Environmental plaintiffs are seeking summary judgment in a lawsuit they filed in 2023 to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) 2022 decision to register the pesticides Enlist One and Enlist Duo for use through January 2029. Specifically, the plaintiffs have asked the court to revoke the labels for both Enlist products, a move that would make both products unavailable for use.



Both Enlist One and Enlist Duo are herbicide products manufactured and sold by Corteva Agriscience LLC. Both products contain as an active ingredient the choline salt of 2,4-dichlogophenoxyacetic acid, otherwise known as 2,4-D. Enlist Duo also includes glyphosate as a second active ingredient. Enlist One and Enlist Duo have both been approved for use on 2,4-D resistant corn, soybean, and cotton crops in 34 states.&nbsp;



A pesticide may not be sold or distributed in the United States until EPA registers the pesticide for use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). To register a pesticide, FIFRA requires EPA to determine that using the pesticide for its intended purpose will not cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” which is defined as “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of the pesticide.” In other words, FIFRA requires EPA to register a pesticide for use only if the agency has determined that the costs of using the pesticide in its intended manner do not outweigh the benefits.



When EPA registered Enlist One and Enlist Duo for use in 2022, the agency concluded that one of the main benefits of using Enlist products was the products’ effectiveness against herbicide-resistant broadleaf weeds in cotton and soybean crops. EPA also identified certain environmental risks such as potential harm to pollinators, pollinator host plants such as milkweed, and other wildlife species. To address those risks, EPA included additional application requirements on the Enlist labels to reduce the amount of 2,4-D that could travel off target via spray drift or runoff. Those measures included a 30-foot spray drift buffer and a requirement that Enlist applicators select mitigation measures from a “pick list” developed by EPA for the purpose of limiting pesticide exposure to wildlife. Each mitigation measure is assigned a point value, and to apply Enlist One or Enlist Duo, applicators will need to achieve four to six points of runoff mitigation depending on their location. To learn more about EPA’s mitigation “pick list” for herbicides, click&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/epa-publishes-highly-anticipated-final-herbicide-strategy/">here</a>.



The plaintiffs in&nbsp;Ctr. For Food Safety v. Envtl. Protection Agency&nbsp;filed a motion for summary judgment with the court in late August.&nbsp;&nbsp;In that motion, the plaintiffs argue that EPA did not satisfy FIFRA’s “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” standard when registering Enlist One and Enlist Duo because EPA (1) understated or ignored important costs to the environment; (2) overstated alleged benefits; and (3) improperly relied on ineffective mitigation.



First, the plaintiffs argue that EPA’s 2022 registration failed to fully analyze the environmental costs posed by use of Enlist products. According to the plaintiffs, when EPA drafted its 2022 registration decision it failed to evaluate current usage data for Enlist products. Instead, EPA relied on Enlist use data from 2018 and 2019 which the plaintiffs claim was before the widespread adoption of Enlist products. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue that EPA failed to consider the future use of Enlist which the plaintiffs claim will continue to increase during the seven-year registration period. By failing to consider the actual amount of Enlist products that would be applied during the registration period, the plaintiffs claim that EPA understated the environmental costs posed by Enlist.&nbsp;



Next, the plaintiffs argued that EPA overstated the benefits of using Enlist One and Enlist Duo by exaggerating the effectiveness of Enlist products on herbicide-resistant weeds. The plaintiffs claim that although EPA suggests using Enlist with other pesticides or weed management tools to avoid contributing to the likelihood of increased herbicide resistance, evidence indicates that many applicators use Enlist products as their sole method of controlling glyphosate-resistant weeds. According to the plaintiffs, this increases the likelihood that weeds will grow more resistant to herbicides, which EPA failed to address when registering the pesticides.



Lastly, the plaintiffs claim that the mitigation measures that EPA added to the Enlist labels fail to effectively mitigate the adverse effects that Enlist One and Enlist Duo have on the environment. The mitigation measures stem from a new policy that EPA has adopted to limit the impacts of pesticide exposure to species of wildlife protected by the Endangered Species Act. Enlist One and Enlist Duo were some of the first products to have new mitigation measures added to their labels as a result of this policy. The mitigations for Enlist include a 30-foot spray drift buffer and a requirement that applicators achieve four to six points of runoff reduction by selecting one or more mitigation activities from a “pick list” developed by EPA.&nbsp;



According to the plaintiffs, EPA’s reliance on a 30-foot drift buffer is contrary to evidence showing that 2,4-D can drift further off target. The plaintiffs also argue that the runoff mitigation measures identified by EPA do not effectively reduce pesticide runoff. They claim that most farmers that use Enlist products would not have to make any changes to their applications to achieve the required number of runoff points. Therefore, the plaintiffs argue that the spray drift and runoff mitigation measures do not effectively reduce the adverse effects that Enlist One and Enlist Duo have on the environment.



In filing a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs have asked the court to overturn the 2022 Enlist labels. If the court does so, it would likely result in neither product remaining available for use. Additionally, the court’s ruling in this case could have broader implications for EPA’s new mitigation policy. If the court agrees with the plaintiffs that the spray drift and runoff mitigations do not satisfy FIFRA, that could impact other pesticide labels that include mitigation measures based on EPA’s policy. However, should the court disagree with the plaintiffs and find that the mitigation measures meet the FIFRA “adverse effects on the environment” standard, that would suggest that other pesticide labels with similar mitigation measures could also survive a legal challenge. Ultimately, the outcome of this court case could have effects that are felt throughout the agricultural industry. To learn more about this lawsuit, click&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/lawsuit-challenges-registration-of-enlist-one-and-enlist-duo/">here</a>.



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



Rollins, Brigit. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/11/03/court-asked-to-overturn-registrations-for-enlist-one-and-enlist-duo/">Court Asked to Overturn Registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(45.5). November 7, 2025. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/11/03/court-asked-to-overturn-registrations-for-enlist-one-and-enlist-duo/">Permalink</a>

Court Asked to Overturn Registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo

Over the past few months, we have been asked by producers on multiple occasions…since the ARC and PLC programs aren’t going to help very much why don’t we just forget it and use the money on crop insurance that does help?&nbsp;&nbsp;This article contains the answer we typically give to that question.&nbsp;



First, remember that the producer safety net is made of three parts: ARC and PLC, marketing assistance loans, and crop insurance.&nbsp;&nbsp;Over the past few years, ARC and PLC have not kept up in trying to offset producer losses that have occurred because of low commodity prices and extremely high costs of production.&nbsp;&nbsp;The marketing assistance loan program provides a harvest time loan to producers who need the cash flow but do not want to sell at harvest, which is typically the lowest prices of the year.&nbsp;&nbsp;Not all producers utilize the marketing assistance loan program; however, in the South, cotton producers have routinely used this program.&nbsp;&nbsp;At the same time, producers have reported that crop insurance programs (especially revenue insurance) have been a very useful safety net for their operations and that crop insurance was the most important part of the safety net.&nbsp;&nbsp;We cannot disagree with this assertation.&nbsp;



However, going forward, the One Big Beautiful Bill significantly increased reference prices used in both ARC and PLC while changes were made to the ARC program that will trigger payments sooner while covering bigger potential losses.&nbsp;&nbsp;These changes will help increase the value of ARC and PLC to producers.&nbsp;&nbsp;At the same time, in the current low-price environment, crop insurance will become relatively less helpful as insurance prices—which are based on a month of futures market daily closing values—are likely to be significantly lower than producers’ costs of production.&nbsp;&nbsp;Losses will still be covered; however, producers will be indemnified at levels far below recent years because the futures market prices are low.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;



The good news in all of this is when market prices eventually rise, insurance prices will rise with them.&nbsp;&nbsp;With higher prices, the ARC and PLC program will be less likely to trigger assistance.&nbsp;&nbsp;The marketing assistance loan program will still be useful to offer storage loans to allow producers to pay their bills while waiting for prices to increase.&nbsp;&nbsp;In this situation, what we see is that each of the three parts of the producer safety net are important and are designed to complement one another, but there will be times when each are relatively more important.



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



Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/11/03/a-reminder-that-all-three-parts-of-the-producer-safety-net-matter/">A Reminder That All Three Parts of the Producer Safety Net Matter.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(45.4). November 6, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42928">Permalink</a>

A Reminder That All Three Parts of the Producer Safety Net Matter

Following strong prices in 2022 and 2023, soybean values have fallen sharply from highs above $14 per bushel to current levels near $10.00 across much of the United States. While prices have recently rebounded on news of renewed Chinese buying, soybeans are still projected to generate negative returns during the 2025/26 marketing year. Looking ahead to 2026/27, November 2026 soybean futures are trading near $11.10. Assuming a -$0.50 harvest basis, a trend yield of 55 bushels per acre, and $650 per acre in input costs, estimated returns still imply roughly a $67 per-acre loss.



While it is still early and profitable prices could emerge, the signal remains clear: soybean supply continues to outpace demand at current production levels, and without stronger and sustained demand growth, profitability will remain elusive.



Between 2019 and 2022, U.S. soybeans were split roughly between exports (44%) and domestic crush (47%), with the remainder going to seed, feed, residual use, or ending stocks (Oilseed Yearbook, 2025). Recently, crush expansion has boosted domestic demand, but exports have declined, particularly due to reduced Chinese purchases (Gerlt, 2025). The U.S. recently negotiated a trade agreement under which China will purchase 12 million metric tons (MMT) of U.S. soybeans by January 2026, followed by 25 MMT annually from 2027 through 2029. This level would return Chinese buying close to 2024/25 volumes (Clayton, 2025). While the agreement provides some near-term support, questions remain about fulfillment and what happens beyond 2029.



In the near term, renewed Chinese buying represents the most direct path back to profitability. Crush expansion is important but largely anticipated by markets and will ramp up gradually; it cannot immediately offset recent export weakness. Meanwhile, China remains by far the dominant global buyer: in 2022, China imported more soybeans than all other countries combined, with the rest of the world accounting for just 61% of China’s import value (Figure 1). Over the long run, diversifying export markets can reduce reliance on China and lower price risk, but fully replacing Chinese demand is unrealistic.



Longer-term, continued crush growth provides a pathway to tighter balance sheets. Figure 2 illustrates how expanded crush capacity could increase domestic use even if Chinese purchases do not return to prior highs. Projected crush use climbs steadily after 2025 (Gerlt, 2025), supported by renewable diesel and other biofuel investments that may anchor domestic soybean demand going forward. If exports can stabilize near current projections, or strengthen modestly, the combination of incremental trade growth and rising domestic crush could gradually restore profitability. The recent trade agreement may buy time, but building durable demand outside of China will be essential to a more resilient soybean market beyond 2029.



Figure 1: World Demand for Soybeans Outside of China, 2022



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1430" height="617" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.45.3-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42922" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.45.3-1.png 1430w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.45.3-1-1024x442.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.45.3-1-768x331.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1430px) 100vw, 1430px" /></figure>



Figure 2: Soybean Supply, Demand, and Projected Crush Expansion



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2092" height="954" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-04-at-8.05.41-PM.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42925" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-04-at-8.05.41-PM.png 2092w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-04-at-8.05.41-PM-1024x467.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-04-at-8.05.41-PM-768x350.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-04-at-8.05.41-PM-1536x700.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Screenshot-2025-11-04-at-8.05.41-PM-2048x934.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2092px) 100vw, 2092px" /></figure>



Citations:&nbsp;



Clayton, Chris. “Trump Champions Soy Deal for Farmers.” Progressive Farmer. October 30, 2025. https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2025/10/30/bessent-china-agrees-buy-nearly-1-us



Gardner, Grant. “Major Players in US Trade and Grain Market Volatility.” Southern Ag Today 5(15.3). April 9, 2025. Permalink



Gerlt, Scott. (2025, April 10).&nbsp;Soybean Crush Expansion, 2025 Update. American Soybean Association. Retrieved from&nbsp;<a href="https://soygrowers.com/news-releases/soybean-crush-expansion-2025-update/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">https://soygrowers.com/news-releases/soybean-crush-expansion-2025-update/</a>



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (2025).&nbsp;Oil Crops Yearbook&nbsp;[Data set]. U.S. Department of Agriculture.



World Bank (n.d.).&nbsp;World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS)&nbsp;[Data set]. Accessed via WITS:&nbsp;<a href="https://wits.worldbank.org/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">https://wits.worldbank.org/</a>



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



Gardner, Grant. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/11/03/soybeans-stage-a-comeback-chinese-demand-and-biofuel-growth-lead-the-way/">Soybeans Stage a Comeback: Chinese Demand and Biofuel Growth Lead the Way.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(45.3). November 5, 2025. <a href="http://soybeans-stage-a-comeback-chinese-demand-and-biofuel-growth-lead-the-way">Permalink</a>

Soybeans Stage a Comeback: Chinese Demand and Biofuel Growth Lead the Way

Cattle futures markets remained volatile last week but tended to rebound following the sharp selloff generated by the discussion of plans to lower beef prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;Given a couple of weeks, we now have a better picture of how cattle auction cash prices reacted to the futures market uncertainty.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The CME December Live Cattle contract traded below $224 for part of the day on October 27th, but has since recovered some and is trading above $232 at the time of this writing. This is sharply lower than the $248 price on October 16th. However, it is just a few dollars below the average trading price of the December contract during the month of September ($235.80). Similarly, the CME November Feeder Cattle contract traded below $330 for part of the day on October 28th but has since recovered some and is trading above $342 at the time of this writing. For context, this contract topped $380 on October 16th but averaged $353.72 during trading in September. The market uncertainty over the past few weeks has not crashed the futures market to low levels, but it has erased the rally seen in futures markets over the past month or two.&nbsp;



Most auction markets operate sales one day per week, compared to the futures market that trades every weekday.&nbsp;&nbsp;Local auctions have now had at least one sale since the futures market selloff and rebound, so we have the opportunity to better gauge the local cash market reaction.&nbsp;&nbsp;Auction market prices saw sizable drops last week across the Southeast. The table shows selected averages for various states across the southeast.&nbsp;&nbsp;Prices were lower across all states in the table for both 500-600lb steers and 700-800lb steers. Prices dropped the most in Oklahoma City and in Missouri. Averaging across all states, the value of a 550 lb. steer was about $150 lower per head in the southeast compared to the week prior. The value of a 750 lb. steer was about $120 lower per head. The impacts were certainly larger in some states.&nbsp;



Fed cattle prices also dropped last week. The average live negotiated fed steer price fell $7 per cwt to $230.86, which is the lowest weekly average since the last week of September. Boxed beef cutout values did not decline. The choice cutout was about $7 higher last week and is $12 higher than it was two weeks ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;It’s worth remembering that the cutout reflects the values of the 7 primal cuts weighted by their pounds in the carcass.&nbsp;&nbsp;Imports would largely have more of an impact on lean beef trimmings for ground beef.&nbsp;&nbsp;While some chucks and rounds go into ground beef, along with some sirloins and occasionally some briskets, the impact of more imports might have a more indirect effect on the boxed beef cutout.



There remains significant fundamental strength for cattle markets given the tight supplies of cattle and strong demand for beef. However, the past few weeks have shown that uncertainty can have swift impacts on cattle prices – not only for traders in futures markets but also at cattle auctions in towns across the U.S.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="2">Southeast Cattle&nbsp;Prices Prices&nbsp;$/cwt.&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="3">For Weeks Ending On 10/31/25&nbsp; &nbsp;10/24/25&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;11/1/24</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">%Chg Prev.&nbsp;Week</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">%Chg Prev.&nbsp;Year</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;&nbsp;Chg&nbsp;Prev. Week</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8">500-600lb. Feeder Steers</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Mississippi MIL&nbsp;#1-2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$355.63</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$374.66</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$252.68</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-5%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">41%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($19.03)</td></tr><tr><td>Arkansas&nbsp;MIL#1</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$379.93</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$406.43</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$267.74</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-7%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">42%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($26.50)</td></tr><tr><td>Kentucky&nbsp;MIL#1-2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$370.00</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$396.52</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$267.74</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-7%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">38%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($26.52)</td></tr><tr><td>Oklahoma&nbsp;MIL#1-2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$378.76</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$428.54</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$265.80</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-12%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">42%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($49.78)</td></tr><tr><td>Alabama&nbsp;MIL#1</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$382.54</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$405.10</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$263.25</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-6%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">45%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($22.55)</td></tr><tr><td>Tennessee MIL&nbsp;#1-2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$351.26</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$361.37</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$257.56</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-3%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">36%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($10.11)</td></tr><tr><td>Texas&nbsp; MIL&nbsp;#1-2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$347.73</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$374.21</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$263.65</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-7%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">32%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($26.48)</td></tr><tr><td>Missouri&nbsp;MIL#1-2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$365.08</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$406.06</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$269.15</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-10%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">36%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($40.98)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8">700-800 lb. Feeder Steers</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Mississippi MIL&nbsp;#1-2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$299.22</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$318.83</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$211.66</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-6%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">41%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($19.60)</td></tr><tr><td>Arkansas&nbsp;MIL#1</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$341.16</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$355.77</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$226.06</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;-4%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">51%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($14.61)</td></tr><tr><td>Kentucky&nbsp;MIL#1-2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$332.35</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$341.63</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$238.65</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-3%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">39%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($9.27)</td></tr><tr><td>Oklahoma&nbsp;MIL#1-2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$334.26</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$356.95</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$246.09</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-6%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">36%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($22.69)</td></tr><tr><td>Alabama&nbsp;MIL#1</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$327.36</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$333.72</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$231.67</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-2%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">41%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($6.36)</td></tr><tr><td>Tennessee MIL&nbsp;#1-2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$315.63</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$322.00</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$226.65</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-2%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">39%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($6.37)</td></tr><tr><td>Texas&nbsp; MIL&nbsp;#1-2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$312.50</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$334.24</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$241.60</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-7%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">29%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($21.74)</td></tr><tr><td>Missouri&nbsp;MIL#1-2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$334.58</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$362.91</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$240.18</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-8%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">39%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($28.33)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Negotiated Fed Steers</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Live&nbsp;Price</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$230.86</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$237.89</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$189.82</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-3%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">22%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($7.03)</td></tr><tr><td>Dressed&nbsp;Price</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$358.54</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$369.30</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$296.97</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-3%&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">21%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">($10.76)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Boxed&nbsp;Beef Cutout</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Choice&nbsp;Value, 600-900&nbsp;lb.</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$379.06</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$372.13</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$319.50</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">19%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$6.93</td></tr><tr><td>Select&nbsp;Value, 600-900&nbsp;lb.</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$360.32</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$354.47</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$288.37</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">25%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$5.85</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Sources: USDA,&nbsp;LMIC,&nbsp;and&nbsp;CME</figcaption></figure>



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



Maples, Josh. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/11/03/cattle-auction-prices-follow-futures-prices-lower/">Cattle Auction Prices Follow Futures Prices Lower.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(45.2). November 4, 2025. <a href="http://cattle-auction-prices-follow-futures-prices-lower">Permalink</a>

Cattle Auction Prices Follow Futures Prices Lower

Row crop producers across the country are feeling the financial squeeze. High input costs and low commodity prices are tightening profit margins, and the outlook for 2026 offers little relief. With limited optimism for lower costs or stronger commodity prices, many row crop farmers are exploring new income streams to keep their operations profitable. One option gaining traction is contract grazing—custom growing cattle for someone else.



This arrangement allows farmers with available land and suitable forage to generate income without the expense of owning cattle. It’s a practical way to put available acreage to work, diversify income, and reduce risk in uncertain times.



Evaluating Resources



Before entering a contract grazing arrangement, it’s essential to evaluate your available resources. Key considerations include:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Fencing – Assess the condition of existing fences, estimate the cost of repairs or new construction.</li>



<li>Cattle-handling facilities – Adequate corrals, chutes, and working areas are necessary for safe and efficient receiving and shipping of cattle on your property.</li>



<li>Feed and water systems – Ensure water quality and quantity meet livestock needs throughout the grazing season.</li>



<li>Accessibility – Many stocker operations move truckload lots of cattle (typically 50,000 pounds), so all-weather access roads are important.</li>
</ul>



This list isn’t exhaustive but highlights key infrastructure requirements that can determine the feasibility of a grazing enterprise.



Integrating Grazing with Crop Land



For row crop producers, contract grazing can complement existing cropping systems rather than replace them. Fields used for row crops can often support grazing through cover crops, winter annual forages, or dedicated hay and grazing acres. Common options include small grains such as wheat, oats, or rye, as well as annual forages like ryegrass or haygrazer. These forages can fit naturally between summer cash crops, making use of otherwise idle land during the off-season.



Integrating livestock grazing into crop rotations offers several potential benefits, including improved soil health, enhanced nutrient cycling, and reduced weed and residue management costs. Grazing cover crops can also help capture and recycle nutrients while adding an additional income stream through a grazing contract.



However, shifting to a mixed crop-livestock system requires careful planning. Farmers must consider planting and termination dates, soil compaction risks, and the potential impact on subsequent crops. When managed properly, the combination of row crops and grazing livestock can strengthen overall system resilience and profitability.



Experience and Cattle Management



Experience with cattle is another critical factor. Owners are unlikely to place animals with someone lacking livestock management experience. It’s essential to understand the type of cattle involved (e.g., stockers, heifers, cows, or cow-calf pairs) and how to manage each group effectively.



The source and history of the cattle also matter. Animals from multiple origins may pose higher management challenges or disease risks, requiring more experience and attention to detail. If contract grazing becomes a long-term enterprise, building trust and credibility within the local cattle community is vital for success.



Forage, Feed, and Water Management



Grazing is typically the most cost-effective feeding strategy, but weather and seasonal changes can reduce forage availability. Successful contract growers plan ahead by maintaining supplemental feed supplies or developing alternative forage options.



Water management is equally important. Cattle spend more time grazing near water, so the placement of water sources directly influences pasture use. Strategically positioned water sources encourage more uniform grazing, support pasture health, and improve overall livestock performance.



Well-maintained infrastructure—including fences, water systems, and forage stands—not only keeps cattle secure but also enhances the efficiency and profitability of the operation.



The Importance of a Written Contract



A clear, written contract protects both the grower and the cattle owner, helping to ensure that expectations are understood from the start. Key elements to include are:



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>Parties involved – Names and contact details of both the grower and owner.</li>



<li>Property description – Location, acreage, and pasture details.</li>



<li>Contract duration – Start and end dates, or total grazing period.</li>



<li>Animal details – Type, number, and starting weights of cattle.</li>



<li>Responsibilities – Who provides veterinary care, feed, insurance, and transportation.</li>



<li>Death losses – Agreement on how death losses are handled.</li>



<li>Payment terms – Fee structure and schedule (daily rate, per-pound-of-gain, or revenue share).</li>



<li>Termination clause – Conditions under which the agreement can end.</li>
</ol>



Determining Payment and Cost Responsibilities



Payment structures vary depending on the type of cattle and management objectives. A daily rate is often used for breeding stock, while per-pound-of-gain agreements fit well for stocker cattle. Some operations also use a revenue-sharing model, dividing sale proceeds at the end of the grazing period.



Before agreeing on rates, both parties should have a clear understanding of their financial boundaries. Growers must calculate total costs—which include feed, labor, maintenance, and management—then add a fair return on investment. Cattle owners should estimate the expected value of gain to determine what they can afford to pay.



In addition to the key elements above, details are critical. Contracts should clearly define:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Feed responsibilities – Who provides supplemental feed during droughts or shortages.</li>



<li>Stocking rates – Number or weight of cattle per acre, with flexibility for weather-related events.</li>



<li>Shared costs – How expenses like mineral supplements, fly control, and veterinary treatments will be handled.</li>
</ul>



A Flexible Tool for Changing Times



Contract grazing won’t solve every financial challenge, but it can be a smart, flexible strategy for producers looking to adapt. It spreads production risk, reduces capital requirements, and makes productive use of existing land and infrastructure.



In today’s uncertain agricultural economy, creativity and collaboration matter more than ever. For some operations, contract grazing may provide the bridge between tight margins and long-term financial resilience.



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



Adapted from “Contract Growing Cattle Considerations,” University of Tennessee Extension Publication W1337. Available at https://utbeef.tennessee.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/127/2025/10/W1337.pdf.



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



Runge, Max. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/10/21/contract-grazing-a-flexible-option-for-row-crop-producers/">Contract Grazing: A Flexible Option for Row Crop Producers.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(45.1). November 3, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42893">Permalink</a>

Contract Grazing: A Flexible Option for Row Crop Producers

Somewhere between land use issues and clean energy initiatives lies a growing battleground for land, power, water, and innovation. Just west of Washington, D.C., Virginia’s Prince William County aims to lay claim to the world’s largest data center corridor. Known as the Digital Gateway project, over 2,000 acres of rural, agricultural, and undeveloped land are proposed to host 37 data centers, spanning a total of 22 to 23 million square feet. In early August, a decision from Prince William County’s Circuit Court Judge voided three rezonings for the proposed project for failure to comply with Virginia’s public hearing notice requirements. The Court has also since denied a stay pending the county’s appeal.&nbsp;Oak Valley HOA v. Prince William County Board of Supervisors, CL24000375-00 (Op. Aug. 7, 2025).



Just south of the proposed Prince William project, another data center project is well underway north of Richmond in Caroline County. This 650-acre project valued at $8.8B is planned on the site of a shuttered indoor/outdoor flea market. While this project seems to have cleared land use hurdles, it is facing water usage concerns as a result of a plan for surface water withdrawal and an interbasin transfer of water from the Rappahannock River to the Mattaponi River via two existing wastewater treatment plants and discharging into the York River Basin.&nbsp;Caroline County Board of Supervisors. (n.d.) Statement on Caroline County Board of Supervisors’ Approval of Economic Development Performance Agreement with CleanArc.&nbsp;Development Updates, Caroline County VA.&nbsp;<a href="https://co.caroline.va.us/215/Development-Updates">https://co.caroline.va.us/215/Development-Updates</a>.



Meanwhile, neighboring West Virginia’s legislature has pursued policy efforts aimed at attracting data center developers. “The Power Generation and Consumption Act of 2025” (the “Act”), enacted in July of this year, shifts the governance of data centers away from counties and municipalities to centralized state control, positing that national security and economic growth are fundamental grounds for state control. The Act emphasizes that data center projects, along with their accompanying microgrids, are the prerogative of the state. Furthermore, it asserts that West Virginia is the best candidate state for data center development in the U.S., citing low tax rates, few regulatory restrictions, and abundant energy resources.&nbsp;



Days after Governor Patrick Morrisey signed West Virginia’s Act into law, Virginia’s Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed identical bipartisan bills that would have required developer applicants to perform sound level assessments on data centers proposed in close proximity to communities. Additionally, the bills granted localities the ability to require that new development applicants assess potential effects on the nearby public resources. S.B. 1449, H.B. 1601, 406th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Va. 2025)&nbsp;<a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/">https://lis.virginia.gov</a>, Vetoed (May 2, 2025). Governor Youngkin asserts that the proposed legislation “limits local discretion and creates unnecessary red tape.” Virginia. Governor. May 2, 2025.&nbsp;Veto Explanation for S.B. 1449,&nbsp;<a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/SB1449/text/SB1449VG">https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/SB1449/text/SB1449VG</a>.



In Youngkin’s veto, he also declared&nbsp;Virginia to be the “data center capital of the world,” urging Virginia to not restrict local governments from “developing data centers based on their community&#8217;s specific circumstances.”&nbsp;Id. Youngkin’s veto, following the landmark Act passed in West Virginia, suggests an arms race for data center development between the two Virginias.&nbsp;



A 2024 report from Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) found that data center demand would drive an &#8220;immense increase” in Virginia’s energy needs, resulting in a 183% increase in unconstrained demand. JLARC (2024) “Data Centers in Virginia.” Commonwealth of Virginia.&nbsp;<a href="https://jlarc.virginia.gov/landing-2024-data-centers-in-virginia.asp">https://jlarc.virginia.gov/landing-2024-data-centers-in-virginia.asp</a>. The report found that meeting the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) requirements while meeting the forecasted energy demand of data centers is not a likely outcome. Virginia would need to add twice the number of new solar facilities added on an annual basis compared to 2024, which comes with its own host of land use challenges, both socially and legislatively. The Commonwealth would also need to increase large natural gas plants at equal or faster rates than the peak build period of 2012 &#8211; 2018, and necessary new wind generation would exceed the potential capabilities of all existing and forthcoming offshore wind sites.&nbsp;Id. While states struggle to compete for innovative industries with rewarding economic incentives, land use and resources remain a common hurdle.&nbsp;



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



Friedel, Jennifer S.. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/10/21/land-power-and-computing/">Land, Power, and Computing.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(44.5). October 31, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42888">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities