David Anderson and Josh Maples 



The amount of beef grading Prime has been increasing for a number of years.&nbsp;&nbsp;As Prime and Choice graded beef have increased, the amount grading Select has declined.&nbsp;&nbsp;Over the last two months the percent of beef grading Prime has been more than double the percent grading Select.&nbsp;&nbsp;More than 17 percent of beef graded, has graded Prime in 5 of the last 6 weeks.&nbsp;&nbsp;Select grade beef has averaged 8.2 percent of all beef graded over that same period.&nbsp;&nbsp;Over the same 6 week period last year, 13 percent of beef graded was Prime and 12 percent graded Select.&nbsp;&nbsp;The amount of beef grading Choice has experienced little change, 71.67 percent in 2026 compared to 71.64 percent in 2025.



Why more Prime?&nbsp;&nbsp;Because markets and incentives work!&nbsp;&nbsp;Value-based marketing has rewarded quality with premium prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;Important factors at work are more days on feed and heavier finished weights.&nbsp;&nbsp;Demand for higher USDA quality grade beef has fueled premiums and increased the percent grading Prime.



It’s worth remembering that there is a supply and demand for each beef grade.&nbsp;&nbsp;As the amount of Prime beef has increased, premiums as measured by Prime-Choice and Prime-Select price spreads have decreased.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Prime-Choice boxed beef cutout price spread averaged $13.16 over the last 6 weeks.&nbsp;&nbsp;Over the same period in 2025 it averaged $21.97.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Prime-Select cutout price spread has declined almost $20 per cwt, from $35.66 last year to $15.86 this year.&nbsp;&nbsp;The cutout value for Prime compared to branded beef, primarily certified angus beef, indicates a similar decline in the price spread, from $15.77 per cwt last year to $6.31 this year.&nbsp;&nbsp;The decline in the amount of beef grading Select has likely helped lead to a negative Choice-Select spread in recent weeks.Going forward it will be interesting to follow the percent grading in each category.&nbsp;&nbsp;Even though overall beef production is declining, the amount of beef available in a specific grade can exceed a year ago if enough of it grades in that category.&nbsp;&nbsp;For example, in March 2026 there was 20.5 percent more Prime beef available than in March 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;Pounds of Choice and Select were down 8.7 and 35.5 percent, respectively.&nbsp;&nbsp;Changes in pounds available in each grade will impact premiums between grades that can dampen or exacerbate normal price seasonality.&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/2026/06/6.24.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44124" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-1.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-1-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-1-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-1-1536x1152.png 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/2026/06/6.24.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44125" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-2.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-2-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-2-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-2-1536x1152.png 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/2026/06/6.24.2-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44127" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-3.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-3-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-3-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-3-1536x1152.png 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/2026/06/03/prime-doubles-up-select/">Prime Doubles Up Select</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(24.2). June 9, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/prime-doubles-up-select/">Permalink</a>

Prime Doubles Up Select

For tax years beginning after July 4, 2025, sellers may elect to pay the net income tax attributable to gain from the sale or exchange of qualified farmland property to a qualified farmer in four equal annual installments instead of paying the full amount in the year of sale.<a href="applewebdata://CFCDA7BD-6D6E-410F-8E0F-C626EB89AD96#_ftn1">[1]</a>&nbsp;The first payment is due in the year of the sale or exchange, with the remaining three installments due over the following three tax years.&nbsp;



This special provision does not change the character of the gain or reduce the total tax liability, including the Net Investment Income tax. Instead, it provides flexibility in the timing of tax payments and may improve cash flow for investment or operational needs.&nbsp;



Qualified Farmland Property



To qualify, the farmland must meet all of the following conditions:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Be located in the U.S.</li>



<li>Have been used substantially by the seller for farming purposes, or leased to a qualified farmer for farming purposes, during the 10-year period ending on the date of sale or exchange. </li>



<li>Be subject to a covenant or legal restriction prohibiting non-farming uses for at least 10 years beginning the day after the sale or exchange. </li>
</ul>



Essentially, the property must be used primarily for farming purposes for the 10 years before the sale and remain restricted to farming use for at least 10 years after the sale. In many parts of the U.S. South, eligibility for state property tax incentive programs requires land to remain in agricultural or forestry use. As a result, these programs are generally compatible with this federal income tax provision as long as the property continues to be used for agricultural or forestry uses.&nbsp;



For this provision, farming purposes are as defined under Section 2032A(e) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and include:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Cultivating soil or raising and harvesting any agricultural or horticultural commodities;</li>



<li>Raising, shearing, feeding, caring for, training, and managing animals on a farm;</li>



<li>Handling, drying, packing, grading, or storing agricultural or horticultural commodities in their unmanufactured state; and</li>



<li>Planting, cultivating, caring for, or cutting trees or preparing trees for market (other than milling).</li>
</ul>



Forestland used to grow timber qualifies as farmland property.&nbsp;



Qualified Farmer



A qualified farmer is an individual actively engaged in farming under 7 USC Section 1308-1(b) and (c), generally requiring significant contributions to the farming operation. Landowners are generally considered actively engaged on owned land. For additional details, see USDA Farm Service Agency guidance on actively engaged in farming:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/payment-eligibility/actively-engaged-farming">https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/payment-eligibility/actively-engaged-farming</a>.&nbsp;



Making the Election on Tax Return



&nbsp;Individuals and entities can make the election using IRS Form 1062,&nbsp;Deferral of Tax on Gain From the Sale or Exchange of Qualified Farmland Property to Qualified Farmers. Include a separate Schedule A (Form 1062) for each qualified farmland sale along with a copy of the covenant with your federal income tax return for the tax year of the sale. If any installment payment is missed, the remaining balance becomes due immediately.&nbsp;



Thoughts on Tax Planning Strategies



This provision provides farmers and forest landowners with another tax planning option when selling or exchanging land. Many landowners are familiar with the IRC Section 1031 like-kind exchange, which allows taxpayers to defer tax on gain from the exchange of like-kind property until the replacement property is sold or otherwise disposed of. If the property is held until death and transferred through inheritance, the deferred gain may be permanently avoided through the step-up in basis rule. However, Section 1031 exchanges have strict requirements regarding timing and the identification and acquisition of qualifying replacement property.&nbsp;



Additional Sources of Information&nbsp;



For more information, please refer to IRS Instructions for Form 1062,&nbsp;Deferral of Tax on Gain From the Sale or Exchange of Qualified Farmland Property to Qualified Farmers.&nbsp;



Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide financial, tax, or legal advice. Please consult your own tax advisor concerning your particular tax situation.



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



<a href="applewebdata://CFCDA7BD-6D6E-410F-8E0F-C626EB89AD96#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;Under IRC Section 1062.



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



Li, Yanshu. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/selling-farm-or-forest-land-a-new-tax-deferral-option/">Selling Farm or Forest Land? A New Tax Deferral Option</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(25.1). June 15, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/selling-farm-or-forest-land-a-new-tax-deferral-option/">Permalink</a>

Selling Farm or Forest Land? A New Tax Deferral Option

During the last decade, the specialty crop industry has faced multiple challenges alongside shifting consumer demand. While some commodities have experienced growth, others have declined due to labor constraints, disease pressures, and increasing import competition. Figures 1 and 2 show acreage trends by commodity group from 2014 to 2024. Over the last decade (2014-2024), harvested acreage for fresh and processed vegetables declined by 23%, while potato acreage decreased by 13%, representing compound annual growth rate (CAGR) declines of 2.5% and 1.4%, respectively (Figure 1). Production declines were smaller due to continued productivity and yield gains.



Figure 1. U.S. Harvested Vegetable Acreage, 2024-2024.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1582" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-1-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44080" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-1-scaled.png 2560w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-1-1024x633.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-1-768x475.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-1-1536x949.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-1-2048x1266.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: USDA ERS. Vegetables and Pulses Yearbook Tables.</figcaption></figure>



Combined fruit and nut acreage has increased steadily, driven almost entirely by tree nuts, where planted acreage expanded by 87% over the last decade (Figure 2). Growth has been led by almonds and pistachios, with additional increases in pecans and walnuts. These crops are generally less labor-intensive because harvesting in modern orchards is highly mechanized.



In contrast, fruit acreage has generally declined. Citrus acreage fell by 32%, while other major non-citrus fruit acreage declined by about 12%, representing CAGR declines of 3.7% and 1.3%, respectively. The citrus decline has been largely driven by citrus greening disease and lower orange juice consumption. Meanwhile, stronger consumer demand has supported growth in strawberry and blueberry acreage and production, although imports have increased faster than domestic output.



Figure 2. U.S. Bearing Fruit and Tree Nut Acreage, 2014-2024.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1583" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-2-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44082" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-2-scaled.png 2560w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-2-1024x633.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-2-768x475.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-2-1536x950.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-2-2048x1267.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: USDA ERS. Fruit and Tree Nuts Yearbook.</figcaption></figure>



Economic pressures continue to challenge the specialty crop industry, particularly rising input and labor costs. Labor shortages remain one of the industry’s most significant concerns, especially for operations dependent on hand harvest. Adverse Effect Wage Rates (AEWR) for H-2A workers have increased steadily in recent years, adding pressure to labor-intensive operations. Recent changes implemented in October 2025 under the U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/02/2025-19365/adverse-effect-wage-rate-methodology-for-the-temporary-employment-of-h-2a-nonimmigrants-in-non-range">Department of Labor’s Interim Final Rule</a>&nbsp;modify how AEWR wages are calculated, specifically by adopting state-level wage data and adjustments tied to worker skill levels and housing cost adjustments for H-2A versus domestic workers. These changes have been received with optimism by much of the industry, as they are expected to result in significant wage savings relative to AEWR increases that occurred in previous years. However, projected savings vary by state depending on whether the new AEWR falls below the federal or state minimum wage, in which case employers must pay the applicable minimum wage per the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa">Fair Labor Standards Act</a>. For example,&nbsp;<a href="http://sa14.fl.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/2025-2026-FL-Min-Wage.pdf">Florida’s statewide minimum wage</a>&nbsp;will increase to $15.00 per hour on September 30, 2026, exceeding the&nbsp;<a href="https://flag.dol.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/DOL-OFLC_2025-2026_AEWRs_FINAL.xlsx">2025-2026 AEWR for Florida H-2A workers</a>&nbsp;of $10.18 per hour for Skill Level I workers and $12.77 per hour for Skill Level II workers. As a result, employers must pay the higher state minimum wage. Assuming 92% of H-2A workers are classified as Skill Level I and 8% as Skill Level II, estimated total wage bill savings in southern states range from 7.6% in Florida and 10.9% in Maryland to 41.6% in Louisiana and 39.3% in Mississippi (Rutledge et al., 2026).



A 2025 Specialty Ag Labor Survey conducted by Vegetable Grower News and Fruit Grower News found that more growers are responding to labor shortages by reducing acreage than by adopting automation. Although mechanization continues to advance, many fresh-market fruits and vegetables still require hand harvest to maintain quality standards. As a result, mechanization remains a longer-term solution for many specialty crop sectors.



Import competition is another major issue affecting the industry. Imports play an important role in supplying products during the off season, but in the case of southeastern growers, they also compete directly with domestic production. Lower labor and regulatory costs in competing countries, particularly Mexico, place additional pressure on U.S. producers. In 2024, nonsupervisory farmworkers in the United States earned an average of $18.13 per hour (USDA ERS, 2025), compared to substantially lower minimum wages ($2.08-2.76) for farmworkers in Mexico (CONASAMI, 2024). As the review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) approaches, specialty crop groups are seeking stronger seasonal protections during peak U.S. production periods to remain competitive. These efforts include support from southern commodity groups affected by increasing low-priced import competition, including the Florida Blueberry Growers Association, Florida Tomato Exchange, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, and Georgia Watermelon Association, among others.



Despite these challenges, consumer demand for specialty crops continues to grow, driven in part by increasing interest in healthier diets. For example, industry organizations such as the North Carolina Sweet Potato Commission have invested in marketing campaigns and influencer partnerships to encourage year-round consumption. Opportunities remain for southern producers through product differentiation, branding, improved flavor and quality, and direct-to-consumer marketing. Examples include regional branding initiatives such as Georgia Grown, Kentucky Proud, Pick Tennessee Products, and Genuine Mississippi, as well as breeding programs focused on enhancing flavor, quality, and consumer appeal. The Southeast has become a leading center for blueberry innovation and has also advanced cultivar development in crops such as sweet potatoes and watermelons. Research on emerging specialty crops, including passion fruit in Florida and Mississippi, further illustrates opportunities for diversification and value creation within the region. In addition, continued growth in farmers markets, local procurement programs, agritourism, and U-pick operations (particularly for crops such as blueberries) provides producers with opportunities to capture additional value and connect directly with consumers.



References



Comisión Nacional de los Salarios Mínimos (CONASAMI).&nbsp;Mexican Government. (2024). Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/873886/Tabla_de_Salarios_M_nimos_2024.pdf">https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/873886/Tabla_de_Salarios_M_nimos_2024.pdf</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). (2025a). Farm Labor. Available at: https://ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). (2025b).&nbsp;&nbsp;Vegetables and Pulses Yearbook Tables.&nbsp;&nbsp;Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/vegetables-and-pulses-data/vegetables-and-pulses-yearbook-tables">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/vegetables-and-pulses-data/vegetables-and-pulses-yearbook-tables</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). (2026). Fruit and Tree Nuts Yearbook.&nbsp;&nbsp;Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fruit-and-tree-nuts-data/fruit-and-tree-nuts-yearbook-tables">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fruit-and-tree-nuts-data/fruit-and-tree-nuts-yearbook-tables</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;



Rutledge Z., Martin P., Ayoub S., Hall M. 2026. Available online at &#8220;Potential Wage Bill Implications of the New AEWR Methodology for H-2A Workers.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/submitted-articles/potential-wage-bill-implications-of-the-new-aewr-methodology-for-h-2a-workers">https://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/submitted-articles/potential-wage-bill-implications-of-the-new-aewr-methodology-for-h-2a-workers</a>



Vegetable Grower News and Fruit Grower News. (2025). 2025 FGN Labor Survey Results. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://fruitgrowersnews.com/catalogs/2025-fgn-labor-survey-results/">https://fruitgrowersnews.com/catalogs/2025-fgn-labor-survey-results/</a>



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



Canales, Elizabeth. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/settlement-approved-in-right-to-repair-litigation/">Key Challenges and Trends Shaping the Specialty Crop Industry.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(24.5). June 12, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/settlement-approved-in-right-to-repair-litigation/">Permalink</a>

Key Challenges and Trends Shaping the Specialty Crop Industry

Authors: Hunter D. Biram, University of Arkansas and Francis Tsiboe, Agricultural Risk and Policy Center at North Dakota State University



Prevented planting insurance, a component of the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP), provides compensation when adverse weather conditions prevent farmers from planting insured crops. This protection is embedded within standard crop insurance policies and is directly linked to the elected coverage level: higher coverage levels mechanically translate into higher prevented planting payments.



Historically, farmers could purchase additional prevented planting protection through a “buy-up” option, which increased prevented planting payments without expanding exposure to other types of losses. This structure allowed early-season planting risk to be managed in a targeted manner while keeping overall FCIP risk largely confined to within-season production losses. That adjustment margin was eliminated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) through the Expanding Access to Risk Protection (EARP) final rule issued on November 28, 2025. Beginning with the 2027 commodity year, producers can no longer purchase prevented planting buy-up coverage. As a result, farmers seeking to maintain similar levels of prevented planting protection must instead increase their overall insurance coverage. While higher coverage can raise prevented planting payments, it also increases premiums and broadens exposure to non-prevented planting losses, limiting farmers’ ability to target planting risk alone and requiring the FCIP to assume greater risk and higher costs across the entire policy for a given producer.



The earlier removal of the 10 percent prevented planting buy-up option in 2018 provides important context for how producers adjust when targeted prevented planting protection is no longer available. Evidence from recent analyses (Tsiboe, 2026; Biram and Tsiboe, 2026) shows that some farmers responded by gradually increasing their base coverage over time rather than making large or immediate changes, reflecting constraints related to higher premiums, program limits, and farm-specific conditions (Figure 1). When the prevented planting buy-up of 10 percent was removed, insured producers who purchased this coverage shifted out of the 75% coverage level into the 80-85% coverages levels four years after the policy change took effect (Figure 1, top panel). Those producers who had insurance but did not purchase the prevented planting buy-up of 10 percent made essentially no change (Figure 1, bottom panel).&nbsp;



One reason why the switch into higher coverage levels took place is to compensate for a lower prevented planting coverage level. For example, a rice producer faces the base prevented planting coverage level of 55% of liability (i.e., the product of the underlying coverage level and expected revenue). Buying 10% more in prevented planting coverage increases the prevented planting coverage level to 65% of liability. Assuming a rice producer purchases the 75% coverage level on their underlying coverage level, their prevented planting coverage would be 48.75% (i.e., the product of 65% and 75%). A rice producer would need to purchase 88% coverage on their underlying insurance policy to maintain their prevented planting coverage, an option that is above the highest available coverage level of 85%. This highlights the limited flexibility of risk protection for those with relatively high coverage levels on their underlying coverage.



Figure 1: Observed Farm-Level Coverage Adjustment Following the Removal of 10 Percent Prevented Planting Buy-Up in 2018.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1430" height="1430" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.4-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44074" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.4-1.png 1430w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.4-1-1024x1024.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.4-1-150x150.png 150w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.4-1-768x768.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1430px) 100vw, 1430px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Note: The horizontal axis does not represent calendar time or a balanced panel. Instead, it indexes the chronological order of observed coverage elections within each farm, normalized so that the year in which the buy-up option was removed is coded as zero. Earlier and later observations reflect the sequence of policy elections as they appear in the administrative record. The figure focuses on only the six major commodities (corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, rice, and sorghum) by insured liabilities in the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP)&nbsp; Source: NDSU Agricultural Risk Policy Center (ARPC), using data from USDA, Risk Management Agency Summary of Business as of June 04, 2025.</figcaption></figure>



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



References



Biram, H.D. and Tsiboe, F., (2026). “Analyzing the Expanding Access to Risk Protection (EARP) USDA Final Rule: Coverage Substitution and Cost Effects of Prevented Planting Buy-Up Elimination in Rice Insurance.”&nbsp;<a href="https://fryar-risk-center.uada.edu/resources/">Fryar Price Risk Management Center of Excellence White Paper</a>&nbsp;#FC-2026-002.



Francis Tsiboe (2026). Prevented Planting After Buy-Up Elimination: Coverage Level Substitution, Producer Costs, and the Role of Enhanced Premium Subsidies Under the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). ARPC White Paper 2026–01. Agricultural Risk Policy Center, North Dakota State University.



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



Biram, Hunter, and Francis Tsiboe. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/the-expanding-access-to-risk-protection-earp/">The Expanding Access to Risk Protection (EARP) rule reduces farmer flexibility in production risk management by eliminating prevented planting buy-up coverage.</a>&#8220; Southern Ag Today 6(24.4). June 11, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/the-expanding-access-to-risk-protection-earp/">Permalink</a>

The Expanding Access to Risk Protection (EARP) Rule Reduces Farmer Flexibility in Production Risk Management by Eliminating Prevented Planting Buy-up Coverage

The USDA released its first supply and use estimates for 2026/27 on May 12th.&nbsp;&nbsp;For 2026/27, USDA estimates that domestic beet and cane sugar production will total 8.810 million short tons, raw value (STRV). If realized, this nearly 5% reduction would be the lowest domestic production level in more than a half decade (Figure 1). The June WASDE report will reflect the first yield/production survey forecasts for 2026/27, with some in the industry expecting the estimate to be up from the May report.&nbsp;



Beet sugar production (~55% of U.S. sugar production) is estimated to reach 4.722 million STRV, its lowest level since the freeze-damaged crop of 2019/20. This represents a year-over-year decrease of 300,000 STRV due to a reduction in planted beet area and lower yields based on delays in springtime planting across the entire beet-production region.&nbsp;



Cane sugar production is expected to total 4.088 million STRV, which, like beet sugar, would amount to its lowest output since 2022/23.&nbsp;&nbsp;This represents a year-over-year decrease of 130,000 STRV. While Louisiana’s cane sugar crop is forecasted at 2.146 million STRV, down 86,000 year-over-year, production in the state is still expected to continue the trend of expanding acres. Yields are expected to track the five-year average following last year’s record yields and sugar recovery rate. Florida’s cane sugar production is forecast at 1.942 million STRV, a yearly decrease of 44,000 STRV as the February freeze inhibited early growth on sugarcane planted the preceding fall.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Figure 1. Historical U.S. sugar production (1,000 STRV). USDA-ERS.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2287" height="1352" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44114" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-1.png 2287w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-1-1024x605.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-1-768x454.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-1-1536x908.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-1-2048x1211.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2287px) 100vw, 2287px" /></figure>



Imports for 2026/27 are initially estimated at 3.260 million STRV, which equates to a 23% increase from the year prior. This threshold is the result of minimum commitment levels of World Trade Organization (WTO) raw sugar tariff-rate quotas (TRQs) of 1.137 million STRV, WTO refined sugar quotas of 24,251 STRV, free trade agreement (FTA) TRQs of 260,777 STRV, and imports from Mexico. Based on calculations as stipulated in the 2014 U.S.-Mexico Suspension Agreements, U.S. imports from Mexico currently are estimated at 1.046 million STRV. This would be an increase from the 220,000 STRV supplied by Mexico last year and double the 504,000 STRV imported in 2024/25. Based on the stocks-to-use ratio, the Suspension Agreements with Mexico will determine the quota for Mexico in July, September, December, and March.&nbsp;&nbsp;High-tier duty sugar (refined and specialty refined) imports are initially set at 466,000 STRV. USDA sets 2026/27 high-tier raw sugar imports initially at zero.&nbsp;&nbsp;As high-tier raw sugar imports are observed entering U.S. ports, they will then be reflected in the balance sheet. For 2025/26, a total of 299,000 STRV of high-tier raw sugar imports have entered the country as of the May WASDE with another 100,000 STRV expected in the second half of the fiscal year (Figures 2 and 3). The amount of high-tier imports landed will have a proportional impact on the import quota from Mexico. As the amount of high-tier imports is increased, the import quota level from Mexico is reduced.&nbsp;



Figure 2. Estimated U.S. sugar imports (1,000 STRV) for 2026/27. USDA ERS.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2255" height="1329" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44115" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-2.png 2255w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-2-1024x604.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-2-768x453.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-2-1536x905.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-2-2048x1207.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2255px) 100vw, 2255px" /></figure>



Figure 3. Historical U.S. sugar imports, by source. USDA ERS. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1171" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-3-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44116" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-3-scaled.png 2560w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-3-1024x469.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-3-768x351.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-3-1536x703.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-3-2048x937.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /></figure>



There is uncertainty with U.S. sugar demand as inflationary pressures, an overall reduction in food and beverage consumption (due to the adoption of glucagon-like peptide-1 drugs (GLP-1)), and changes in food consumption recommendations weigh on the market. The demand estimate of 12.259 million STRV is unchanged from the prior year’s estimate. However, there is a declining multi-year trend in sugar for food consumption from the high reached in 2022/23 (12.473 M STRV).&nbsp;



Looking to the global sugar market, for the 2025/26 crop year, the International Sugar Organization (ISO) raised its forecast for the 2025/26 global sugar surplus volume thus indicating an adequately supplied market. As such, the #11 world raw sugar futures price has declined from a high of 27.31 cents per pound in November 2025 to 14.05 cents per pound in April 2026.&nbsp;



Domestically, the U.S. #16 raw sugar futures contract has averaged 32.97 cents per pound from January to April. The Midwest refined beet spot price has averaged 41.67 cents per pound over the same period. Although the #16 raw sugar price has declined since last September to end the fiscal year prior, a record cane harvest in Louisiana acted to moderate prices. Coupled with flat U.S. sugar demand, #16 raw futures decreased from 36.06 cents per pound in September 2025 to a low of 32.14 in February 2026. However, raw sugar prices have begun to increase to 34.81 cents per pound in April. Midwest refined beet spot prices have also moderated since September (38 cents) to 42.00 cents per pound in April. The anticipation of reduced domestic sugar production is seen as supportive for U.S. prices (Figure 4). 



Figure 4. Midwest refined beet sport price, #16 U.S. raw sugar futures price, and #11 world raw sugar futures price, January 2024 to April 2026. USDA ERS. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1275" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-4-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44117" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-4-scaled.png 2560w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-4-1024x510.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-4-768x382.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-4-1536x765.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.3-4-2048x1020.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /></figure>



Prior to the Middle East conflict that began in March, world raw sugar prices were already starting a downward trend, settling under 15 cents per pound. While other commodities like corn, soybeans, and cotton have showed gains resulting from the conflict amid the rally in crude oil prices and shipping disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz, world raw sugar prices continued to be suppressed from the available surplus. However, the #11 futures market was not entirely absent of gains as resulting support from the energy complex provided spillover support to prices. Sustaining that support has been challenging. U.S. sugar producers are not immune from the challenges faced by other agriculture producers such as rising input costs and falling commodity prices. While pressure continues to mount for the industry, USDA announced $150 million in assistance to sugar beet and sugarcane producers in response to temporary market disruptions and increased production and processing costs. This assistance was designed to ensure producers have the financial stability needed to continue operations and plan for the upcoming crop year.



Looking forward to 2026/27, the ISO forecasts a deficit of global sugar due to potential impacts on sugar cane crops from a developing El Niño weather system and the expectation that more sugar cane crush will be diverted into ethanol production away from sugar production (which should raise the #11 world raw price). As the #11 world raw price increases, the U.S. #16 futures will tend to follow suit.&nbsp;



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



Deliberto, Michael. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/settlement-approved-in-right-to-repair-litigation/">Sugar Market Outlook.</a>&#8220; Southern Ag Today 6(24.3). June 10, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/settlement-approved-in-right-to-repair-litigation/">Permalink</a>

Sugar Market Outlook

Heading into grilling season, it is interesting to look at the shares of meat production and consumption in the U.S. One fact that may surprise, the United States now produces more pork than beef, yet Americans still eat more beef per person.



The USDA ERS May 2026 Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook projects 2026 pork production near 28 billion pounds against 25.5 billion pounds of beef. The gap reflects a shrinking cattle herd while hog supplies remain ample. ERS projects the gap to widen further in 2027. Broiler chicken production is projected at 49 billion pounds.&nbsp;



Production is not the same as consumption. ERS projects 2026 per capita availability at 60 pounds of beef and 49.6 pounds of pork, with chicken far ahead at 105.6 pounds. Total red meat and poultry disappearance per capita is projected to top 230 pounds in 2026 which would be the highest on record.&nbsp;



So why does beef lead pork at the dinner table when we raise more hogs? Trade. The U.S. is expected to export roughly a quarter of its pork production but only about 9 percent of beef production. Additionally, beef imports outweigh exports and will add more beef to consumers plates.&nbsp;



Looking at price changes adds important context. The all-fresh retail beef value hit a record high $9.64 per pound in April, up 13% from a year earlier. Retail pork prices were essentially flat at $4.89 per pound and retail broiler prices declined slightly to $2.39 per pound. Despite the highest price tag, beef demand has stayed firm as consumers are paying more and still reaching for it.



Production volume and consumer demand are different signals, and it will be important to track both over the next few years. Across proteins, it appears there will be lots of meat on grills this summer.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="936" height="634" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.211.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44130" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.211.png 936w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.211-768x520.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 936px) 100vw, 936px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="936" height="630" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.222.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44131" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.222.png 936w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.222-768x517.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 936px) 100vw, 936px" /></figure>



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



Maples, Josh. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/u-s-meat-production-and-consumption-patterns/">U.S. Meat Production and Consumption Patterns</a>. Southern Ag Today 6(24.2). June 9, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/u-s-meat-production-and-consumption-patterns/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities