only able to cover 35% of the losses based on the funding provided by Congress. So, SDRP effectively covers, at most, just under 32% of the loss (or 35% x 90%).&nbsp;&nbsp;



Importantly, ARC and PLC also will help cover losses from the 2024 crop year once paid in October 2025, but that assistance is at the old levels last adjusted more than a decade ago in the 2014 Farm Bill. In other words, the relief provided by the&nbsp;American Relief Act&nbsp;was all&nbsp;retroactive&nbsp;for losses already incurred and only covered a portion of the losses.



What about the 2025 crop year?&nbsp;&nbsp;While the&nbsp;One Big Beautiful Bill&nbsp;made several improvements to the farm safety net—from increasing reference prices from 10-20% to adding up to an additional 30 million base acres nationwide—most of the improvements kick in with the 2025 crop year. Congress stipulated (using the same schedule that has been in place since the 2008 Farm Bill) that payments cannot be made until October 1 of the year following the end of the marketing year for a crop.&nbsp;&nbsp;Translation: the new assistance won’t go out the door until October 1,&nbsp;2026. Yes, you read that right. Further, the magnitude of the projected losses to the 2025 crop are such that the assistance will, yet again, only cover a small portion of the loss. Consider the following example:



The estimated national average cost of production for soybeans in 2025 is $639.15/ac.<a href="applewebdata://63854DE3-8D0D-49B3-9ACF-7216901A3B0C#_ftn2">[2]</a>&nbsp;Using USDA’s August 2025 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), the expected return for soybeans is $535.80/ac (or a planted-acre yield of 53.05 bu/ac x $10.10/bu), for an expected loss of $103.35/ac (or $1.95/bu).<a href="applewebdata://63854DE3-8D0D-49B3-9ACF-7216901A3B0C#_ftn3">[3]</a>&nbsp;The question is how much of that loss will be covered by the new-and-improved ARC and PLC.&nbsp;&nbsp;At present, PLC is projected to pay $0.61/bu and ARC—assuming average yields—would pay $0.85/bu.<a href="applewebdata://63854DE3-8D0D-49B3-9ACF-7216901A3B0C#_ftn4">[4]</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Assuming the farm is fully based—where both ARC-CO and PLC use a payment factor of 85%—you effectively receive $0.7225/bu (or 85% of $0.85/bu).&nbsp;&nbsp;In other words, while the One Big Beautiful Bill provided significant improvements, in the case of soybeans (and virtually every other row crop to varying degrees), it will cover just 37% (or $0.7225/$1.95) of the loss…when it arrives&nbsp;next&nbsp;year. Losses upon losses. Starting to see why folks are concerned?



To pull all of this together: yes, significant assistance has been provided to the countryside, but on average, it only covers a fraction of the past/projected losses.&nbsp;&nbsp;That is why you are hearing a collective groaning in the countryside.&nbsp;&nbsp;What to do about it?&nbsp;&nbsp;Absent new trade deals that spur additional demand, a renewed focus on in-kind food aid, or commodity-specific demand levers (think ethanol for corn)—and perhaps in addition to all of those things—we suspect Congress will begin contemplating yet another round of disaster aid this fall and/or the Trump Administration will begin discussing intervening with trade aid. To those asking us the questions at the top of this article and for the record: we’ve never met a farmer who preferred getting their income from the government…and they can’t wait to break this cycle of praying to simply break even.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



<a href="applewebdata://63854DE3-8D0D-49B3-9ACF-7216901A3B0C#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;According to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates of outlays in Subtitles C (Commodities), D (Disaster Assistance), and E (Crop Insurance) in Title 1 of the One Big Beautiful Bill (<a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-07/61570-pl119-21-2025Recon-CLB.xlsx">https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-07/61570-pl119-21-2025Recon-CLB.xlsx</a>).



<a href="applewebdata://63854DE3-8D0D-49B3-9ACF-7216901A3B0C#_ftnref2">[2]</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/DataFiles/47913/cop_forecast.xlsx?v=30009">https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/DataFiles/47913/cop_forecast.xlsx?v=30009</a>



<a href="applewebdata://63854DE3-8D0D-49B3-9ACF-7216901A3B0C#_ftnref3">[3]</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0825.pdf">https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0825.pdf</a>



<a href="applewebdata://63854DE3-8D0D-49B3-9ACF-7216901A3B0C#_ftnref4">[4]</a>&nbsp;PLC:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fsa.usda.gov/documents/2025-plc-pdf">https://www.fsa.usda.gov/documents/2025-plc-pdf</a>; ARC: 90% of $12.17/bu (or $10.95/bu) less $10.10/bu.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/08/28/why-so-much-concern-in-the-countryside/">Why So Much Concern in the Countryside?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(35.4). August 28, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/2025/08/28/why-so-much-concern-in-the-countryside/">Permalink</a>

Why So Much Concern in the Countryside?

The Mississippi River level measured by the U.S. Geological Survey at Memphis, TN, may drop to severe lows for the fourth year in a row (USGS, 2025). The Mississippi River has fallen below the agreed-upon zero reference point of the USGS stream gage during harvest (i.e., August 1 through November 30) eight of the last ten years, underscoring the impacts drought can have on river levels. We discussed what is meant by a river level below the zero reference point in a previous article (Biram, Mitchell, and Stiles, 2024; National Weather Service, 2024). Further, the level has now fallen to the “low” stage, defined by the National Weather Service as -5 feet, five times (2015, 2017, 2022, 2023, and 2024). These historically low river levels carry serious implications for cash basis, or the local cash price offered by a grain elevator less the futures price traded on a global market (Biram and Mitchell, 2025).&nbsp;



Figure 1 plots the Mississippi River level measured at Memphis, Tennessee, for the period August 11, 2022, through August 20, 2025. This figure also provides the weekly average freight, as well as the expected barge freight rate measured by the non-drought three-year average freight rate (i.e., 2019-2021). Barge freight rates are established by the U.S. Inland Waterway System using a percent of tariff system and have been discussed in a prior article (Biram, Mitchell, and Stiles, 2024). Since the 2022 drought event, we have observed that when the gage height falls, barge freight rates increase, and vice versa. However, it appears that barge operators have adjusted as the weekly average freight rate has declined since the drought event of 2022.



Figure 1. The relationship between the Mississippi River level and barge freight rates for moving cargo from Cairo, IL or Memphis, TN (August 2022 – August 2025)



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="968" height="396" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/3.35.3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42475" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/3.35.3.png 968w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/3.35.3-768x314.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 968px) 100vw, 968px" /></figure>



Nonetheless, midsouth soybean basis is not only weaker than the non-drought five-year-average (i.e., 2017-2021) but is also weaker than the average basis observed over the last three drought years (i.e., 2022, 2023, and 2024). Basis can change abruptly due to economic or environmental events, such as low river levels. Changes in basis reflect changes to local market conditions. Local cash bids offered by elevators on the Mississippi River tend to be influenced by river level in periods of drought as described by previous SAT articles (Biram, et al., 2022; Biram, 2023; Gardner, Biram, and Mitchell, 2023; Biram, Mitchell, and Stiles, 2024). This is because it is more expensive to ship the same amount of grain in more loads to reduce barge draft.



Figure 2 shows the soybean basis response to low river levels in Helena, Arkansas in 2022-2024 with current basis for 2025 well below average as of August 20, 2025. The green line in Figure 2 provides the most recent basis for new crop soybeans and is well below both the averages for non-drought and drought years. The dashed vertical line denotes the basis most recently reported (-15) on August 20, 2025, and is 41 cents below the average non-drought-event basis of 26 cents and 25 cents below the average drought-event basis of 10 cents.



Figure 2. Daily Soybean Basis at Helena, AR in Harvest Window



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="685" height="490" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/3.35.3-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42476"/></figure>



The economic impacts of marketing in this window are clear. Mitchell and Biram (2025) determined that in 2022, alone, Arkansas farmers faced nearly $300 million in losses due to widening basis driven by low river levels, with a similar impact in Mississippi. A potential option farmers might have is to store grain in the bin and market it during the post-harvest window as described in previous Southern Ag Today articles (Gardner, 2023; Gardner and Maples, 2023; Gardner, 2024; Smith, 2024). Historically, futures and basis tend to recover in the months when there is little domestic production to buy, and stocks are drawn down. However, we recognize that not all farmers have the infrastructure in place (i.e., 48% of expected total crop production in 2024 was held in storage (USDA-NASS, 2025a and 2025b)) to store grain and market in the post-harvest window, which has implications for 2025 returns and 2026 loan renewal.



References



Biram, Hunter, John Anderson, Scott Stiles, and Andrew McKenzie. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2022/10/low-water-levels-in-the-mississippi-river-result-in-abnormally-weak-soybean-basis/">Low Water Levels in the Mississippi River Result in Abnormally Weak Soybean Basis</a>“.&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;2(45.1). October 31, 2022.&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2022/10/low-water-levels-in-the-mississippi-river-result-in-abnormally-weak-soybean-basis/">Permalink</a>



Biram, Hunter. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2023/05/22/flooding-in-the-upper-mississippi-river-is-associated-with-relatively-weak-soybean-basis-in-the-midsouth/">Flooding in the Upper Mississippi River is Associated with Relatively Weak Soybean Basis in the Midsouth</a>.”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;3(21.1). May 22, 2023.&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2023/05/22/flooding-in-the-upper-mississippi-river-is-associated-with-relatively-weak-soybean-basis-in-the-midsouth/">Permalink</a>



Biram, Hunter, James L. Mitchell, and H. Scott Stiles. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/09/12/low-river-levels-on-the-mississippi-river-not-the-three-peat-we-want/">Low Rivers Levels on the Mississippi River: Not the Three-Peat We Want</a>.” Southern Ag Today 4(39.3). September 25, 2024.&nbsp;<a href="http://low-river-levels-on-the-mississippi-river-not-the-three-peat-we-want/">Permalink</a>



Biram, Hunter, and James L. Mitchell. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/02/07/estimating-the-impact-of-low-mississippi-river-levels-on-soybean-basis-in-the-midsouth/">Estimating the Impact of Low Mississippi River Levels on Soybean Basis in the Midsouth</a>.”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;5(12.3). March 19, 2025.&nbsp;<a href="http://estimating-the-impact-of-low-mississippi-river-levels-on-soybean-basis-in-the-midsouth/">Permalink</a>



Gardner, Grant, Hunter Biram, and James Mitchell. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2023/09/25/low-river-levels-barge-freight-and-widening-basis/">Low River Levels, Barge Freight, and Widening Basis</a>.”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;3(39.1). September 25, 2023.&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2023/09/25/low-river-levels-barge-freight-and-widening-basis/">Permalink</a>



Gardner, Grant. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2023/06/26/interest-rates-and-grain-storage/">Interest Rates and Grain Storage</a>.”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;3(26.1). June 26, 2023.&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2023/06/26/interest-rates-and-grain-storage/">Permalink</a>



Gardner, Grant. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/08/01/to-store-or-not-to-store-old-crop-exit-strategies/">To Store or Not to Store? Old Crop Exit Strategies.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;4(35.1). August 26, 2024.&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/08/01/to-store-or-not-to-store-old-crop-exit-strategies/">Permalink</a>



Gardner, Grant, and William E. Maples. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2023/10/23/river-levels-and-off-farm-storage-disbursement/">River Levels and Off-Farm Storage Disbursement.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;3(43.1). October 23, 2023.&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2023/10/23/river-levels-and-off-farm-storage-disbursement/">Permalink</a>



Mitchell, J. L., &amp; Biram, H. D. (2025).&nbsp;<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aepp.13511?campaign=wolearlyview">The effects of extreme weather on rural transportation infrastructure and crop prices along the Lower Mississippi River.</a>&nbsp;Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.



National Weather Service. “How can a river stage be negative?” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service. Accessed September 16, 2024.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.weather.gov/ctp/NegativeRiverStages">Permalink</a>



Smith, Aaron. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/08/01/storing-corn-or-soybeans-what-is-the-futures-market-incentivizing/">Storing corn or soybeans: what is the futures market incentivizing?</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;4(33.1). August 12, 2024.&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/08/12/storing-corn-or-soybeans-what-is-the-futures-market-incentivizing/">Permalink</a>



United States Geological Survey. 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;Monitoring location, Mississippi River at Memphis, Tennessee. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring-location/USGS-07032000/#dataTypeId=continuous-00065-0&amp;period=P7D">https://waterdata.usgs.gov/monitoring-location/USGS-07032000/#dataTypeId=continuous-00065-0&amp;period=P7D</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;



USDA-NASS. 2025a.&nbsp;&nbsp;August 2025 Crop Production Report. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/tm70mv177/6m313n48h/bk12b9684/crop0825.pdf">https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/tm70mv177/6m313n48h/bk12b9684/crop0825.pdf</a>



USDA-NASS. 2025b.&nbsp;&nbsp;QuickStats Query. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/#E31D1B9E-04B3-3954-939A-273CD6380DF9">https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/#E31D1B9E-04B3-3954-939A-273CD6380DF9</a>



USDA-AMS. 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;Grain Transportation Reports. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/transportation-analysis/gtr">https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/transportation-analysis/gtr</a>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Biram, Hunter D., James Mitchell, and H. Scott Stiles. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/08/18/the-mississippi-river-is-set-to-fall-to-severe-levels-for-the-fourth-year-in-a-rowe/">The Mississippi River is Set to Fall to Severe Levels for the Fourth Year in a Row.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(35.3). August 27, 2025. <a href="http://the-mississippi-river-is-set-to-fall-to-severe-levels-for-the-fourth-year-in-a-row">Permalink</a>

The Mississippi River is Set to Fall to Severe Levels for the Fourth Year in a Row

USDA released its August Cattle on Feed report on Friday, August 22nd.&nbsp;&nbsp;While the easy headline numbers were that 1.6 percent fewer cattle were on feed from 4 percent fewer marketings and 6.1 percent fewer placements, the level of placements leave a few questions.



The decline in placements was not quite as large as the average pre-report estimate expected.&nbsp;&nbsp;July’s 6.1 percent decline in placements compared to last July amounted to 104,000 head.&nbsp;&nbsp;Feeder cattle imports from Mexico were about 128,000 head fewer than last July.&nbsp;&nbsp;So, if the border had been open, not considering any other events, placements might have been larger than last year.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;



For the year through July, placements are 5.2 percent smaller than last year, or 643,000 head.&nbsp;&nbsp;Through July, about 628,000 fewer feeder cattle have been imported from Mexico than in 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;Almost all the decline in placements this year can be attributed to the border closure.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is a bit surprising that domestic placements are not lower, given the smaller calf crops.&nbsp;&nbsp;There are a couple of assumptions in this worth remembering.&nbsp;&nbsp;While imported Mexican feeder cattle do eventually go to feedyards, they may graze pastures and rangeland prior to placement, which might create some timing issues.&nbsp;&nbsp;It’s likely that if the border had been open this year that imports would have lagged behind 2024’s fast pace.



So, where are we finding all these domestic, U.S. produced feeders to place in feedlots?&nbsp;&nbsp;One answer could be that high calf prices are encouraging producers to sell now, pulling feeder cattle placements ahead.&nbsp;&nbsp;It may also be that some producers are continuing to sell heifers.&nbsp;&nbsp;The decision between selling now at record prices or counting on future returns may still favor selling now for some producers.&nbsp;&nbsp;



One consideration is that selling and placing those feeders early may squeeze the supply of stocker cattle for winter grazing later this Fall.&nbsp;&nbsp;Recent rains in some wheat pasture areas might suggest the opportunity for grazing, but there may be fewer available stockers.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-1.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-42479" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-1.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-1-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-1-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-1-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-2.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-42480" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-2.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-2-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-2-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-2-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-3.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-42481" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-3.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-3-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-3-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/8.35.2-3-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Anderson, David, and Josh Maples. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/08/18/fewer-cattle-on-feed-but-some-questionse/">Fewer Cattle on Feed But, Some Questions</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(35.2). August 26, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42482">Permalink</a>

Fewer Cattle on Feed But, Some Questions

Do you ever think that you might be the only one who worries about their farm? It might be useful to recognize that other people have worries too and that they can be strikingly similar to your concerns. Over the past several months, we have been collecting data from farmers and ranchers in four states spread across the country to better understand the factors that cause stress and how they view risk in their operations. The data were gathered from one-on-one interviews where producers were asked to characterize their daily lives on the farm, goals for themselves and their business, and how they perceive the stressors and risks that they face. The key question asked of all the producers was, “What keeps you up at night?” The answers differed based on the commodity produced and the area where they lived, but there were several themes that arose, revealing common stressors:



1. Uncertainties regarding farm succession and the farm/family balance – the future of the farmland and farm operation passing from one generation to the next, plus the health and well-being of the family.



<ol class="wp-block-list"></ol>



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“Communication around succession planning, I think, is sometimes a rock wall.”&nbsp;
</blockquote>



The long-term social and familial sustainability of the farm operation is a key stressor for producers. This stress includes anything from communication with family members on short-term management decisions to long-term strategy and succession planning. Talking to family about issues, small and large, can be stressful and is often avoided, risking further complications down the road.&nbsp;&nbsp;Additional issues that were addressed by the participants in the interviews included concerns about life-altering injuries, how to take a break from the farm when you are a one-person operation, to name a few.&nbsp;



2. Concerns over the reputation of agriculture and their specific farm, both in the local community, the broader industry, and society at large.



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“What does [the future related to ag] look like and what&#8217;s my role in that?”
</blockquote>



Farmers care deeply about producing a quality commodity product and being valued members of the community. As urban centers grow in rural states, farmers express concerns about land affordability and the public’s lack of understanding about the role of agriculture in their community. Producers also expressed that it is stressful to see the way the industry is portrayed at times in the media.&nbsp;



3. Unpredictable events – this includes weather changes, extreme weather, natural disasters, crop failures, herd or flock problems, excessive market fluctuations, etc.



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“Drought. (laughs) Like that’s just the reality now.”
</blockquote>



For many producers, they view these unpredictable events outside of their control as central factors in daily and long-term stress. The view that weather is a primary source of risk and unpredictable stress didn’t appear to be mitigated by insurance products or government payments. Rather, it is a constant that farmers have little control over and often worry about.



4. Difficult farm management choices – making the daily and long-term strategic decisions that impact the financial viability of their farming operation.



<blockquote class="wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow">
“Every input’s up – diesel, seed, fertilizer – you name it.”
</blockquote>



Rising costs necessitate producers making new farm management choices, resulting in new stressors related to finances and viability. These include, but aren’t limited to, management choices related to labor, interest rates, maintaining production contracts, or losing or expanding landholdings. Many farms, no matter their size or stage of life, deal with tough management choices related to financial viability, sometimes many at one time.



Of note is that these four key stressors are both daily&nbsp;and&nbsp;long-term. Recognizing that farmers and ranchers often have these stressors in common helps to put in perspective the everyday challenges of agriculture. For those supporting the farming industry through education and policy making, it prioritizes the need to help farmers understand and use risk mitigation products and programs to help manage stress on the farm.&nbsp;

What Keeps You Up at Night? Understanding Stress and Risk in Production Agriculture

At first glance, services like Instacart, Hello Fresh, and DoorDash may seem unrelated to Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA), a business model that connects consumers directly with local farmers through seasonal subscriptions and spotlights the shortest food miles, strong community ties, and sustainable farming.&nbsp; However, the rapid growth of these convenience-oriented platforms (Kaczmarski, 2024; Restrepo &amp; Zeballos, 2024; Statista, n.d.) is reshaping how people shop, cook, and eat. As more consumers prioritize convenience and time savings, traditional CSA models are under pressure to adapt or risk becoming obsolete.



When it comes to delivery meals, services like Instacart, Hello Fresh, and DoorDash cater to different food preferences, such as grocery delivery, meal kits, and cooked meals, each offering increasing levels of convenience. Instacart provides the convenience of traditional grocery shopping without leaving home. For those who prefer not to shop for groceries themselves, Hello Fresh simplifies meal preparation with curated kits designed for busy individuals or those less familiar with cooking. Finally, for people who neither want to cook nor shop, DoorDash delivers ready-to-eat restaurant meals within minutes. The popularity of these services reflects a broader shift in food purchasing habits where time savings often take priority over the cooking experience itself.



By contrast, traditional CSAs occupy the opposite end of the spectrum. Customers typically pick up raw ingredients and prepare meals themselves, valuing the experience of supporting their local community and using ingredients with the shortest possible food miles. While many modern CSAs have adapted by offering home delivery and more flexible subscription options, these services often still require advance commitment and less customization than convenience-focused platforms. Consequently, the rising popularity of services like Instacart, Hello Fresh, and DoorDash suggests shifting consumer preferences that pose challenges to the traditional CSA model.



However, the increasing popularity of these services does not mean that demand for local food is shrinking; in fact, it is actually increasing (USDA, 2024). Despite these challenges, CSAs still hold unique advantages that big supermarkets and large food delivery services simply cannot replace: unparalleled freshness due to extremely short food miles and the value of community support with community engagement. Then, what obstacles keep micro-local farmers from sustaining these unique values, and how might they be addressed?



Many small local farmers say their biggest challenge is marketing their produce, yet they often show little interest in joining cooperatives that could help address this issue. This hesitation often comes from concerns about losing independence, mistrust, or simply a lack of awareness about the benefits. While running an independent business may seem more appealing, joining a cooperative does not mean giving up ownership, as cooperatives operate like owners’ clubs. By joining cooperatives, micro-farmers can focus on growing food instead of handling marketing, distribution, and sales alone. Along with gaining stronger bargaining power, cooperatives also help farmers save money by sharing resources, reaching larger markets, learning from each other, and building stronger brands. Working together can make it easier for farmers to stay profitable and succeed in today’s ever-changing food market.



Policy and community support also play a crucial role in creating an environment where cooperatives can thrive and better serve local farmers. Many local organizations, including cooperative extensions, NGOs, and government programs, focus on providing training and technical assistance to new local farmers. While these efforts are valuable, concentrating solely on education without also developing reliable and easily accessible markets limits their effectiveness. To be more effective, policies and community initiatives should prioritize strengthening local cooperatives and developing both offline and online markets with low or no entry barriers for newcomers (Seo, 2024), using cooperatives as a central hub.



Lastly, instead of seeing convenience services only as competitors, farmers might find opportunities to collaborate or integrate with them. For example, CSAs might use delivery platforms to expand their reach while maintaining their core values. Exploring these kinds of innovations could help traditional CSAs adapt to changing consumer preferences without losing their unique strengths.



References



Kaczmarski, M. (2024, April).&nbsp;Which company is winning the restaurant food delivery war?&nbsp;Bloomberg Second Measure.&nbsp;<a href="https://secondmeasure.com/datapoints/food-delivery-services-grubhub-uber-eats-doordash-postmates/">https://secondmeasure.com/datapoints/food-delivery-services-grubhub-uber-eats-doordash-postmates/</a>



Restrepo, B. J., &amp; Zeballos, E. (2024, February).&nbsp;New survey data show online grocery shopping prevalence and frequency in the United States.&nbsp;USDA ERS.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/february/new-survey-data-show-online-grocery-shopping-prevalence-and-frequency-in-the-united-states">https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/february/new-survey-data-show-online-grocery-shopping-prevalence-and-frequency-in-the-united-states</a>



Seo, F. (2024, July).&nbsp;Is the current CSA model sustainable? A lesson from Korea. Southern Ag Today.&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/07/05/is-the-current-csa-model-sustainable-a-lesson-from-korea/">https://southernagtoday.org/2024/07/05/is-the-current-csa-model-sustainable-a-lesson-from-korea/</a>



Statista. (n.d.).&nbsp;Meal kit delivery – United States.&nbsp;Statista Market Insights. Retrieved August 1, 2025,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.statista.com/outlook/emo/online-food-delivery/grocery-delivery/meal-kit-delivery/united-states">https://www.statista.com/outlook/emo/online-food-delivery/grocery-delivery/meal-kit-delivery/united-states</a>



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2024, March).&nbsp;Agricultural Census shows strong growth in direct sales from farms and ranches.&nbsp;Charts of Note.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=108821">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=108821</a>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Seo, Frank. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/08/18/instacart-hello-fresh-doordash-and-csa/">Instacart, Hello Fresh, DoorDash, and CSA.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(34.5). August 22, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42466">Permalink</a>

Instacart, Hello Fresh, DoorDash, and CSA 

Since “Liberation Day” back on April 1, 2025, and even before that, trade has been a major news topic.&nbsp;&nbsp;The current administration’s strategy to use tariffs and the size of the U.S. economy as leverage to change trade relationships with the rest of the world has generated a lot of uncertainty in the market.&nbsp;&nbsp;Both ag and non-ag industries have reacted to the almost daily trade talk news.&nbsp;Arguments for and against tariffs are all over the place, with the main question being, who is going to pay for the tariff hikes?&nbsp;



To better address this question, it is important to differentiate between short- and long-term effects as the market adjusts to news regarding tariffs. Tariffs are a tax imposed on imported goods and services.&nbsp;&nbsp;Sellers will do their best not to pass the tax to the consumers as that will probably reduce the quantity demanded and potentially reduce their market share to competitors less affected by tariffs.&nbsp;&nbsp;Therefore, to keep their market share, sellers might absorb some of the impact of the tariffs in the short run waiting for the results of trade negotiations.&nbsp;&nbsp;However, if sellers believe that the new tariff rates will remain in place for the long run, they might decide to pass the cost of the tariffs to consumers as their profit margins are probably reduced.



To illustrate, Table 1 shows the monthly percent changes in CPI for all urban consumers, which shows that there has not been a major change in CPI after “Liberation Day.”&nbsp;&nbsp;The latest figures for July 2025 show that the CPI for all items is 0.2 percent, while food remained unchanged and energy decreased 1.1 percent.&nbsp;&nbsp;In addition, the un-adjusted 12-month CPI ending in July 2025 shows 2.7 percent for all items, which is within normal ranges, especially coming off a historic high inflation over the last couple of years.&nbsp;&nbsp;Food items went up 2.9 percent, with the largest increase being in food away from home at 3.9 percent, while energy went down by 1.6 percent. Will this continue over the intermediate- and long-run? Only time will tell.



Table 1. Percent Changes in CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td colspan="8">Seasonally adjusted changes from the preceding month</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Jan. 2025</td><td>Feb. 2025</td><td>Mar. 2025</td><td>Apr. 2025</td><td>May2025</td><td>Jun. 2025</td><td>Jul. 2025</td><td>Un-Adjusted&nbsp;12-month*</td></tr><tr><td>All Items</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.2</td><td>-0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.2</td><td>2.7</td></tr><tr><td>Food</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.4</td><td>-0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Food at home</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.5</td><td>-0.4</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>-0.1</td><td>2.2</td></tr><tr><td>Food away from home</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.3</td><td>3.9</td></tr><tr><td>Energy</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>-2.4</td><td>0.7</td><td>-1.0</td><td>0.9</td><td>-1.1</td><td>-1.6</td></tr><tr><td>Energy commodities</td><td>1.9</td><td>-0.9</td><td>-6.1</td><td>-0.2</td><td>-2.4</td><td>1.0</td><td>-1.9</td><td>-9.0</td></tr><tr><td>Gasoline (all types)</td><td>1.8</td><td>-1.0</td><td>-6.3</td><td>-0.1</td><td>-2.6</td><td>1.0</td><td>-2.2</td><td>-9.5</td></tr><tr><td>Fuel oil</td><td>6.2</td><td>0.8</td><td>-4.2</td><td>-1.3</td><td>0.9</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.8</td><td>-2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Energy Services</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.4</td><td>1.6</td><td>1.5</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.9</td><td>-0.3</td><td>7.2</td></tr><tr><td>Electricity</td><td>0.0</td><td>1.0</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.9</td><td>1.0</td><td>-0.1</td><td>5.5</td></tr><tr><td>Utility (piped) gas service</td><td>1.8</td><td>2.5</td><td>3.6</td><td>3.7</td><td>-1.0</td><td>0.5</td><td>-0.9</td><td>13.8</td></tr><tr><td>All Items Less Food and Energy</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.3</td><td>3.1</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities Less Food and Energy</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.2</td><td>-0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.2</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><td>New vehicles</td><td>0.0</td><td>-0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.0</td><td>-0.3</td><td>-0.3</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Used cars and trucks</td><td>2.2</td><td>0.9</td><td>-0.7</td><td>-0.5</td><td>-0.5</td><td>-0.7</td><td>0.5</td><td>4.8</td></tr><tr><td>Apparel</td><td>-1.4</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.4</td><td>-0.2</td><td>-0.4</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.1</td><td>-0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Medical care commodities</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>-1.1</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Services less energy services</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.4</td><td>3.6</td></tr><tr><td>Shelter</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.2</td><td>3.7</td></tr><tr><td>Transportation services</td><td>1.8</td><td>-0.8</td><td>-1.4</td><td>0.1</td><td>-0.2</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.8</td><td>3.5</td></tr><tr><td>Medical care services</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.8</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">*Ended July 2025 Source: Consumer Price Index Summary, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



References



Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Consumer Price Index Summary.” Economic News Release. Published August 2025.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Ribera, Luis, and Landyn Young. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/08/18/how-is-the-consumer-price-index-impacted-by-trade-talks/">How is the Consumer Price Index Impacted by Trade Talks.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(34.4). August 21, 2025. <a href="http://how-is-the-consumer-price-index-impacted-by-trade-talks">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities