U.S. beef exports to China have been an ever-evolving story in recent years. As shown on the chart above, exports were effectively zero until 2017 when China removed a ban on U.S. beef that dated back to 2003. Exports surged in 2021 and 2022, briefly making China a top three destination alongside Japan and South Korea. Since early 2025, beef exports to China have plummeted to very low levels amid broader trade challenges. For the first three months of 2026, beef exports to China totaled just 5.3 million pounds, a 95 percent decline from a year ago.&nbsp;



The lower exports over the past year have been driven by the lack of U.S. beef facilities registrations that are required for all food manufacturers who export into China. Over 400 U.S. beef plants lost the ability to export into China after registrations expired and were not renewed over the past year. President Trump’s summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in China last week led to hope from the beef industry that these expired registrations would be renewed and that larger exports to China could resume.&nbsp;



On Friday, the U.S. Meat Export Federation reported registration extensions have been granted to 425 overdue beef establishments, and an additional 77 establishments have been added, while 38 establishments remain suspended. This is good news for U.S. beef exports amid challenging export dynamics. Tight supplies of U.S. beef and high domestic prices have been a headwind to beef exports. Those headwinds remain with the renewed registrations, but China is a key market.&nbsp;



It is also worth mentioning U.S. beef exports to Hong Kong have increased over the past year, while exports to China declined. It is helpful to combine exports to both countries when looking at overall trends. While Hong Kong has offset some of the decline in exports to mainland China, combined exports to China and Hong Kong remain well below the levels seen during 2021–2024, when mainland China was a much larger buyer.



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="468" height="304" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.21.2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43976" style="aspect-ratio:1.539510184671475;width:453px;height:auto"/></figure>



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



Maples, Josh. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/u-s-beef-exports-to-china-bottleneck/">U.S. Beef Exports to China Bottleneck.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(21.2). May 19, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/u-s-beef-exports-to-china-bottleneck/">Permalink</a>

U.S. Beef Exports to China Bottleneck 

Authors: Charley Martinez, Mason Collins, and Eli Mundy



As mentioned in previous Southern Ag Today (SAT) articles (<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2022/07/current-non-real-estate-farm-debt/">Martinez and Ferguson 2022, Martinez 2023</a>), monitoring Non-Real Estate Farm Debt provides insight into debt health. At the time of this article, planting season has begun or is in full swing for others, input prices have increased over the last few weeks, and livestock prices have remained at high levels. Last month, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council released its most recent Call Reports, which provided insights into the final quarter of 2025. As a refresher, every commercial bank in the U.S. submits its quarterly Reports of Condition and Income, which are known as call reports. Within these call reports are totals of agricultural loans and the status (on time or late) of the loans. Figure 1 displays the total loan volume (yellow line) and loan volume for three late categories (30-89 days late, 90+ days late, non-accrual) for the last 12 quarters (3 years). The totals are for all the Southern Ag Today States. 



In the fourth quarter of 2025, total non‑real estate loans (yellow line) continued to trend upward overall and was 4% higher compared to 2024 Q4. Non-accrual (blue line) loans remained elevated at the 2025 Q3 levels, and increased 172% from 2024 Q4. Loans that are 90+ days late (grey line) remained about the same as 2024 Q4, and decreased 3%. Last year, the most concerning statistics were the loans that were 30-89 days late (orange line), which increased to $108.9 million in Q1 in the SAT states. By the end of the year, total loan amounts in this category decreased to $49.6 million, but it seems the decline was the result of debt moving to the non-accrual category by Q4 of 2025. While this loan type decreased from Q1, the amount increased by 35% compared to 2024 Q4. Due to the varying size of states, measuring the percentage of 30-89 days late loans compared to total loan volume is a good way to compare the SAT states and the impacts of these bad loan types. In 2025 Q4, the quarterly average of 30-89 days late loans to total loan volume was 0.3% (which is stable), with the highest being  Kentucky (0.8%), North Carolina (0.5%), and Louisiana (0.4%). When comparing the percentage of total late debt (non-accrual, 30-89 days late, and 90+ days late) relative to total loan volume, the quarterly average was 0.9%. Alabama (3.1%), Georgia (2.4%), Louisiana (1.8%), Mississippi (1.2%), and Arkansas (1.1%) were the only states above the SAT average. North Carolina and South Carolina were the only two states below 1%. 



Taking a broad view, the 2025 fourth‑quarter bank reports give a useful snapshot of farm debt conditions following a difficult profitability year for many row‑crop operations and a strong revenue year for livestock producers across the SAT states. The reports show that financial condition remains stable in several states, but there are also early warning signs in others that warrant close attention. Recent improvements in row‑crop prices offer some potential relief for operating debt in 2026, though margins remain tight. Government payments will also be an important factor this year; ARC and PLC payments are expected again for the current crop year, though they will not be received until October 2026, and should help reduce some problem loan balances. In the meantime, producers should closely monitor working capital, manage short‑term debt carefully, and continue the sound production, marketing, and risk‑management practices they already have in place. Overall, while reliance on non‑real estate credit has increased, rising input costs, higher interest rates, and income variability are placing added pressure on farm finances, making proactive financial management especially important in the months ahead.



Figure&nbsp;1. Non-Real Estate Farm Debt from 2023 Q1- 2025 Q4 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1458" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.21.1-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43959" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.21.1-scaled.png 2560w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.21.1-1024x583.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.21.1-768x437.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.21.1-1536x875.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.21.1-2048x1166.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council</figcaption></figure>



References



Martinez, Charley, and Haylee Ferguson. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2022/07/current-non-real-estate-farm-debt/">Current Non-Real Estate Farm Debt</a>“.&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;2(30.3). July 20, 2022.&nbsp;<a href="http://current-non-real-estate-farm-debt/">Permalink</a>



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



Martinez, Charley, Mason Collins, and Eli Mundy. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/check-in-on-current-non-real-estate-farm-debt/">Check in on Current Non-Real Estate Farm Debt</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(21.1). May 18, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/check-in-on-current-non-real-estate-farm-debt/">Permalink</a>

Check in on Current Non-Real Estate Farm Debt

Authors: An-Ting Liao (Graduate Research Assistant, TAMU) &amp; Chrystol Thomas (Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, AgriLife Extension)



Agriculture is a critical pillar of economic activity in rural communities, driving employment, income stability, and local economic development (Unjia et al., 2024). Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and digital twins present new opportunities for businesses, enabling improvements in performance and competitiveness. As agricultural systems continue to evolve, rural communities cannot be left behind. Adopting digital technologies is essential for sustaining agribusiness, including farming, food processing, and distribution, and for supporting future community development.



AI and digital technologies offer substantial opportunities to improve agribusiness operations (Cavazza et al., 2023). AI systems can enhance business processes by optimizing transactions,&nbsp;refining pricing strategies, and improving supply chain coordination through real time data analysis. For example, digital twins enable the creation of virtual farm models that allow producers to simulate different scenarios and evaluate potential outcomes before making operational decisions(Verdouw et al., 2021). Machine learning applications can also be used to predict crop yields, analyze weather patterns, and forecast market demand fluctuations, enabling more informed and timely decision making. Generative AI tools such as Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini, and similar tools can support agribusiness operations by enhancing decision-making, facilitating market analysis, and improving access to information. Empirical evidence suggests that agribusinesses adopting these technologies can achieve higher operational efficiency, reduce input costs, and improve long term financial performance&nbsp;(Yuan et al., 2025). In addition, by integrating AI tools into production and management systems, rural agribusinesses also enhance their adaptability and resilience in a competitive and dynamic market environment.



However, rural agribusinesses are likely to face challenges in adopting advanced technologies. Limited financial capital remains a primary barrier, as small and medium sized enterprises typically lack the resources required for initial investments in digital infrastructure, software, and system maintenance (Gálvez Nogales and Casari, 2023). In addition, technical capacity constraints and limited digital infrastructure restrict rural agribusiness’s ability to implement and manage AI tools effectively, as many rural counties still experience unreliable connectivity.&nbsp;Demographic factors also contribute to these challenges, as rural areas often face shortages of younger, technologically skilled workers due to outmigration. Furthermore, there is limited awareness and training related to AI applications among agribusiness operators, reducing their ability to integrate these tools into operations (Udoh et al., 2025).&nbsp;



Addressing barriers to technology adoption requires accessible resources, targeted strategies, and institutional collaboration. The growing availability of free or low-cost digital tools and AI platforms provides rural agribusinesses with entry for integrating technology into their operations. Strengthening digital literacy and workforce training is essential for effective use, while embedding digital technologies into daily practices supports gradual and sustainable adoption. Collaboration with academic institutions, including cooperative extension services and land-grant universities, also play a key role in building local capacity through technical assistance, training, and research-based support (Jaiswal et al., 2025). These efforts further strengthen efficiency, profitability, and resilience in agribusiness systems, reinforcing the long-term competitiveness and sustainability of rural communities.



References



Cavazza, A., Dal Mas, F., Paoloni, P., &amp; Manzo, M. 2023. Artificial intelligence and new business models in agriculture: A structured literature review and future research agenda. British Food Journal, 125(13), 436–461.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2023-0132">https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-02-2023-0132</a>.



Gálvez Nogales, E., &amp; Casari, G. 2023. Promoting the digitalization of small and medium-sized agrifood enterprises in Asia and the Pacific. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.4060/cc8826en">https://doi.org/10.4060/cc8826en</a>.



Jaiswal, N., Phukan, P., Ramsem, P. A., Vyas, D., Tamgale, G. S., Verma, A. K., Singh, G., Kumari, R., Ribadiya, N. K., &amp; Singh, J. (2025). Bridging the gap: The role of agricultural extension in knowledge transfer and rural development. Plant Archives.



Unjia, Y., Padaliya, S., Agrawat, Y., &amp; Padaliya, M. 2024. Rural development and agribusiness integration. In Agribusiness management. Routledge.



Udoh, F. E., Udom, U. G., &amp; Udo, U. A. 2025. Awareness, perception and adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies among agricultural entrepreneurs in Nigeria. International Journal of Contemporary Africa Research Network, 3(2).&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo</a>.



Verdouw, C., Tekinerdogan, B., Beulens, A., &amp; Wolfert, S. 2021. Digital twins in smart farming. Agricultural Systems, 189, 103046.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103046">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103046</a>.



Yuan, Y., Wu, H., &amp; Shen, Y. 2025. Achieve sustainable operation of agricultural enterprises: Improving agribusiness performance through digital transformation. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 9, 1547358.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1547358">https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1547358</a>.



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



Liao, An-Ting, and Chrystol Thomas. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/incorporating-ai-and-digital-technologies-opportunities-and-challenges-for-rural-counties/">Incorporating AI and Digital Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges for Rural Counties</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(20.5). May 15, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/incorporating-ai-and-digital-technologies-opportunities-and-challenges-for-rural-counties/">Permalink</a>

Incorporating AI and Digital Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges for Rural Counties

Authors: Joe Outlaw and Bart L. Fischer



Anyone who ever worked out on a treadmill at a gym—or purchased their own for home use—knows just how unpleasant walking or running on a treadmill can be.&nbsp;&nbsp;For most of us, it is the rare combination of boring and monotonous, staring at yourself in a mirror while walking or running in place.&nbsp;



While the agricultural technology treadmill is neither boring nor monotonous for farmers, it’s currently just as unpleasant.&nbsp;&nbsp;In his 1958 book&nbsp;Farm Prices: Myth and Reality, renowned agricultural economist Willard Cochrane first introduced the concept of the &#8220;technology treadmill&#8221; (or agricultural treadmill).&nbsp;&nbsp;According to Cochrane, early adopters of agricultural technology do so to lower production costs and increase profits, only to see widespread adoption of the technology causing an increase in supply that drives down market prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;All remaining farmers are forced to adopt the new technology just to survive, trapping them on a &#8220;treadmill&#8221; where they must continuously adopt the latest technology in hopes of becoming profitable again. The alternative is getting off the treadmill…and going out of business.



One doesn’t have to look very hard to see this playing out in real life. U.S. farmers have continuously adopted new seed, labor-saving, fuel-saving, time-saving, and many other types of technologies in the name of lower costs and higher profits.&nbsp;&nbsp;In the case of seed technology alone, tremendous innovation has increased yields which, in some years, have offset lower prices and provided an opportunity to break-even or better.&nbsp;&nbsp;At the same time, farmers continue to get off the treadmill and the number of farms in this country continues to decline. The main question is this: can this go on forever?



Given the current cost-price squeeze in agriculture—and when weighing the cost of technology against the value of agricultural commodities—the benefits of adopting technology seemingly are not there anymore.  However, technology providers are shielded from this reality as the Federal government provides ad hoc assistance to keep producers from falling off the treadmill.  As Congress works to reauthorize the farm bill, we keep coming back to one solution (albeit not a silver bullet):  continue the shift back to standing farm policy that provides risk management without guaranteeing outcomes.  As farmers face this risk, input suppliers must face it as well and must come to terms with the cost of their products and producer’s ability to pay for them. 



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



Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/14/the-ag-technology-treadmill-is-about-as-fun-as-the-one-at-the-gym/">The Ag Technology Treadmill is About as Fun as the One at the Gym</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(20.4). May 14, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/14/the-ag-technology-treadmill-is-about-as-fun-as-the-one-at-the-gym/">Permalink</a>

The Ag Technology Treadmill is About as Fun as the One at the Gym

Authors: Hunter D. Biram and H. Scott Stiles



The USDA’s World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB) released the monthly report of World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) on May 12th. That report contained the first forecasts for the 2026-27 marketing year. The following are some of the highlights of that report.



Soybeans



New crop, 2026 soybean production is forecast at 4.435 billion bushels, reflecting an average yield of 53 bushels and 83.7 million harvested acres. For its initial production estimates, USDA has traditionally used the March&nbsp;Prospective Plantings&nbsp;acreage estimate and the trend-yield assumption used at the February Ag Outlook Forum.&nbsp;&nbsp;Total consumption for the 2026 crop is expected to increase 218 million bushels to 4.49 billion on record crush (2.75 billion bu.) and modest improvement in exports (1.63 billion bu.).&nbsp;&nbsp;This places year-ending stocks at 310 million bushels, down from 340 million in the current year. The marketing year average farm price for the 2026 crop is projected at $11.40 compared to $10.40 in 2025-26.



Corn



The 2026-27 corn crop is projected at 16.0 billion bushels, down 6 percent from last year’s record crop on declines in both acreage and yield. Planted acres of 95.3 million acres are projected to be down 3.5 million. The yield projection of 183.0 bushels per acre is based on a weather adjusted trend assuming normal planting progress and summer growing season weather. Total corn supplies are seen declining 2 percent to 18.1 billion bushels. Total U.S. corn use for 2026/27 is forecast to fall 2 percent relative to a year ago on reductions in domestic use and exports. Food, seed, and industrial use is forecast flat at 6.955 billion bushels. Feed and residual use is projected down 100 million bushels to 6.1 billion bushels on lower production and higher prices. U.S. corn exports for 2026/27 are forecast to decline 150 million bushels from a year ago to 3.15 billion bushels. Driven by lower production, 2026-27 ending stocks are expected to decline 185 million bushels to 1.957 billion. The 2026-27 season-average farm price is projected at $4.40 per bushel, up 25 cents from $4.15 in the current marketing year.



Cotton



The May U.S. cotton 2026-27 projections include a smaller crop, an increase in exports, unchanged mill use and lower ending stocks compared with the 2025-26 season. New crop production is expected to be 13.3 million bales, 600,000 bales less than in 2025-26. Domestic mill use is expected to be flat year-to-year at 1.6 million. Exports are expected to increase 300,000 bales to 12.3 million bales from 12 million in 2025-26.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ending stocks are expected to decrease to 3.9 million bales from 4.4 million in 2025-26. That is the least since 3.15 million in 2023-24 and below the 10-year average of 4.25 million bales. The forecast average price of 73 cents for the 2026-27 marketing year is up considerably compared to 63 cents for the 2025-26 crop.



Long-Grain Rice



U.S. long-grain production is projected at 122.5 million cwt, down 20 percent from last year on reduced acreage. This would be the smallest long-grain crop since 2011.&nbsp;&nbsp;Total supply is forecast at 201.1 million cwt, down nearly 12 percent from last year on lower production. Total use is projected at 173.0 million cwt, down from 188 million in the current year. Total exports are projected at 50 million cwt, down 1.0 million cwt from 2025-26, on continued strong global competition and higher U.S. long-grain prices. Domestic use is forecast at 123 million cwt., down 14 million from 2025-26.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ending stocks are projected at 28.1 million cwt, down 29 percent from last year and the lowest since 2023-24. The 2026-27 season average farm price for long-grain is projected at $12.00 per cwt, up from $10.40 in 2025-26.&nbsp;



There and Back Again



Season-average farm prices (SAFP) for southern crops are projected to increase between 6-16% compared to the 2025/2026 marketing year (Table 1). Notably, corn and soybeans are projected to increase by 6% and 9.6%, respectively, with new crop soybeans projected $1.00 per bushel higher than last marketing year and the highest since 2023/2024 marketing year. Long grain rice and cotton are projected to increase the most at 15.9% and 15.4%, respectively. However, even with year-over-year increases, breakeven yields for the new crop exceed that of the national average projected yield for the 2026/2027 marketing year. National breakeven yields, using the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns">USDA cost of production forecasts</a>, for corn, cotton, and long grain rice are 35%, 53%, and 44% above the current yield expectation while soybeans have a breakeven yield that is 12% above expectation.&nbsp;



Historical price movements over the 1996-2025 period suggest that new crop prices tend to fall 5-10% between the release of the May WASDE report and the end of a typical harvest season with some price declines as low as 15% (Figure 1). We note that while prices do tend to move lower into harvest on average, summer markets are often volatile as traders often respond to weather developments and resulting changes to yield expectations (Gardner and Biram, 2023). Often, new crop contracts establish seasonal highs in late June into July before declining into harvest reflecting a weather risk premium (Biram and Loy, 2024; Bhattarai et al., 2026).It is important that farmers consider leveraging appropriate price risk management tools, such as forward contracts, to lock in some price upside prior to harvest (<a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/2025/06/11/how-can-crop-marketing-and-crop-insurance-go-together/">Biram, McKenzie, and Bhattarai, 2025</a>;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/a-new-year-a-better-marketing-plan-for-the-farm/">Maples, 2026</a>; and&nbsp;<a href="http://price-seasonality-what-the-pattern-shows/">Gardner, 2026</a>).



The complete May 2026 WASDE report can be found at this&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0526.pdf">link</a>.



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6">Table 1. Year-over-year changes in season-average farm prices and associated breakeven yields</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>SAFP (25/26)</td><td>SAFP (26/27)</td><td>%Δ in SAFP</td><td>Breakeven Yield (26/27)</td><td>National Average Yield (26/27)</td></tr><tr><td>Corn</td><td>$4.15/bu</td><td>$4.40/bu</td><td>+6.0%</td><td>247.1 bu/acre</td><td>183 bu/acre</td></tr><tr><td>Cotton</td><td>$0.63/lb</td><td>$0.73/lb</td><td>+15.9%</td><td>1,322.5 lb/acre</td><td>866 bu/acre</td></tr><tr><td>Long Grain Rice*</td><td>$4.69/bu</td><td>$5.41/bu</td><td>+15.4%</td><td>247.1 bu/acre</td><td>171.8 bu/acre</td></tr><tr><td>Soybeans</td><td>$10.40/bu</td><td>$11.40/bu</td><td>+9.6%</td><td>59.5 bu/acre</td><td>53 bu/acre</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">*Note: Projected yield for Long Grain Rice is based on the new crop projected yield for All-Rice. The latest estimated Long Grain Rice yield is 163.5 bushels per acre for the 2025/26 marketing year. The SAFP is converted from cwt to bushel by dividing the price per cwt by 2.22.</figcaption></figure>



Figure 1. Change in Harvest Month Futures Price Relative to Date of May WASDE (1996-2025)



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="936" height="486" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.20.3-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43947" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.20.3-1.png 936w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.20.3-1-768x399.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 936px) 100vw, 936px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Barchart.com (2026)</figcaption></figure>



References



Bhattarai, Chandan, Andrew McKenzie, Hunter Biram, Jesse Tack, and Alvaro Durand‐Morat. &#8220;<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jaa2.70040">Risk return of forward contracting corn with crop insurance.</a>&#8221; Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (2026).



Biram, Hunter, and Ryan Loy. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/05/012/may-wasde-projects-higher-supplies-and-lower-prices-again-in-2024/">May WASDE Projects Higher Supplies and Lower Prices Again in 2024.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;4(20.1). May 13, 2024.&nbsp;<a href="http://may-wasde-projects-higher-supplies-and-lower-prices-again-in-2024/">Permalink</a>



Biram, Hunter, Andrew M. McKenzie, and Chanda Bhattrai. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/05/21/how-can-crop-marketing-and-crop-insurance-go-together/">How can crop marketing and crop insurance go together?</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;5(24.3). June 11, 2025.&nbsp;<a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/2025/06/11/how-can-crop-marketing-and-crop-insurance-go-together/">Permalink</a>



Gardner, Grant. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/01/22/price-seasonality-what-the-pattern-shows/">Price Seasonality: What the Pattern Shows.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;6(6.3). February 4, 2026.&nbsp;<a href="http://price-seasonality-what-the-pattern-shows/">Permalink</a>



Gardner, Grant, and Hunter Biram. “USDA Acreage Report Results: Price and Crop Insurance Impacts.” Southern Ag Today. July 3, 2023.&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2023/07/03/usda-acreage-report-results-price-and-crop-insurance-impacts/">Permalink</a>



Maples, Will. “<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>”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>



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



Biram, Hunter, and H. Scott Stiles. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/13/may-2026-wasde-highlights-for-u-s-supply-and-demand-and-implications-for-price-risk-management/">May 2026 WASDE Highlights for U.S. Supply and Demand and Implications for Price Risk Management.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(20.3). May 13, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/13/may-2026-wasde-highlights-for-u-s-supply-and-demand-and-implications-for-price-risk-management/">Permalink</a>

May 2026 WASDE Highlights for U.S. Supply and Demand and Implications for Price Risk Management

Authors: Josh Maples and David Anderson



Through the first quarter of 2026, the U.S. imported 1.7 billion pounds of beef, which is up more than 15 percent from the same period last year. Beef exports fell nearly 18 percent to 586 million pounds. Both trends reflect the tight U.S. cattle herd and high domestic beef prices.



South Korea and Japan together accounted for nearly half of all U.S. beef exports but have both declined, down 7 percent and 17 percent, respectively. Mexico and Canada, the third and fourth largest destinations, each declined around 8 percent, while Taiwan was the lone increase among major markets, up nearly 8 percent. Exports to China during the first three months of 2026 totaled only 5.3 million pounds, down 95 percent from a year ago and a dramatic reversal from recent years when China was among the top U.S. beef markets.



On the import side, the U.S. imported 1.7 billion pounds through the first quarter, up 15.3 percent year over year. Brazil leads all import sources with 394 million pounds, up 8 percent.&nbsp;&nbsp;The majority of those shipments entered at the higher out-of-quota tariff rate of 26.4 percent after the “Other Countries” annual quota was filled within the first week of 2026. Australia posted a 12 percent gain to 334 million pounds. The largest gain among major suppliers came from Mexico, up 23 percent to 197 million pounds. It’s likely that some increase in beef imports from Mexico are due to the border closure to feeder cattle, leading to increased beef production in Mexico, boosting their exportable supplies. Argentina ranked sixth among suppliers at 3.6 percent of total imports despite shipments nearly doubling year over year.



USDA currently projects 2026 will set another annual import record. Tight domestic cattle supplies and strong beef demand are expected to keep imports elevated and exports under pressure well into 2026. The May 11thannouncement of suspension of the tariff rate quotas for beef, effectively reducing import tariff levels, could lead to even higher beef import totals. It’s worth remembering that the majority of beef imports are lean beef trimmings for ground beef so any potential impacts of more imports due to TRQ related tariffs would fall on trimmings and cull cow markets. But, even then, price impacts are expected to be limited.&nbsp;&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="408" height="271" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.20.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43934"/></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="408" height="276" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.20.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43935"/></figure>



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



Maples, Josh, and David Anderson. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/u-s-beef-imports-hit-record-pace-as-exports-drop/">U.S. Beef Imports Hit Record Pace as Exports Drop.&#8221;</a> Southern Ag Today 6(20.2). May 12, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/u-s-beef-imports-hit-record-pace-as-exports-drop/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities