At the onset of 2025, President Trump laid tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China under a claim of authority from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This act, passed in 1977, grants the president the authority to “regulate . . . importation” in response to a declared national emergency. President Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/">claimed</a>&nbsp;that “poisonous fentanyl” and “the extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens” had led to national emergencies in the U.S., which justified the imposition of tariffs under IEEPA. Whether IEEPA actually allowed for a president to implement tariffs was a question raised in multiple lawsuits and eventually the Supreme Court stepped in to provide their answer.&nbsp;



The Supreme Court’s Decision&nbsp;



Two separate cases were ultimately consolidated in the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the IEEPA tariffs.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf">One case</a>began in the Court of International Trade (CIT) when a group of businesses filed a complaint asserting that IEEPA did not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The&nbsp;<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7821823042483982791&amp;q=learning+resources+inc+v.+trump+&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1006&amp;google_abuse=GOOGLE_ABUSE_EXEMPTION%3DID%3Dca76e64ad40cbd41:TM%3D1782406032:C%3Dr:IP%3D159.150.4.84-:S%3DYhsKbJ-s20dzzumNPDENaKQ%3B+path%3D/%3B+domain%3Dgoogle.com%3B+expires%3DThu,+25-Jun-2026+19:47:12+GMT">second case</a>, originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, similarly challenged the scope of IEEPA’s authority. After both cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, the Court combined both cases in its&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf">decision</a>&nbsp;of&nbsp;Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.&nbsp;There, the Supreme Court sought to answer the question which had prompted both lower court cases: Does IEEPA authorize the President to impose tariffs?&nbsp;



To resolve this dispute, the Supreme Court needed to determine whether “regulate . . . importation” included the authority to lay tariffs. First, the Court noted that the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to lay and collect taxes, which has historically included tariffs. According to the Court, when Congress wishes to confer its authority to lay taxes and tariffs it will do so “clearly.” The Court reasoned that “when Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits.”&nbsp;



Here, the Court ultimately determined that Congress had not explicitly conferred the authority to impose tariffs through IEEPA. In reaching this conclusion, the Court looked at precedent and the text of IEEPA itself.&nbsp;&nbsp;First, no President has ever relied on IEEPA to impose tariffs. Given this lack of precedent and the “breadth of authority” now being claimed under IEEPA, the Court concluded that the IEEPA tariffs were beyond the President’s “legitimate reach.” Second, and perhaps most importantly, the word “tariff” is not mentioned anywhere in IEEPA’s text. The Court reasoned that if Congress had intended for IEEPA to include the power to lay tariffs, it would have made that clear in IEEPA’s text, “as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.” Without any historical precedent or clear Congressional intent, the Court concluded in a 6-3 decision that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose tariffs.&nbsp;



The Aftermath&nbsp;



The Court’s decision vacated the IEEPA tariffs, however it did not discuss the issue of potential refunds. Considering the massive impact of the IEEPA tariffs, this left many businesses wondering if and how refunds would be issued for the now vacated IEEPA tariffs. Following an order to begin issuing refunds from the CIT, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) outlined its new system for processing and issuing IEEPA refunds. The Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system is a digital portal where importers can file a refund claim for duties paid while the tariffs were in effect. The CAPE system is being implemented through a “phased development” with system functions being implemented over time. Businesses who paid duties pursuant to the IEEPA tariffs should visit CBP’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/trade-remedies/ieepa-duty-refunds">website</a>&nbsp;to learn more about potential IEEPA refunds under the CAPE system.&nbsp;



Shortly after the Court vacated the IEEPA tariffs, President Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-a-temporary-import-duty-to-address-fundamental-international-payment-problems/">announced</a>&nbsp;that he would be implementing a global 10% tariff rate. This time, President Trump claimed the tariffs were authorized by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10384/pdf/COMPS-10384.pdf">Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974</a>. As was the case with IEEPA, no President had ever relied on Section 122 to implement tariffs. Unlike IEEPA, Section 122 does explicitly grant the President the authority to impose tariffs. However, the Section 122 tariffs would still go on to face legal challenges. Currently, the Section 122 tariffs are still in effect at an increased rate of 15%, but this is subject to change depending on the outcome of ongoing litigation. Regardless, these tariffs are indicative of the Administration’s ongoing intent to continue placing emphasis on tariffs in its international trade strategy.&nbsp;



Conclusion



The IEEPA tariffs dominated international trade headlines while still in effect.&nbsp;<a href="https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/p/2026-02-20-supreme-court-tariff-ruling/">Reportedly</a>, nearly $140 billion in duties were collected from the IEEPA tariffs by December of 2025. Naturally, this means that many businesses felt their effects. While the IEEPA tariffs may now be vacated, refunds and tariffs enacted under other statutes remain an important issue for many business owners. To learn more about the Supreme Court’s decision to vacate the IEEPA tariffs, click&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/supreme-court-vacates-ieepa-tariffs/">here</a>. To learn more about the aftermath of the Court’s decision, click&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/supreme-court-vacates-ieepa-tariffs-what-comes-next/">here</a>.&nbsp;



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



Recommended citation format: Scobey, Will. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/status-of-the-international-emergency-economic-powers-act-ieepa-tariff-litigation/">Status of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Tariff Litigation.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(46.5). November 13, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/status-of-the-international-emergency-economic-powers-act-ieepa-tariff-litigation/">Permalink</a>

Status of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Tariff Litigation

Authors: Bart Fischer and Joe Outlaw



We all know that production agriculture is notoriously risky, with crop insurance having become the cornerstone of the farm safety net.&nbsp;&nbsp;While crop insurance will pay an indemnity once the actual yield or revenue on a farm falls below the guarantee, indemnities reach their maximum in cases when the crop is so poor that it’s not worth harvesting—a situation known as abandonment.&nbsp;



While abandonment is a problem for all crops and all regions, it is particularly acute for cotton producers. Compounding the problem, if a cotton crop isn’t worth harvesting, there are virtually no other options for extracting value from the crop. You can chop a poor corn crop for silage, or you can bale hailed out wheat for hay. None of these are viable options for cotton (and while some have tried grazing and baling, they are of limited value). Most failed cotton ends up simply being destroyed. And, while abandonment is a challenge for producers, it has huge implications for downstream industry as well, from&nbsp;harvest aid manufacturers to chemical applicators to custom harvesters to cotton gins, warehousers, and merchants.



As noted in Figure 1, from 2016 to 2025, an annual average of 2.8 million unharvested acres of cotton accounted for 24% of planted acres. By contrast, for corn, approximately 8 million unharvested acres (i.e., not harvested for grain) accounted for 9% of planted acres.&nbsp;&nbsp;However, an annual average of 6.4 million acres of silage closed 80% of that gap.&nbsp;&nbsp;In other words, after accounting for silage, the net abandonment averaged just 1.8%.



Figure 1. Unharvested Share of Planted Acres for Corn and Cotton



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="940" height="670" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.4-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45103" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.4-1.png 940w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.4-1-768x547.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 940px) 100vw, 940px" /></figure>



Source: NASS QuickStats



Historically, most of the concerns with abandonment have come at harvest. Crop insurance becomes a factor because a farmer will naturally compare the value of the crop against the cost of harvesting, and a sufficiently low crop insurance appraisal will tip the scales toward abandonment. Again, as noted above, there is no other alternative for salvaging value with cotton. In response, in the mid-1990s, USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA)&nbsp;established the Cotton Harvest Incentive (CHI) pilot program for the 1995 and 1996 crop years in select counties in Texas. In general, the pilot allowed producers to exclude the crop they harvest from the production to count for purposes of calculating crop insurance indemnities.<a href="applewebdata://65D35DAD-1BE2-4A9F-B3A7-C86D20130FCE#_ftn1">[1]</a>&nbsp;RMA revised and extended the pilot program for the 1997, 1998, and 1999 crop years in the same counties. In our view, the approach to addressing late-season abandonment was sound, but the mechanics of the pilot were unnecessarily complicated and overly restrictive, completely undermining the incentive the pilot attempted to provide. Rather than trying to improve the pilot, RMA simply abandoned it starting with the 2000 crop year.&nbsp;



While abandonment at harvest has continued to be a problem over the last 26 years since the pilot was terminated, early-season abandonment has also become a major issue.&nbsp;&nbsp;When we first started working on this issue back in 2024, we discovered that, on average across the United States from 2014 to 2023, 72% of the indemnities paid on Revenue Protection policies for cotton were for unharvested acres. As noted in Figure 2, a significant share of the indemnities were coming from loss situations that were at least materializing very early in the growing season (while acknowledging that this data related to the timing of the cause of loss and not necessarily the timing of indemnities). Regardless, it demonstrates the early-season pressure facing producers, in many cases due to lack of rainfall at/near planting.



Figure 2. Revenue Protection Indemnities for Unharvested Cotton by Cause-of-Loss Month, 2014-2023



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="940" height="674" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.4-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45104" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.4-2.png 940w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.4-2-768x551.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 940px) 100vw, 940px" /></figure>



While crop insurance is tailor made for situations where a producer does their absolute best to raise a crop and it simply never emerges from the ground, not all situations are that clear cut. For example, if a producer is facing the prospect of raising a crop in a tough production environment, they necessarily are also facing the prospect of having to harvest a mediocre crop (at best) that may barely cover the cost of harvest. Facing that prospect, if given a sufficiently low appraisal, they may choose to walk away from the crop at (or near) planting.&nbsp;&nbsp;Further, if a grower is in a failing Enterprise Unit that has one or two farms that might make it to harvest, they may still choose to take an early appraisal and abandon the crop on those farms rather than trying to take those farms to harvest and also having to wait until the end of the growing season to receive an indemnity.&nbsp;



We’ve spent the last three years analyzing if a harvest incentive could help tip the scales toward maintaining a crop and taking it to harvest. In response, the National Cotton Council worked with USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) to develop a new Harvest Cost Endorsement (HCE) that would supplement a producer’s underlying crop insurance policy.&nbsp;&nbsp;While we will save the mechanics for another day, the bottom line is this: a grower that adds the HCE endorsement could go into the planting season knowing that if they end up with a disappointing crop that triggers a crop insurance indemnity, it would also begin triggering a supplemental indemnity to help offset the cost of harvest.&nbsp;&nbsp;Naturally, if there is no cotton to harvest at all, the incentive would phase completely out (after all, we don’t want to incentivize producers taking harvest equipment through the field just for the sake of collecting an indemnity).



While some may argue this isn’t a crop insurance issue, we would strongly disagree. In fact, we can easily envision a scenario where the HCE could end up saving taxpayers a considerable amount of money.&nbsp;&nbsp;The premise is this: if cotton that is being abandoned is instead taken to harvest, would that sufficiently lower the indemnities being paid to offset (or more than offset) the cost of the incentive? While no one can truly know which way the scales will tip (because none of us know whether cotton that had been abandoned would have ended up making a crop), we suspect that the introduction of an incentive could significantly reduce the amount of crop insurance indemnities being paid for cotton (with the incentive instead encouraging producers to take the crop to harvest and sell it into the market).&nbsp;



Where do we go from here? Both the cotton industry and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have worked in good faith over the last two years to develop an HCE product that could be approved by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) as soon as next week.&nbsp;&nbsp;In our view, this issue has been begging for a solution for far too long. We would be remiss if we didn’t note that the current proposal is being offered as a pilot.&nbsp;&nbsp;By definition, a pilot is intended to be a vehicle for testing new concepts before committing to widespread adoption. While some might be tempted to simply resurrect the old CHI pilot, it would not meet the added challenge of addressing early-season abandonment. Further, while the temptation also exists to keep studying and tweaking, there is no substitute for the real-life laboratory of introducing a pilot and observing how it functions in the real world. Again, that is the entire point of a pilot. One thing we already know with certainty: if action is not taken soon, producers will be left waiting until 2028 at the earliest to pilot a new endorsement, and in the meantime we will keep paying crop insurance indemnities that we suspect could be avoided.



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



<a href="applewebdata://65D35DAD-1BE2-4A9F-B3A7-C86D20130FCE#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;For more information, see:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/-/media/RMA/Publications/Specialty-Crops/specialty-crop-report-1999.ashx?la=en">https://www.rma.usda.gov/-/media/RMA/Publications/Specialty-Crops/specialty-crop-report-1999.ashx?la=en</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/-/media/RMA/Publications/Specialty-Crops/specialty-crop-report-2004.ashx?la=en">https://www.rma.usda.gov/-/media/RMA/Publications/Specialty-Crops/specialty-crop-report-2004.ashx?la=en</a>.



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



Recommended citation format: Fischer, Bart L. and Joe Outlaw. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/11/12/closing-the-gap-on-cotton-abandonment-the-case-for-a-harvest-incentive/">Closing the Gap on Cotton Abandonment: The Case for a Harvest Incentive.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(46.4). November 12, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/11/12/closing-the-gap-on-cotton-abandonment-the-case-for-a-harvest-incentive/">Permalink</a>

Closing the Gap on Cotton Abandonment: The Case for a Harvest Incentive

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released the November World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report on Tuesday, November 10. The main question heading into the report was what USDA would do with yields, especially after a September revision to corn production was announced in late October. This article recaps the changes for corn, soybeans, cotton and rice, and then looks at how much yields have typically changed between November and the final estimates in January.



November Report Recap



USDA lowered its projected corn yield by 1.6 bushels to 179.6 bushels per acre. That reverses most of October’s increase from 178.5 to 181.2 bushels and leaves the yield 3.4 bushels below USDA’s initial May projection of 183 bushels. Production fell 141 million bushels to 15.9 billion bushels. USDA also trimmed exports and feed and residual use by 25 million bushels each, so ending stocks fell 91 million bushels to 1,758 million bushels. The season-average farm price was lowered 10 cents to $4.60 per bushel.



Soybean yields were raised slightly, up 0.2 bushels to 53.3 bushels per acre, adding 12 million bushels of production. A 25 million bushel increase in exports more than offset the larger crop, and ending stocks fell 15 million bushels to 300 million bushels. The season-average price was raised 10 cents to $12.10 per bushel.



USDA lowered the cotton yield by 15 pounds to 775 pounds per acre, cutting production by 260,000 bales to 13.18 million bales. Domestic use was lowered 100,000 bales and exports were unchanged at 12.3 million bales. Ending stocks fell 100,000 bales to 3.7 million bales. The season-average price was lowered 1 cent to 76 cents per pound.



Rice changed little. The yield was lowered 4 pounds to 7,664 pounds per acre, while production was nearly unchanged at 157.6 million hundredweight, and ending stocks fell 100,000 hundredweight to 39.9 million hundredweight. The season-average price was lowered 10 cents to $15.10 per hundredweight, but long-grain price was unchanged at $14.00 per hundredweight.



How Much Could Yields Change by January?



November is the last yield estimate for corn, soybeans and rice until USDA’s annual Crop Production summary in January; cotton gets one more forecast in December. Figure 1 shows how much the January yield has moved from the November estimate for each crop since 2000. For corn and soybeans, the direction of yield changes have been about 50/50. The January corn yield was adjusted higher in 12 years and lower in 13, with an average change of 1.4 bushels per acre in either direction. Soybeans were higher in 13 years and lower in 12, with an average change of 0.4 bushels in either direction.



Even average-size moves can shift ending stocks. With 88.5 million harvested acres, each 1-bushel change in the corn yield changes production by 88.5 million bushels, so an average 1.4-bushel move up or down would shift corn ending stocks by roughly 125 million bushels. The largest corn revisions since 2000 were cuts of 3.8 bushels in 2020 and 2024, about 335 million bushels. For soybeans, a 0.4-bushel move is about 35 million bushels, more than 10% of projected ending stocks. Revisions have also been larger in recent years. Since 2020, corn revisions have averaged 1.9 bushels in either direction.



Comparing yields to trend gives a slight hint on the direction of revisions. In years when the November corn yield was below trend, the January estimate raised it in 7 of 9 years. At 179.6 bushels per acre, this year’s estimate is about 3% below the trend yield of roughly 185 bushels, which leans toward a small increase in January. Soybeans are near trend, so history offers no lean either way. Yield is not the only thing that can change. For the 2022 crop, USDA raised the January corn yield by 1 bushel but cut harvested area by 1.6 million acres, so production fell 200 million bushels.&nbsp;



Cotton has the largest historical revisions of the four crops, averaging 28 pounds per acre, or 3.3%, in either direction. Revisions have grown recently, averaging 64 pounds since 2020. This year’s cotton yield is about 13% below trend, and short cotton crops have been raised in January in 10 of 15 years. However, a higher yield does not always mean more cotton. USDA lowered harvested area in 22 of the last 26 years as abandonment came into focus, thus production rose in only 8 of those years. For the 2023 crop, USDA raised the yield by 62 pounds but cut harvested area by 12%, so production fell 5%.



Since 2000, the January rice yield has been raised in 15 of 26 years. The average change, up or down, has been 75 pounds per acre, about 1%. Like corn, this year’s rice yield of 7,664 pounds is about 3% below trend, and below-trend rice crops have been raised in January in 8 of 13 years. With 2.06 million harvested acres, a 75-pound change in yield would change production by about 1.5 million hundredweight, close to 4% of projected ending stocks.



While most of the 2026 yield story has been written, USDA will still make changes in January, and history shows those changes can be large enough to move ending stocks. For producers still holding unpriced grain or cotton, the January report is a known risk event. Now is a good time to review marketing plans and decide how much exposure to carry into that report.



Figure 1. Yield Revisions from November to January



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1638" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.3-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45089" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.3-scaled.png 2560w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.3-1024x655.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.3-768x492.png 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.3-1536x983.png 1536w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.3-2048x1311.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /></figure>



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



Recommended citation format: Maples, William E. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/november-wasde-trims-corn-yield-how-much-can-yield-still-change-by-january/">November WASDE Trims Corn Yield: How Much Can Yield Still Change by January?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(46.3). November 11, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/november-wasde-trims-corn-yield-how-much-can-yield-still-change-by-january/">Permalink</a>

November WASDE Trims Corn Yield: How Much Can Yield Still Change by January?

Fed cattle prices have dropped the past few weeks. Negotiated live steer trade in the 5-area averaged about $216.50 per cwt last week, down $7 from the week before and $12 below the same week last year. CME Live cattle futures prices have also dropped. The December live cattle contract settled at $214.05 on November 6, down $17 from October 26, and the February and April 2027 contracts were down about the same.



Some of the drop in cash prices is seasonal. Fed cattle prices are often weaker in the fall, including last year. The 5-area price peaked at $244 in late August 2025, fell to $212 by the end of November, and was back near $229 by late December 2025. This year&#8217;s high came earlier, at $263 in mid-May, and most of the current decline was in place by early September. Prices mostly held in the $220s from September through October before the drop over the past two weeks. Last week’s 5-area price was the lowest weekly price since last Thanksgiving. The early 2027 futures contracts carry only a small premium. February settled at $217 and April at $220 on November 6, about $3 to $6 over the December contract.&nbsp;



Supplies remain tight. Federally inspected cattle slaughter was 534,000 head last week and year-to-date slaughter is down 6.6 percent. While slaughter is lower than last year, record heavy steer dressed weights are offsetting some of the reduced slaughter.&nbsp;&nbsp;Federally inspected steer dressed weights hit 994 pounds two weeks ago, up 15 pounds from last year.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Feedlot placements point to even fewer fed cattle available next year. September placements were 12 percent below last year, the fourth straight month of lower placements. Feeder cattle imports from Mexico resumed in late August and reached about 14,000 head the week ending October 31 which will add some cattle but is still short of what was typical before the closure. USDA expects first quarter 2027 beef production to be down about one percent from 2026, even with very large cattle weights.



Another thing worth watching is the New World screwworm. USDA&#8217;s dashboard showed 121 confirmed animal cases in the U.S. as of November 7 in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, with 59 still active. The pace has picked up this fall with more than 30 new cases in the first week of November. Cattle account for about half of the cases.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-1.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-45081" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-1.jpeg 1920w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-1-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-1-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-1-1536x1152.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://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-2.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-45083" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-2.jpeg 1920w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-2-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-2-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-2-1536x1152.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://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-3.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-45084" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-3.jpeg 1920w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-3-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-3-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.2-3-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



Recommended citation format: Maples, Josh, and David Anderson. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/fed-cattle-prices-slip-again-this-fall/">Fed Cattle Prices Slip Again This Fall</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(46.2). November 10, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/fed-cattle-prices-slip-again-this-fall/">Permalink</a>

Fed Cattle Prices Slip Again This Fall

Authors: Grant Gardner and Matt Dixon, University of Kentucky



Large-scale climate patterns can shift the odds toward wetter, drier, warmer, or cooler conditions over several months. For winter 2026‑27, all eyes are on El Niño, a phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) pattern in the equatorial Pacific that influences weather around the world. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center has an El Niño Advisory in place, with better than an 83 percent chance that a strong to very strong event holds through March and a similarly high chance that October through December will exceed the intensity of any El Niño since 1950 (NOAA-CPC, 2026). This article investigates what past strong El Niño winters have meant for the crop that followed.



There have been nine strong El Niño winters since 1950 (NOAA-CPC, n.d.). This article analyzes eight of them, removing the 1982‑83 El Niño because the 1983 drought that followed was a significant outlier event. In each instance, the following year’s crop yield is compared with a normal trend-line expected yield to estimate a potential yield impact. Figures 1 through 4 represent those average impacts as a percentage above or below normal (USDA-NASS, 2026). Blue states yielded better than normal, red states yielded worse. The outlined states are those where the difference is larger than the state’s normal year-to-year swing would explain, the standard for calling a result statistically significant.



The strongest impact shows up in winter wheat in the Plains (Figure 1). In the years after strong El Niño winters, wheat averaged about 18 percent above normal in South Dakota, 14 percent in Texas, 14 percent in Kansas, 13 percent in Oklahoma, 12 percent in Nebraska, and 12 percent in Colorado. South Dakota, Nebraska, and Texas were above normal in seven of the eight years. That fits expectations, since El Niño winters tend to bring above normal rain to the southern Plains and milder conditions to the north (Welch, 2025). NOAA’s winter outlook for 2026‑27 shows the same pattern, with wetter than average odds across the southern tier and warmer than average odds across the north (NOAA, 2026). The 2024 crop was the last example, with winter wheat condition ratings well above average coming out of that El Niño winter (Welch, 2024). Outside those states, the gain is negligible. Wheat is flat through the Corn Belt and slightly negative in the Southeast, about 2 percent under normal in Kentucky and 7 percent under in the Carolinas.



Cotton shows a similar impact in the same region (Figure 2). Texas averaged about 10 percent above normal in the years after these winters, above normal in six of the eight and steady across them, and it is the only cotton state where the gain is larger than normal variation would explain. Oklahoma averaged more, 18 percent, but three years carry it, 1958, 1973, and 2016, and without them the average is about 1 percent. Georgia averaged 5 percent above normal and Mississippi 3, both inside the normal swing, while California, Missouri, Louisiana, and Arkansas averaged 3 to 5 percent under. Texas grows 37 percent of the U.S. crop, much of it dryland on the High Plains, where a wet winter recharges the soil profile before planting.



Corn is another story (Figure 3). No state stands out, but the map splits west from east. Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska averaged 6 percent, 5 percent, and 4 percent above normal, while Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky came in within about 2 percent of normal and the Atlantic states ran 9 to 11 percent under. The South in general sees lower corn yields after strong El Niño winters, and the results are progressively worse moving east, but no state moves more than its normal year-to-year swing, making it a tilt in the odds rather than a number to plan around.



Soybean impacts are mixed (Figure 4). Kansas averaged 12 percent above normal, North Dakota 11, Nebraska 8, and Missouri 7, though only Missouri’s gain is larger than that state’s normal year-to-year variation. Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama averaged 2 to 9 percent under normal, again inside the usual swing. For corn and soybeans, a strong El Niño winter is not a reason to move acres or budget a different yield in 2027.



What has mattered for corn and soybeans shows up later. The El Niño pattern was gone by the following summer every time, and in three of the nine years (1973, 1998, and 2010) La Niña had taken hold by June, July, or August (NOAA-CPC, n.d.). Those summers hurt: U.S. corn averaged about 4 percent under normal, Kentucky corn 8 percent under, and Kentucky soybeans 8 percent under. That makes next spring’s outlook worth watching, while insurance and input decisions are still open.



While this El Niño is stronger than anything on record, the numbers above represent a direction, not a specific yield to budget. USDA will hold trend yields until the August surveys regardless of what the winter does (Gardner, 2026). The same winter that favors wheat and cotton in Texas and the southern Plains tends to work against corn in the Southeast, something to weigh on diversified southern acres. For now, southern Plains wheat and cotton growers may plan accordingly, with top-dress nitrogen, fungicide plans, and harvest and storage capacity set up for a better than normal crop, while corn and soybean growers have little reason to act before spring.



Figure 1. Winter wheat in the year after a strong El Niño winter, the crop that grew through the winter. Percent above (blue) or below (red) a normal year for that state, averaged over eight El Niño winters. Outlined states stand out from normal variation; gray states grow little or no wheat. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1958" height="1445" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45070" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-1.png 1958w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-1-1024x756.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-1-767x566.png 767w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-1-1536x1134.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1958px) 100vw, 1958px" /></figure>



Source: USDA NASS; NOAA Climate Prediction Center.



Figure 2. Cotton in the year after a strong El Niño winter, planted the following spring. Percent above (blue) or below (red) a normal year for that state, averaged over eight El Niño winters. Outlined states stand out from normal variation; gray states grow little or no cotton. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1958" height="1445" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45071" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-2.png 1958w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-2-1024x756.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-2-767x566.png 767w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-2-1536x1134.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1958px) 100vw, 1958px" /></figure>



Source: USDA NASS; NOAA Climate Prediction Center.



Figure 3. Corn in the year after a strong El Niño winter, planted the following spring. Percent above (blue) or below (red) a normal year for that state, averaged over eight El Niño winters. Outlined states stand out from normal variation; gray states grow little or no corn. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1958" height="1445" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45073" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-3.png 1958w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-3-1024x756.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-3-767x566.png 767w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-3-1536x1134.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1958px) 100vw, 1958px" /></figure>



Source: USDA NASS; NOAA Climate Prediction Center.



Figure 4. Soybeans in the year after a strong El Niño winter, planted the following spring. Percent above (blue) or below (red) a normal year for that state, averaged over eight El Niño winters. Outlined states stand out from normal variation; gray states grow little or no soybeans. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1958" height="1445" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45074" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-4.png 1958w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-4-1024x756.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-4-767x566.png 767w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-4-1536x1134.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1958px) 100vw, 1958px" /></figure>



Source: USDA NASS; NOAA Climate Prediction Center.



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



References



Gardner, Grant. “July 2026 WASDE: Acreage Moves in July, Yields Move in August.” Southern Ag Today, July 15, 2026. https://southernagtoday.org/2026/07/15/july-2026-wasde-acreage-moves-in-july-yields-move-in-august/



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). “El Nino Looms Large Over U.S. Winter Outlook.” October 15, 2026. https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/el-nino-looms-large-over-us-winter-outlook



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Prediction Center (NOAA-CPC). “ENSO Diagnostic Discussion.” October 8, 2026. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Prediction Center (NOAA-CPC). “Oceanic Niño Index (ONI).” Accessed September 11, 2026. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/oni.ascii.txt



U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). “Quick Stats.” Accessed September 11, 2026. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/



Welch, J. Mark. “2026 Wheat Outlook.” Southern Ag Today, December 17, 2025. https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/17/2026-wheat-outlook/



Welch, J. Mark. “An Early Look at 2024 Production Expectations for U.S. Wheat and Sorghum.” Southern Ag Today, April 22, 2024. https://southernagtoday.org/2024/04/22/an-early-look-at-2024-production-expectations-for-u-s-wheat-and-sorghum/



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



Recommended citation format: Gardner, Grant, and Matthew Dixon. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/what-does-a-strong-el-nino-winter-mean-for-next-years-crop-yields/">What Does a Strong El Niño Winter Mean for Next Year’s Crop Yields?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(46.1). November 9, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/what-does-a-strong-el-nino-winter-mean-for-next-years-crop-yields/">Permalink</a>

What Does a Strong El Niño Winter Mean for Next Year’s Crop Yields?

A frequent question that I receive at the National Agricultural Law Center involves trespassers on agricultural property. What steps can, or should, a landowner take to deal with trespassers? The answer, like any good legal answer, always starts with the phrase “it depends.”&nbsp;



First, there is a substantial difference in how the law treats adult trespassers and child trespassers. To learn more about child trespassers, there is a great Southern Ag Today article by Jesse Richardson available&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/01/17/duty-to-child-trespassers/">here</a>. This article will instead focus on the adult trespassers.&nbsp;



A second issue is whether the person is just a trespasser or whether they are causing an immediate danger to the life of the landowner or other people on the property. We will focus this article solely on the trespassing issue, as there are many other resources on self-defense laws.



Landowners owe trespassers on their property a legal responsibility, called a duty of care. The general duty of care is not to engage in willful or wanton misconduct that injures the trespasser. Basically, this boils down to not shooting them, again, this article assumes that self-defense is not an issue and not setting booby traps.&nbsp;



When presenting on this topic, a suburban or urban crowd asks why people would set up booby traps in the first place, and the rural crowds want to describe the innovative booby traps that they have devised over the years! Police response times tend to be much slower in rural areas because of the vast distances that law enforcement is expected to cover. Rural residents become frustrated after calling law enforcement multiple times about trespassers and law enforcement not having the ability to show up in time to catch the perpetrators. This frustration is often enhanced if the trespasser is poaching or committing theft. This frustration can lead to the landowners resorting to “self-help” which often involves booby traps in some form.&nbsp;



What is a booby trap? This depends on the facts surrounding the incident. Is an electric fence a booby trap?&nbsp;&nbsp;It depends! A hotwire fence to keep cattle in a wheat field is a very common method of fencing and would not be considered a booby trap if it is being deployed as is typical in a given area. A chain-link fence that has 240 volts running through it is a different matter altogether! Both of these are electric fences, but the purpose behind them is what matters.



What about dogs? A Pomeranian lap dog will likely never rise to the level of a booby trap because its sole purpose is to be a pet. An auto parts junkyard where pit bulls are kept, and they are released after closing and then penned back up before the junkyard opens, is different. Those dogs are there to deter or attack people that trespass after hours, so the law will likely treat them much differently than a small Pomeranian dog kept solely as a pet. The facts always matter in these types of cases.



Why does this matter? If a landowner sets up a booby trap, such as a spring gun which is a firearm attached to a tripwire, and that booby trap goes off successfully, then the landowner could potentially be civilly and criminally liable for that action. This means that a landowner could face potential jail time for this action, and the trespasser (or their heirs at law) could, and likely would, sue the landowner for their personal injury damages. Additionally, booby traps are indiscriminate. They will go off whether the trespasser is twenty-eight years of age or eight years of age.&nbsp;



What can a landowner do instead? Technology has provided another option for rural landowners. Landowners can now buy game cameras to set up on their property that will send photos or videos directly to their smartphone when someone crosses over their property line. They can call law enforcement from the comfort of their bed immediately and, because they call them so quickly, the chances of catching the trespasser are higher. Landowners also have evidence that the police can use if the decision is made to bring charges against the trespasser.&nbsp;



Setting booby traps only increases the likelihood that the landowner will be sued or prosecuted themselves. It is frustrating to watch a trespasser come to one’s property repeatedly, but the potential legal exposure of setting booby traps will likely greatly outweigh the value of property that the trespasser could be stealing.



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



Recommended citation format: Rumley, Rusty. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/what-can-legally-be-done-about-trespassers/">What can “Legally” be done about trespassers?</a>&#8220; Southern Ag Today 6(45.5). November 6, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/what-can-legally-be-done-about-trespassers/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities