Every January, there is talk of New Year’s resolutions—a time to commit to improvements and set new goals. While health and personal finance often top the list of resolutions, there is no reason not to think about the farm business and marketing commitments in the same way. Farm profitability depends on effective management across many areas. Producers devote significant time and effort to decisions that affect crop production, but just as important is having a marketing plan for how the crop will be sold. Marketing is a continuous process that can span multiple production years, but it should be revisited for possible updating. With a solid marketing plan, producers can approach selling their crop as a year-round process rather than a single decision at one point in the year. This article highlights key considerations for developing a successful marketing strategy.&nbsp;



First, it is important to understand what a marketing plan is not. It is not a one-time silver bullet that guarantees sales at the highest price. While some producers may ‘beat’ the market in certain years, few can do so consistently. Commodity prices reflect supply and demand fundamentals, but in the short run, they are influenced by unpredictable events and new information. Even long-term outlooks are subject to shocks such as trade wars or other geopolitical developments. Expecting a marketing plan to always capture the top of the market sets up unrealistic goals. Instead, the value of a marketing plan lies in its ability to manage risk through consistent, disciplined decisions.



Every marketing plan should be anchored in the farm’s business goals. Those goals set the operation’s risk tolerance, cash-flow needs, and planning horizon. A producer nearing retirement may prioritize capital preservation, while a younger producer focused on growth may accept more price variability to preserve upside and liquidity. The plan should explicitly tie tactics to goals and assess which risks (price, basis, yield, liquidity, etc.) would most threaten those goals. In short, the marketing plan should serve the business plan, not the other way around.



Cost of production is the foundation of any marketing plan. Without a current, credible breakeven, you can’t judge whether a sale protects margin. Prices are volatile and mostly outside the producer’s control, so the most reliable gains come from managing inputs and operating efficiently. A sound approach is to build price objectives directly from breakeven, setting a minimum price that locks in a base margin.&nbsp;&nbsp;Additional targets can then be layered at predefined margin levels (for example, breakeven + $0.20 and + $0.40) based on the farm’s goals and cash-flow needs.&nbsp;



Marketing plans are most effective when they encourage proactive, rather than reactive, sales. Often, the worst sale is a forced sale, such as selling grain at harvest due to limited storage or pulling grain from the bin to meet a loan payment. Coordinating decision dates with price targets allows sales to be spread throughout the year. Crop markets frequently show seasonal strength in spring and early summer, making that window a natural fit for higher targets. Extending the marketing window, considering preharvest sales within the operation’s risk tolerance, and using crop insurance to backstop commitments can all help create more opportunities to lock in margin. Maintaining strong relationships with local buyers can also expand contract options and delivery flexibility.



Finally, it is essential to document the reasoning behind every marketing decision. A simple decision log noting the trigger, target price, quantity, tool, and rationale can reinforce discipline when action is required. The biggest threats to good marketing decisions are emotion, fear of making a mistake, and the temptation to hold out for just a little more. If a sale aligns with business goals and protects margin above breakeven, it is a sound decision, even if prices later move higher. Long-term success comes from steady, margin-protecting progress, not perfection on every sale. Now is an excellent time to make a New Year’s resolution for the farm by committing to a clear, disciplined marketing strategy for 2026 and beyond.



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



Maples, Will. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/a-new-year-a-better-marketing-plan-for-the-farm/">A New Year, A Better Marketing Plan for the Farm.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(2.3). January 7, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/a-new-year-a-better-marketing-plan-for-the-farm/">Permalink</a>

A New Year, A Better Marketing Plan for the Farm

We ended 2025 examining total meat supplies, so this week we’ll take a closer look at chicken production.&nbsp;



If the reader will forgive the obvious joke about what comes first, 1 percent more eggs for broiler grow-out were set in 2025 compared to 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;That led to about 1 percent more chicks placed.&nbsp;&nbsp;A few more broilers made it from placement to slaughter, leading to broiler slaughter growing by 2.1 percent over the prior year.&nbsp;&nbsp;Combining more slaughter with 1.2 percent growth in weights generated a 3.3 percent increase in broiler production in 2025.



Increasing broiler production was jump started by profits from the combination of high broiler meat prices and falling feed costs.&nbsp;&nbsp;Broilers have a cutout value calculated, much like beef and pork.&nbsp;&nbsp;The broiler cutout value increased from $0.85 per pound in January 2025 to a peak of $1.07 per pound by May.&nbsp;&nbsp;The peak value was about 12 cents per pound higher than the same point the year before and 62 percent higher than the 5-year average for the same period.&nbsp;&nbsp;High prices in 2025 are built on higher price levels hit in 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;The cutout dropped rapidly later in 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;By the end of December, the cutout was down to $0.63 per pound.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The decline in the cutout value is shown in the wholesale cuts that make up the cutout value.&nbsp;&nbsp;Wholesale boneless, skinless breast meat has declined from a mid-year peak of $2.77 per pound to $1.16 per pound at the end of December, well below the almost $1.50 per pound the year before.&nbsp;&nbsp;Legs have declined from about $0.90 per pound to $0.59 per pound over the same period.&nbsp;&nbsp;



It’s playoff time for the NFL and for college football, and that usually leads to a discussion of chicken wings.&nbsp;&nbsp;It’s often noted that wholesale wing prices tend to increase leading up to the Super Bowl.&nbsp;&nbsp;In 2025, wing prices did increase leading up to the game, but they kept on climbing into mid-year, hitting a peak of $2.64 per pound.&nbsp;&nbsp;By the end of December, wholesale wings were down to $0.98 per pound, almost half the $1.88 per pound at the end of 2024 and lower than the 5-year average price of $1.24 per pound.



Several industry challenges are in place for 2026.&nbsp;&nbsp;The first is lower chicken meat prices, cutting into profits that would fuel more growth.&nbsp;&nbsp;HPAI continues to occur, recently hitting broiler farms and at least one broiler breeder facility.&nbsp;&nbsp;On the positive side, demand for chicken appears to be growing.&nbsp;&nbsp;The latest CPI report indicated that chicken prices declined compared to a year ago, making chicken even more affordable relative to beef.&nbsp;&nbsp;The number of eggs set and chicks placed in December 2025 were up 1.3 percent and 1 percent, respectively, compared to the year before.&nbsp;&nbsp;So, it looks like more broiler production is coming early in 2026.&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/2026/01/6.02.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43236" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-1.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-1-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-1-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-1-1536x1152.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/2026/01/6.02.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43237" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-2.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-2-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-2-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-2-1536x1152.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/2026/01/6.02.2-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43238" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-3.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-3-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-3-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-3-1536x1152.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/2026/01/6.02.2-4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43239" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-4.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-4-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-4-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.02.2-4-1536x1152.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



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



Anderson, David. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/chicken-production-up-and-prices-down/">Chicken Production Up and Prices Down.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(2.2). January 6, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/chicken-production-up-and-prices-down/">Permalink</a>

Chicken Production Up and Prices Down

Authors: Hudu Abukari, Kevin Kim, Ayoung Kim, and Brian Mills



Agricultural and forest land are essential components of the rural economy throughout the southern United States. These lands support crop and livestock production, timber, recreational uses, and long-term investment opportunities. As regional demand for agricultural land continues to evolve, understanding who is buying land and how land-use patterns are shifting is increasingly important for producers, lenders, Extension agents, and policymakers.&nbsp;



In our previous Southern Ag Today&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/07/28/whos-buying-farmland-a-look-at-mississippis-agricultural-land-market/">article</a>, we showed that individuals and general partnerships (GPs) remain the most active participants in the farmland market in terms of transaction frequency. However, there was an increase in the number of non-individual/non-GP buyers, particularly financial and real estate developers. In this publication, we dig deeper into more specific land types and buyer trends across southern states.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1663" height="990" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43226" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1.png 1663w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-1024x610.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-768x457.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-1536x914.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1663px) 100vw, 1663px" /></figure>



The majority of land transactions involve recreational/timberland, which accounted for 77% of all agricultural land purchases between 2019 and early 2023. Timberland dominates the rural landscape in many parts of the South, and its large share of transactions reflects its availability and investment appeal. In contrast, cropland represented only 11% of agricultural land transactions, while pasture made up the remaining portion in terms of transactions. This difference highlights a key challenge in many southern markets: cropland and pasture turnover is relatively low, while timber and mixed timber-recreational tracts are far more commonly available.



Types of Buyers Participating in Different Agricultural Land Market



Buyers of agricultural property generally fall into four categories: (1) Individuals and general partnerships (GPs); (2) Non-individual/non-GP agricultural businesses; (3) Financial and real estate businesses; and (4) Other industries. A closer look shows distinct differences in buyer behavior across cropland, pasture, and recreational/timberland.



Cropland



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1993" height="1168" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43228" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-2-1.png 1993w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-2-1-1024x600.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-2-1-768x450.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-2-1-1536x900.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1993px) 100vw, 1993px" /></figure>



Pasture



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1993" height="1168" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43229" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-3.png 1993w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-3-1024x600.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-3-768x450.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-3-1536x900.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1993px) 100vw, 1993px" /></figure>



Recreational/Timberland



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1993" height="1168" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43230" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-4.png 1993w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-4-1024x600.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-4-768x450.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.1.1-4-1536x900.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1993px) 100vw, 1993px" /></figure>



Overall Market Shifts and Implications



The most significant trend is the growing presence of financial and real estate businesses, particularly in cropland and recreation/timberland.&nbsp;



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Cropland has the most diversified buyer pool, and shows the most notable shift toward investor participation displacing individuals and agriculture businesses. From 2019 to 2023, the presence of financial and real estate investors rose from 13% to nearly 30%.</li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Pasture remains the most stable and producer-driven category, reflecting the long-term nature of livestock operations and the prevalence of family ranching across the southern region.</li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Recreational and Timberland buyers are still dominated by individuals, but the less traditional buyers have made modest gains in market share. Notably, the share of financial and real estate developers has doubled over the period. </li>
</ul>



These trends bring some opportunities, such as new capital entering rural land markets, increased land valuation, and potential for diversified land uses. However, possible challenges should be considered, including higher land prices, greater competition for limited cropland, and potential barriers for small, beginning, and socially disadvantaged farmers.



Monitoring these patterns can help Extension professionals, rural leaders, lenders, and policymakers respond proactively to ensure that land markets remain accessible and supportive of agricultural communities.



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



Abukari, Hudu, Kevin Kim, Ayoung Kim, and Brian Mills. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/whos-buying-farmland-a-look-at-mississippis-agricultural-land-markets-part-ii/">Who’s Buying Farmland? A Look at Mississippi’s Agricultural Land Markets Part II.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(2.1). January 5, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/whos-buying-farmland-a-look-at-mississippis-agricultural-land-markets-part-ii/">Permalink</a>

Who’s Buying Farmland? A Look at Mississippi’s Agricultural Land Markets Part II

Good Reasons to Cooperate



Southern Ag Today has recently published&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/articles/?q=Cooperative">several articles</a>&nbsp;on why producers should consider joining, starting, or becoming more involved with a cooperative in their state.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rd.usda.gov/publication-cooperatives/sr-87-agricultural-cooperative-statistics-2023">An annual publication from the US Department of Agriculture&#8217;s Rural Development</a><a href="applewebdata://BBC75E6C-6A12-4B80-88B6-929956B98AF2#_edn1">[i]</a>&nbsp;(USDA RD) offers solid financial reasons to do the same.&nbsp;&nbsp;How does a return on investment (allocated equity in the case of a cooperative) of 11.3% to 45.2% sound? It appears that cooperatives offer a distinct advantage to farmers in their state.&nbsp;&nbsp;



How Does the South Stack Up?



The readership might be interested in a little competition (or some light post-holiday reading) – how does the US Southern Region<a href="applewebdata://BBC75E6C-6A12-4B80-88B6-929956B98AF2#_edn2">[ii]</a>&nbsp;stack up with the rest of the US?&nbsp;&nbsp;Table 12 in the report cited above provides information on cooperatives represented in each state, which are illustrated with the heat map graphics below and ranked<a href="applewebdata://BBC75E6C-6A12-4B80-88B6-929956B98AF2#_edn3">[iii]</a>.



Cooperatives Doing Business in Each State



Texas (#2) pulls its weight, ranking behind Minnesota in the number of cooperatives doing business in the state.&nbsp;&nbsp;Oklahoma (#11), Tennessee (12th), Mississippi (16th), and Alabama (17Th) also make the top 20.&nbsp;&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="538" height="348" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/5.53.5-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43216"/></figure>



Number of Cooperative Members in Each State



Kentucky comes in first place!&nbsp;&nbsp;Virginia (#8), Texas (#9), Tennessee (#11), Arkansas (#18), Mississippi (#19), and Oklahoma (#20) combine forces to propel the Southern US into just over one-third of the top 20 placements.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="538" height="345" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/5.53.5-2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43217"/></figure>



Marketing Cooperatives Headquartered in Each State



Marketing cooperatives generate their revenue from the sale of members’ products. Texas again takes the #1 spot, but only Virginia in the Southern Region makes the top 20 at #19. These results, however, may not reflect next-generation cooperatives and cooperatives organized as LLCs (i.e., peanut cooperatives in Georgia)<a href="applewebdata://BBC75E6C-6A12-4B80-88B6-929956B98AF2#_edn4">[iv]</a>.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="540" height="345" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/5.53.5-3.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43218"/></figure>



Supply and Service Cooperatives Headquartered in Each State



Supply and service cooperatives provide farmer members with what their name suggests. Southern states claim nine of the top 20 spots, with Tennessee (#4), Alabama (#6), Mississippi (#9), Texas (tied for #9), Oklahoma (#12), Arkansas (#16), Kentucky (tied for #16), Virginia (tied for #16), and Louisiana (#20).&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="540" height="348" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/5.53.5-4.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43219"/></figure>



And the Winner Is….



Honestly, anyone who is a member of a well-functioning cooperative! In terms of sheer numbers, the North Central Region is first, followed by the Southern Region in second.&nbsp;&nbsp;However, the presence of more cooperatives, their members, and specific types of cooperatives in various regions of the US is largely influenced by the types of commodities grown and the number of different commodities that can be cultivated in each region.&nbsp;&nbsp;Farm size and the density of farming operations in each location also play a role.&nbsp;&nbsp;Finally, farmers’ willingness to collaborate with other farmers seems basic, but refers to the willingness of farmers from two or three generations in the past.&nbsp;&nbsp;Many cooperatives have been around for a long time, with 78% of all cooperatives operating for more than 50 years<a href="applewebdata://BBC75E6C-6A12-4B80-88B6-929956B98AF2#_ftn1">[1]</a>.



The “well-functioning” part of a cooperative is largely due to the engagement of its members. If your farm is part of a cooperative, strive to be engaged with it by attending meetings, voting in elections, serving as a board member, and encouraging the next generation to do the same.



If you are looking to start a cooperative or improve a cooperative’s performance, many&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resource/LGU-Map-03-18-19.pdf">land-grant universities</a>&nbsp;have specialists who help cooperatives succeed by training and developing cooperative board members and staff.&nbsp;



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



<a href="applewebdata://BBC75E6C-6A12-4B80-88B6-929956B98AF2#_ednref1">[i]</a>&nbsp;Service Report 87.&nbsp;&nbsp;USDA Rural Development Rural-Business Cooperative Service.&nbsp;&nbsp;November 2024 [Unpublished Report].&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rd.usda.gov/publication-cooperatives/sr-87-agricultural-cooperative-statistics-2023">https://www.rd.usda.gov/publication-cooperatives/sr-87-agricultural-cooperative-statistics-2023</a>



<a href="applewebdata://BBC75E6C-6A12-4B80-88B6-929956B98AF2#_ednref2">[ii]</a>&nbsp;The US Southern Region, as defined by the&nbsp;<a href="https://srmec.uada.edu/">Southern Risk Management Education Center</a>, comprises 13 states, which account for approximately 26% of the US states (and a larger proportion of the land mass). The other regions are also defined, based on the types of crops grown in each region.&nbsp;



<a href="applewebdata://BBC75E6C-6A12-4B80-88B6-929956B98AF2#_ednref3">[iii]</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;To keep things simple, this article just compares the number of states each region has in the Top 20, as the acres of farmland, number of farmers, and the volume of business through each cooperative in each region may vary significantly.&nbsp;&nbsp;



<a href="applewebdata://BBC75E6C-6A12-4B80-88B6-929956B98AF2#_ednref4">[iv]</a>&nbsp;The report excludes cooperatives that deviate from the one-member, one-vote model, as well as those that handle more than 50% of their volume from non-members.&nbsp;&nbsp;



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



Richards, Steve. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/agricultural-cooperatives-in-the-united-states-how-does-the-south-stack-up/">Agricultural Cooperatives in the United States: How Does the South Stack Up?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(1.5). January 2, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/agricultural-cooperatives-in-the-united-states-how-does-the-south-stack-up/">Permalink</a>

Agricultural Cooperatives in the United States: How Does the South Stack Up?

From October 1, 2025, to November 12, 2025, the U.S. federal government was largely shut down until a congressional stalemate was resolved involving appropriations legislation. The 43-day duration of this shutdown was unprecedented, but some of its effects are taking even longer to resolve.



The agricultural marketing implications of the federal shutdown included the suspension of important public agricultural data, especially near term (i.e., weekly) data.&nbsp;&nbsp;Such data are important for characterizing near term influences on cotton prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;For example, the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) publishes a weekly export sales report for cotton (and other row crops) which serves as a useful indicator of export demand.&nbsp;&nbsp;As displayed in Figure 1, cotton weekly export sales in relation to nearby ICE cotton futures are helpful in explaining or predicting export quantities demanded.&nbsp;&nbsp;



USDA FAS weekly export sales reports resumed on November 13, but export data picked up where it left off (i.e., for September 18).&nbsp;&nbsp;Even with issuing semi-weekly reports to catch up, the normal one-week lag schedule won’t be achieved until January 8, 2026.&nbsp;&nbsp;The one-week lag schedule has the most value as a current demand indicator.&nbsp;&nbsp;But instead of a 43-day delay, we are really dealing with a 112-day delay (September 18 to January 8) until a full return to normal reporting.&nbsp;&nbsp;Thus for over a hundred days, the only market participants with knowledge of the current export demand picture were the merchandizers.



&nbsp;For another example, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) publishes weekly “Commitment of Traders” (COT) data on the positions of index funds and hedge funds in agricultural futures markets (Figure 2).&nbsp;&nbsp;The changes in these speculative futures positions have near term value in explaining fluctuations in ICE cotton futures.&nbsp;&nbsp;Like the cotton export sales data, the COT data have little explanatory power outside of a week old.



The 2025 Commitment of Traders (COT) report schedule saw significant revisions due to the federal funding lapse, leading to catch-up publications throughout the end of 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;Reports for late October and November 2025 were pushed to December 2025, with the CFTC increasing frequency until a return to the normal reporting schedule on December 29, 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;Beyond the direct shutdown (7 to 8 weeks) the CFTC near term publication schedule won’t be fully restored until after a 17-week period.



Thus, the disruption of valuable near-term cotton marketing data flow has been quite long, but as we enter the new year, we are finally back to a normal reporting period.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="624" height="468" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.3.1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43208" style="width:624px;height:auto"/></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="624" height="468" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.3-2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43209"/></figure>



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



Robinson, John. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/an-end-to-the-disruption-of-two-key-weekly-federal-crop-reports/">An End to the Disruption of Two Key Weekly Federal Crop Reports.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(53.3). December 31, 2025. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/an-end-to-the-disruption-of-two-key-weekly-federal-crop-reports/">Permalink</a>

An End to the Disruption of Two Key Weekly Federal Crop Reports

Total meat production surged in December, with production of all major meat species higher than the year before.&nbsp;&nbsp;It was a sharp contrast to the rest of the year, in which less beef and pork were produced than in 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Red Meat



Red meat production, led by beef and pork, normally increases seasonally, from Summer to Fall.&nbsp;&nbsp;This year was no exception as both increased seasonally over that period.&nbsp;&nbsp;Beef and pork production in December were 0.5 percent and 3.9 percent larger than in December 2024, respectively.&nbsp;&nbsp;Larger December beef production may surprise some, given the talk all year of tighter beef supplies, but steer dressed weights surged to new record highs, over 980 pounds per head, leading to larger beef production.&nbsp;&nbsp;Heavier barrow and gilt dressed weights than a year ago helped boost pork production, as well.&nbsp;&nbsp;



For the year, red meat production was 1.9 percent less, about 1 billion pounds, than in 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;Beef production was down about 3.3 percent, and pork production was almost 0.5 percent smaller.&nbsp;&nbsp;About 1 percent more lamb was produced in 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;For the third consecutive year, more pork than beef was produced.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Poultry



While red meat production declined, young chickens (broilers) expanded their share of total meat production.&nbsp;&nbsp;Broiler and turkey production increased 4.0 percent and 8.4 percent, respectively, in December compared to last December.&nbsp;&nbsp;Less expensive feed and higher wholesale broiler meat prices earlier in the year contributed profits to fuel increased production.&nbsp;&nbsp;The late increase in turkey production might be considered “too little, too late” for the whole bird market since it was after Thanksgiving, and it followed on the heels of increasing production in the second half of the year.&nbsp;



For the year, 3.5 percent (1.9 billion pounds) more broiler meat was produced than in 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;Turkey production was down about 122 million pounds.&nbsp;&nbsp;On balance, increasing poultry production offset declining red meat production, leading to an increase in total meat production of about 800 million pounds.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The new year should bring more poultry production from both broilers and turkeys.&nbsp;&nbsp;Beef production will continue to decline, and pork may see a little increase in production.&nbsp;&nbsp;I was asked recently if we are “running out of meat” during a discussion of declining beef production and high prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;The quick and correct answer is “no!”&nbsp;&nbsp;But, production market shares are changing.&nbsp;&nbsp;



A note on data.  This article uses weekly meat and poultry production.  In much of our agricultural data, weeks don’t equal months.  The first day of a month may fall mid-week and end mid-week, so that data for a week’s production will include some in one month and some in another.  But, the monthly data released by USDA won’t dramatically affect the discussion above.



<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/2025/12/5.53.2-1.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-43198" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.2-1.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.2-1-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.2-1-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.2-1-1536x1152.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/2025/12/5.53.2.2.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-43199" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.2.2.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.2.2-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.2.2-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.2.2-1536x1152.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/2025/12/5.53.2.3.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-43200" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.2.3.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.2.3-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.2.3-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.53.2.3-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities