On the evening of November 27, 2025, the CME’s electronic trading system had a major outage. Trading in corn and soybean futures stopped and then came back before the market opened the next morning. Many farmers and merchandisers wondered whether the first hour after the market reopened looked normal or if it showed signs of stress.This article uses one-minute price and volume data to describe what happened during the first hour of trading on Friday, November 28, 2025.



To understand whether the morning after the outage was unusual, I compared one-minute futures data for the first hour (after the 8:30 a.m. Central Time open) on November 28 against similar data for two simple benchmarks: (i) the previous ten trading days in 2025, and (ii) all trading days in 2025. For each comparison, I looked at how much futures contract prices moved minute-to-minute and how many contracts traded in that hour.&nbsp;For each day, I focused on the main contract with the most trading volume during the daytime session.



For corn, the first hour after the CME came back was far from normal.&nbsp;Table1&nbsp;summarizes how large the first hour was compared with a typical morning. Compared with the previous ten trading days, the amount of price movement was a little more than five times larger than usual, and the total up-and-down movement over the hour was more than three times larger. Trading volume during that first hour was almost nine times the recent ten-day norm. Even when compared with all trading days in 2025, corn still shows very large numbers: more than three times the usual price movement and about ten times the usual first-hour volume. These findings match what many people felt in real time. The market did not simply return to normal after the outage. Corn, in particular, showed the kind of price swings and volume that look more like a stress event than a routine morning. Soybeans also showed more activity than usual, but the increase was not as dramatic as in corn. Compared with the previous ten trading days, soybean price movement was a little under three times the recent median, and volume was just under three times. Against the full 2025 distribution, soybean price movement was a little more than four times the median, and volume was about five times. Soybeans were active, but they did not spike as sharply as corn.



For farmers, merchandisers, and elevators, there are a few practical lessons when a technical problem occurs the night before the market opens. The first hour can be the most unstable time of the day when orders that could not be processed during the outage may all come in at once when trading resumes. That argues for extra caution with large orders right at or just after the open on such days.&nbsp;



Finally, this type of simple analysis,&nbsp;checking how big the first hour is compared with recent days and the full year,&nbsp;can be a useful monitoring tool. Co-ops and elevators could use similar checks to decide when to widen quotes, slow down hedging, or adjust risk limits when the market appears unusually active.



Table 1: How Big Was the First Hour After the CME Outage?



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>Corn</td><td>Last 10 trading days</td><td>about 5.4×</td><td>about 3.2×</td><td>about 8.9×</td></tr><tr><td>Corn</td><td>All 2025 trading days</td><td>about 3.5×</td><td>about 2.3×</td><td>about 10.1×</td></tr><tr><td>Soybeans</td><td>Last 10 trading days</td><td>about 2.8×</td><td>about 2.0×</td><td>about 2.8×</td></tr><tr><td>Soybeans</td><td>All 2025 trading days</td><td>about 4.3×</td><td>about 2.3×</td><td>about 4.8×</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



* “First-hour price movement” measures how much prices bounced around minute-to-minute in the first 60 minutes. ** “First-hour total price movement” adds up all the ups and downs during that hour.



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



<a href="applewebdata://D80DAFE8-70C6-4E79-BFBD-394225D51A40#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;Eunchun Park is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness / Fryar Price Risk Management Center of Excellence at the University of Arkansas

What Happened When the CME Went Down? A Look at the First Hour in Corn and Soybean Futures

Eunchun Park, Christopher N. Boyer, and Clinton L. Neill<a href="applewebdata://558054B7-7625-4EA4-A749-BACAAC353FFF#_ftn1">[1]</a>



The live-to-cutout beef price spread is the difference between the value of boxed beef and the price paid for live cattle and is a commonly used metric in the industry. This article summarizes a recent paper by Park&nbsp;et al.&nbsp;(2025) that used this metric to explore what happens to the differences in these prices when beef packers process capacity changes. Specifically, this paper explores what happens to the price spread when a processing plant goes offline temporarily or permanently.&nbsp;



The key distinction between a temporary and or permanent closure is temporary closures are often unexpected, with short notice, while permanent closures might be more telegraphed or planned. Temporary outages—such as the Tyson Holcomb fire in August 2019 or the COVID-19 disruptions in spring 2020—remove effective capacity without warning. In those periods, the study found the price spread tends to move to a higher level with greater week-to-week volatility, and that wide-band behavior often persists for several weeks before normalizing. By contrast, permanent closures are generally announced in advance, allowing time to adjust cattle flows, freight, and line schedules. Because the industry can prepare, the spread before and after a permanent closure typically resembles normal trading conditions.



Figure 1 illustrates these patterns. The black line shows the weekly live-to-cutout spread. Blue vertical lines denote permanent closures (ConAgra 2000; Tyson 2008; Cargill 2013), while red lines denote temporary outages (Tyson fire 2019; COVID-19 2020). Around permanent closures, the spread looks normal. Around temporary outages, it jumps and stays jumpy for several weeks.&nbsp;The temporary events align with sharp run-ups and a bumpier path in the weeks that follow.



The implications of this study differ by audience. For producers and feedyards, treat the first two to four weeks after an unexpected outage as a high-variance window. Expect a higher average spread and larger week-to-week swings at the same time. Maintain&nbsp;an&nbsp;additional working-capital cushion, widen basis and grid bands in cash-flow plans, and be conservative on marginal pens. If marketing on the grid, expect greater dispersion and review terms that are usually taken for granted when capacity is tight. For lenders and risk managers, stress tests should raise both the level and the variance of the spread, with horizons long enough to cover the typical persistence of the high-regime window.



Permanent closures call for a different approach. When changes are announced and phased in, the market usually adapts without dramatic swings in the spread. The task is primarily logistical—update cattle routing, confirm shackle space, and revise freight and plant schedules—while keeping standard cash-flow settings.



Why rely on the spread? It is public, timely, and can reflect packer margins and producer net prices. When capacity tightens, harvest slows, boxed beef firms, and the spread widens—often before other indicators move. No complex model is required; it is enough to know the usual range for your region and when to widen operating bands.



In short, temporary, unexpected outages create brief intervals when the spread runs higher and volatility increases; plan the first month around that reality. Permanent, telegraphed closures generally allow the industry to adjust with less disruption. Match the playbook to the shock type to reduce hurried decisions when plants stop.



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



Figure 1. Weekly live-to-cutout beef price spread ($/cwt), 1992–2024. Vertical lines mark processing-capacity shocks: blue = permanent closures (ConAgra 2000; Tyson 2008; Cargill 2013) and red = temporary outages (Tyson Holcomb fire 2019; COVID-19 2020). Temporary shocks coincide with short-lived regime shifts—higher levels and choppier volatility—while permanent closures show little persistent change in the spread.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1430" height="1002" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.50.2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43090" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.50.2.png 1430w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.50.2-1024x718.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.50.2-768x538.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1430px) 100vw, 1430px" /></figure>



References



Park, E., Boyer, C. N., and Neill, C. L. (2025). A&nbsp;Markov regime-switching event&nbsp;response model: beef price spread response to processing capacity shocks.&nbsp;Empirical Economics,&nbsp;68:1039–107.



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



<a href="applewebdata://558054B7-7625-4EA4-A749-BACAAC353FFF#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;Eunchun Park is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness / Fryar Price Risk Management Center of Excellence at the University of Arkansas, Christopher N. Boyer is a professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Tennessee, and Clinton L. Neill is an adjunct assistant professor Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences at Cornell University.

When Plants Stop, Spreads Change: Processing Shocks and the Beef Live-to-Cutout Price Spread

Authors: Susmitha Kalli, Graduate Student, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia; Yangxuan Liu, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia; Hunter D. Biram, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas; Fayu Chong, Graduate Student, Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, Virginia Tech University



Federal crop insurance remains a vital risk management tool for peanut producers across the United States. In our previous Southern Ag Today&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/10/27/peanut-crop-insurance-whats-available-and-whats-new-under-the-obbb-act/">article</a>, we discussed the various crop insurance policies available for peanuts. As with other crops, securing and maintaining insurance coverage for peanuts requires close attention to key administrative deadlines set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency (USDA RMA). Two of the most important are the&nbsp;sales closing date&nbsp;and the&nbsp;cancellation date, which determine eligibility and the continuation of coverage for each crop year.



The&nbsp;sales closing date&nbsp;is the final day producers can apply for insurance or make changes to an existing policy. This includes selecting the type and coverage level. The&nbsp;cancellation date&nbsp;is the deadline for producers to notify their insurance provider in writing if they choose not to renew their policy. Policies not canceled by this date are automatically renewed under existing terms. For peanuts, the sales closing date and the cancellation date are the same for a given location and are uniform across all available crop insurance policies.



While these dates remain consistent year to year, their timing varies by state and county. Notably, USDA RMA divides Texas into three distinct regions, each with different deadline dates, whereas other peanut-producing states follow a uniform date statewide, as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.



These deadlines are especially important for producers who contract with a sheller. Although insurance coverage is available for all insurable peanut acreage, regardless of whether the crop is grown under contract, the valuation of indemnities may differ depending on contract status. Specifically:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Contracted peanuts: When the crop is grown under a qualifying sheller contract, the contract’s base price may be used to calculate coverage, subject to USDA RMA guidelines.</li>



<li>Non-contracted peanuts: When the crop is not contracted, indemnities are based on a price election determined by USDA RMA.</li>



<li>Mixed production: For producers growing both contracted and non-contracted peanuts, coverage can be divided accordingly, provided that all sheller contracts are submitted by the acreage reporting date.</li>
</ul>



To avoid missing critical deadlines or encountering coverage limitations, producers are strongly encouraged to verify their county-specific requirements using the USDA RMA&nbsp;<a href="https://webapp.rma.usda.gov/apps/ActuarialInformationBrowser/CropCriteria.aspx">Actuarial Information Browser</a>. A certified crop insurance agent can also assist in clarifying enrollment options, contract documentation requirements, and eligibility based on production practices. The&nbsp;&nbsp;USDA RMA&nbsp;<a href="https://public-rma.fpac.usda.gov/apps/AgentLocator/#!/">Agent Locator Tool</a>&nbsp;provides a searchable database that helps producers connect with authorized crop insurance representatives in their state.&nbsp;



Table 1. Peanut Crop Insurance Policies’ Sales Closing Dates and Cancellation Dates by State and County



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><tbody><tr><td>Region</td><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">States and Counties Covered</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Dates</td></tr><tr><td>South Texas Counties</td><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Includes Jackson, Victoria, Goliad, Bee, Live Oak, McMullen, La Salle, Dimmit, and all Texas counties lying south of this line</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Jan 31</td></tr><tr><td>Central/Eastern Texas and Most Other States</td><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Covers Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and parts of Texas including El Paso, Hudspeth, Culberson, Reeves, Loving, Winkler, Ector, Upton, Reagan, Sterling, Coke, Tom Green, Concho, McCulloch, San Saba, Mills, Hamilton, Bosque, Johnson, Tarrant, Wise, and Cooke, as well as all Texas counties lying south and east of this boundary</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Feb 28</td></tr><tr><td>Remaining Areas</td><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Includes all other Texas counties not listed above, along with New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Virginia</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Mar 15</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Summary of Changes for the Peanut Crop Provisions (07075), U.S. Department of Agriculture</figcaption></figure>



Figure 1. Regional Differences in Sales Closing Dates and Cancelation and Termination Dates Runner-Type Peanut Crop Insurance*



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="548" height="352" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.50.1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43085"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Summary of Changes for the Peanut Crop Provisions (07075), U.S. Department of Agriculture *Insurance availability for other peanut types (Spanish, Valencia, and Virginia) differs by county, but the sales closing dates are the same as shown in this map. To check details for your county, visit: <a href="https://public-rma.fpac.usda.gov/apps/MapViewer/dates.html">https://public-rma.fpac.usda.gov/apps/MapViewer/dates.html</a></figcaption></figure>



References



USDA Risk Management Agency (USDA RMA). Peanut Crop Provisions 20-PT-075. Available at: <a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/crop-policies/peanut-crop-provisions-20-pt-075">https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/crop-policies/peanut-crop-provisions-20-pt-075</a>



USDA Risk Management Agency. Actuarial Information Browser. Accessed April 2025. <a href="https://webapp.rma.usda.gov/apps/ActuarialInformationBrowser/">https://webapp.rma.usda.gov/apps/ActuarialInformationBrowser/</a>



USDA Risk Management Agency. Agent Locator Tool. Accessed April 2025. <a href="https://public-rma.fpac.usda.gov/apps/AgentLocator/#!/">https://public-rma.fpac.usda.gov/apps/AgentLocator/#!/</a>



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



Kalli, Susmitha, Yangxuan Liu, Hunter D. Biram, Fayu Chong. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/02/peanut-crop-insurance-differences-in-sales-closing-dates-and-cancellation-dates-across-regions/">Peanut Crop Insurance: Differences in Sales Closing Dates and Cancellation Dates Across Regions.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(50.1). December 8, 2025. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/02/peanut-crop-insurance-differences-in-sales-closing-dates-and-cancellation-dates-across-regions/">Permalink</a>

Peanut Crop Insurance: Differences in Sales Closing Dates and Cancellation Dates Across Regions 

In&nbsp;Wineries of the Old Mission Peninsula Association v. Peninsula Township&nbsp;(U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, 2025), a group of local wineries sued Peninsula Township, Michigan, claiming that the township’s zoning laws unfairly restricted their ability to operate and grow. The wineries are located on the Old Mission Peninsula, a picturesque region north of Traverse City known for vineyards, fruit farms, and views of Lake Michigan.&nbsp;



Many of the wineries are located on agricultural land, where the township allowed them as “special uses” under its zoning ordinance—but only under strict conditions. These included limits on hours, food service, events, and even the use of outdoor spaces. The township said the rules were meant to preserve rural character, reduce traffic and noise, and protect residents from excessive commercialization.



The wineries saw it differently, arguing that the rules were overly harsh and inconsistent with modern wine tourism. Some rules, like requiring that all wine be made from grapes grown within the township, or that officials pre-approve advertising and events, struck them as both unfair and unconstitutional. The wineries sued under several legal theories, including violations of the First Amendment (free speech and expression), the Commerce Clause (prohibiting discrimination against out-of-state goods), and the Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection).&nbsp;



After years of litigation and an 11-day trial, the federal court largely sided with the wineries. The judge found that the township’s rules on advertising and event approval unlawfully restricted free speech, and that the local-grape requirement violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against wines made with out-of-state fruit. While the township could still regulate land use to manage traffic and protect farmland, the court said it must do so in ways that respect constitutional rights and avoid economic protectionism.



The expert witness for the township, University of Pennsylvania Professor and nationally known writer on farmland preservation, Dr. Thomas Daniels, submitted an expert witness report that essentially argued that agritourism (in this case, wine tastings, weddings, and events) hindered farmland preservation by converting land to commercial operations. The court took the extraordinary step of finding Dr. Daniels’ testimony not credible.&nbsp;



The court particularly questioned the testimony that farmland preservation should keep the value of farmland low so that young farmers and others could easily enter the industry. The expert witness for the wineries challenged that principle, opining that land values need to be sufficient to fund the producers’ retirement.



The court also labeled an intervening group as a Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) group, and the motivations of the township as NIMBYism. The court granted the wineries $50 million in damages. The township’s insurance carrier has filed suit, denying coverage for the judgment.



The&nbsp;Wineries&nbsp;case carries national importance because it reflects a growing struggle across the country: how to balance local land-use control with modern agricultural and tourism economies. Communities across the country face similar tensions as small farms and wineries expand into venues for tastings, weddings, and events. In addition, Dr. Daniels’ position that agritourism hinders farmland preservation may become part of other litigation and policy discussions.



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



Richardson, Jesse, and Tiffany Lashmet. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/02/does-agritourism-hinder-or-promote-farmland-preservation/">Does Agritourism Hinder or Promote Farmland Preservation?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(49.5). December 5, 2025. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/02/does-agritourism-hinder-or-promote-farmland-preservation/">Permalink</a>

Does Agritourism Hinder or Promote Farmland Preservation?

Recently, the Trump administration announced tariff exceptions on some agricultural products, including beef, tea and coffee, fruit juice, cocoa, spices, bananas, oranges, tomatoes, and certain fertilizers. Imports account for over ninety percent of consumption for four of these products: bananas, tea, coffee, and cocoa. Spices, tomatoes, and fruit juice also have import shares surpassing 60 percent. Meanwhile, consumption of beef and oranges have not been as reliant on imports, with a dependency totaling less than 20 percent of U.S. consumption. In 2024, the beef industry produced 12.4 million metric tons (MMT) of carcass weight equivalent beef, and the citrus industry grew 3.33 MMT of oranges. Of the 1.52 MMT of beef imports in 2024, ground beef made up nearly two-thirds at 981 thousand metric tons (TMT).



Figure 1: U.S. Import Share of Agricultural Products Relieved of Reciprocal Tariffs, MT, Five-Year Average 2020-2024



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><tbody><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Import Share</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Production</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Imports</td></tr><tr><td>Beef*</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">12.68%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">12,472,000</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,810,400</td></tr><tr><td>Oranges</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">17.11%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">3,332,304</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">687,805</td></tr><tr><td>Fertilizer</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">23.84%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">39,150</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">12,257</td></tr><tr><td>Spices</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">60.00%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">427,003</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">640,505</td></tr><tr><td>Tomatoes</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">69.93%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">864,162</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,981,046</td></tr><tr><td>Fruit Juice**</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">69.77%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,097415</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">4,840,255</td></tr><tr><td>Cocoa</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">99.00%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">14,240</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,409,748</td></tr><tr><td>Coffee</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">99.82%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,736</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,502,760</td></tr><tr><td>Tea</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">99.99%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">29</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">205,456</td></tr><tr><td>Bananas</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">100.00%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">&#8211;</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">5,121,292</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Sources: PS&amp;D, USDA/FAS; GATS, USDA/FAS, Fruit and Treenut Yearbook, USDA/ERS, Fertilizer Dashboard, USDA/FAS; Buzzanell, Peter. &#8220;The Spice Market in the United States: Recent Developments and Prospects.” *Beef is measured in carcass weight equivalent ** Fruit Juice Measured in kiloliters</figcaption></figure>



Canada is the largest source of imported cocoa products and fertilizer for the United States, amounting to $2.77 billion and $4.73 billion, respectively, in 2024. Brazil is the leader in fruit juice exports to the United States at $1.14 billion. Mexico is the source of 85 percent of imported tomatoes, worth $3.12 billion, in the United States. Vietnam and India rank as the two leading sources of U.S. spice imports, $472 million and $410 million, respectively. As for tea, China ($118 million), Japan ($115 million), Canada ($107 million), and India ($92 million) each account for around 10 percent of U.S. imports. Brazilian coffee exports totaled $2.13 billion, and 21.6 percent of U.S. imports.



Additionally, the Trump administration has announced framework agreements with Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Argentina, focusing on reciprocal trade and investment to boost market access and address non-tariff barriers. These agreements would remove the reciprocal tariff rate of 10 percent, 15 percent in the case of Ecuador, on the bulk of exported products to the United States from the respective country. In 2024, U.S. imports of agricultural products totaled $7.45 billion from the four countries. In 2024, imports from Ecuador totaled $3.78 billion with shellfish accounting for 35 percent of this total, with cut flowers, bananas, and cocoa each worth more than ten percent of the import value. Two products, bananas and coffee, made up more than half of the $2.9 billion imported from Guatemala. The $2.40 billion of imports from Argentina were mixed between a large group of items, with shellfish, beef, wine, and sugar making up 41 percent of the total. Finally, sugar and coffee were the leading products imported from El Salvador, together totaling $207 million of the $415 million in 2024.



Figure 2: U.S. Imports from Selected Countries, 2024



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1549" height="1164" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.4T2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43069" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.4T2.png 1549w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.4T2-1024x769.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.4T2-768x577.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.4T2-1536x1154.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1549px) 100vw, 1549px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: GATS, USDA/FAS</figcaption></figure>



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



Sources:



Buzzanell, Peter J. Rex Dull, &amp; Fred Gray. “The Spice Market in the United States: Recent Developments and Prospects.” July 3, 1995. https://ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=42049.



Economic Research Service (ERS). “Fruit and Tree Nuts Yearbook Tables.” Accessed November 2025. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fruit-and-tree-nuts- data/fruit-and-tree-nuts-yearbook-tables/. Published February 25, 2025.



Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). “Global Fertilizer Dashboard.” Online Database. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/visualization-global-fertilizer-trade-dashboard. Online public database.



Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS). Online database. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx. Online public database accessed November 2025.



Foreign Agricultural Services (FAS). Production Supply and Distribution (PS&amp;D). Online Database. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/advQuery. Online public database



The White House. “Fact Sheet: Following Trade Deal Announcements, President Donald J Trump Modifies the Scope of the Reciprocal Tariffs with Respect to Certain Agricultural Products.” November 14, 2025.



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



Ribera, Luis, and Landyn K. Young. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/02/recent-tariff-exceptions-and-trade-agreements-aimed-to-reduce-food-costs/">Recent Tariff Exceptions and Trade Agreements Aimed to Reduce Food Costs</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(49.4). December 4, 2025. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/02/recent-tariff-exceptions-and-trade-agreements-aimed-to-reduce-food-costs/">Permalink</a>

Recent Tariff Exceptions and Trade Agreements Aimed to Reduce Food Costs

Row-crop producers across the South faced another difficult year in 2025. Weather challenges led to wide yield variability across much of the region. Even where yields were strong, low commodity prices and persistently high input costs kept margins tight, leaving many operations near or below breakeven for a third straight year. Shifts in acreage were common, with corn gaining ground at the expense of cotton and, in some areas, soybeans.



Financial stress remains a major concern heading into 2026, as limited storage capacity, tighter credit conditions, and low prices continue to pressure farm profits. To capture conditions across the south, we asked Extension agricultural economists in each state to provide a brief summary of the 2025 season. Their state-by-state perspectives are below.



Alabama – Adam Rabinowitz, Max Runge, and Wendiam Sawadgo, Auburn University



Alabama’s row crop producers faced the wettest May on record statewide, leading to delayed or prevented crop planting across the state. Prevented plantings for upland cotton in 2025 totaled 62,000 acres, above the previous five-year average of 2,000 acres. Across all crops, prevented plantings totaled 122,000 acres, much higher than the 22,000-acre five-year average. Compounding issues during the season were a late drought that suppressed peanut and soybean performance and the cotton jassid (two-spotted leafhopper) that entered Alabama and spread to all cotton-producing parts of the state. Even with these challenges, corn and cotton yields are projected to exceed their five-year averages, whereas peanut and soybean yields are expected to finish near historical norms. Meanwhile, producers, lenders, and agribusinesses remain concerned about the ongoing price squeeze driven by low commodity prices and elevated production costs. For the year ahead, many are questioning the best direction for row crops with no positive change to prices or input costs expected, and the unknown future and impact of the cotton jassid (two-spotted leafhopper).



Arkansas – Ryan Loy, Hunter Biram, and Scott Stiles, University of Arkansas



Arkansas row crop producers entered the 2025 crop year in one of the most financially challenging environments of the past decade, as crop receipts fell by $465 million to $4.46 billion, marking the third consecutive annual decline. Corn led the downturn with a 31% year-over-year decline, followed by soybean and rice receipts, while cotton receipts remain soft due to acreage reductions. At the same time, production expenses remain elevated relative to historical averages, with fertilizer, seed, labor, and interest costs continuing to pressure operating margins. Across all principal crops, state-average net returns are projected to be negative, with breakeven prices and yields often 30–40% above expected levels; late planting from generational flooding in April further increased downside risk. Record ad hoc assistance through ECAP and SDRP is expected to exceed $1 billion and offset a portion of these losses. Yet, net farm income for the crop sector is still projected to remain negative even after accounting for program payments. The mounting financial strain facing Arkansas producers continues as they confront low commodity prices, persistently high input costs, and tighter credit conditions.



Florida – Kevin Athearn, Amanda Phillips, and Joel Love, University of Florida



Florida planted acres of peanuts were up 7% (175,000 acres), corn down 3% (85,000 acres), and cotton down 29% (62,000 acres) in 2025 relative to the 5-year average (USDA-NASS).&nbsp;&nbsp;Estimated yields for peanut were up 8% (3,900 lbs/acre) and cotton up 23% (800 lbs/acre) relative to the 5-year average (USDA-NASS). Anecdotally, irrigated corn yields were above average, but non-irrigated corn yields suffered from insufficient summer rainfall. Peanut contracts were offered on a relatively small portion of production at $500 to $525 per ton, but uncontracted peanuts reportedly were selling below $400 per ton at harvest. The local basis on grain corn forward contracts offered by three Florida buyers, April through July for August delivery, averaged $0.80 over Sep futures. Forward contracts on Florida cotton typically are tied to December futures, which averaged 66.83¢ per pound between April and November. Production costs, especially machinery, labor, and interest, have trended upward, and the local UAN28 price increased 30% in early 2025. Sample budgets for 2025 estimated contribution margins per acre (not including land or fixed costs) of about $300 for irrigated peanut, $50 for irrigated corn, negative $100 for irrigated cotton, and negative $50 for non-irrigated cotton. The estimated gross profit was negative for all three crops.



Georgia – Amanda Smith, University of Georgia



The 5-year average crop mix in Georgia consisted of 44% cotton, 28% peanuts, 16% corn, 7% wheat, and 5% soybeans. Row crop producers faced another tough year in 2025, after a difficult 2024 where they incurred negative to small margins and dealt with the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, which destroyed one-third of the cotton crop, delayed peanut harvest, and damaged infrastructure. Due to cotton prices below cost of production in 2025, producers made a major shift to their crop mix by planting more peanuts than cotton for the first time in three decades and significantly increasing corn acres. The 2025 crop year saw 35% of total acres planted to peanuts, 32% to cotton,&nbsp;&nbsp;21% to corn, and 6% each to soybeans and wheat. Despite some relief provided by government programs (ECAP and SDRP), producers continued to deplete their working capital and erode equity, making it necessary to rely on other sources of income to support their row crop operations. The 2025 crop year saw an additional challenge with the rapid spread of a new invasive pest to cotton, the Cotton Jassid (two-spotted leafhopper). Late-season drought made dryland peanut harvest difficult and created some concern about crop quality. For 2026, producers will be mindful of crop rotations and cost of production while hoping to hold on until improved agricultural policies provide needed financial relief.



Kentucky – Grant Gardner, University of Kentucky



Three consecutive years of lower prices have already put Kentucky producers in a difficult position, and this year’s extreme yield variability is adding even more pressure. Some areas will post record yields, while others will fall well below average—especially soybeans, which are currently rated in the worst condition of any state. A major concern right now is the lack of soybeans in storage. At harvest, many producers moved beans rather than storing them due to uncertainty surrounding the trade dispute, leaving most available storage filled with corn. That decision removed the opportunity to take advantage of last month’s rally in soybean futures, and many producers were unable to benefit from the price improvement when it finally arrived. While diversified operations with livestock may still be close to break-even, row-crop-focused farms are likely hovering at or below break-even for the third consecutive year, tightening cash reserves and leaving many operations increasingly vulnerable to financial stress or potential default.



Louisiana – Michael Deliberto, Louisiana State University



In Louisiana, corn acres increased by 330,000 acres (+75%) from 2024 to 2025. Most producers favored corn over cotton (and, to a lesser extent, soybeans) due to grain price competitiveness. Overall, yields were near the previous four-year average of 176 bushels per acre.&nbsp;&nbsp;Prices are finally becoming somewhat favorable for producers who elected to store their crop.&nbsp;



Like most of the mid-south region, cotton acres in Louisiana were down year-over-year. Producers planted only 90,000 acres in 2025. Despite the low acreage, yields were at record highs at 1,314 pounds per acre, nearly a 250-pound-per-acre increase from the previous year. While yields were excellent, prices remained low. The high cost of production, coupled with the narrow price movement within the 66-68 cents per pound range in the spring, was a main factor behind the reduced acreage in the state.&nbsp;



Soybean acres in Louisiana were down year-over-year. Acreage for the oilseed is typically between 1.1 and 1.2 million acres. However, the 2025 acreage was 790,000, mainly due to lackluster prices and trade uncertainty surrounding exports. Yields were the highest in five years, coming in at 54 bushels per acre.&nbsp;



Rice acres in Louisiana totaled 482,000 planted acres in 2025, the most since 2010. The yield per acre was 6,650 pounds, which is on par with the five-year average. High production costs and decreasing rice prices at harvest presented a major challenge for rice growers heading into the winter.&nbsp;



Mississippi – Will Maples, Mississippi State University



Weather played a major role in Mississippi’s 2025 crop. Frequent heavy rains delayed planting for many producers, and late-summer drought stressed crops, resulting in significant yield variability across the state. Soybeans remained the largest crop at 1.8 million acres, but growers shifted more toward corn than cotton, planting 900,000 acres of corn compared with 330,000 acres of cotton. Financial conditions remain difficult. The price environment is still unfavorable, and because Mississippi producers harvest early and lack the storage capacity common in other states, many were unable to capitalize on the recent soybean price rally. High production costs continue to squeeze margins, leaving most producers facing negative profits for the third consecutive year. Looking ahead to 2026, a growing number of producers have expressed equity concerns as they evaluate their farm financing options.



North Carolina – Nicholas Piggott, North Carolina State University



In North Carolina, 2025 row-crop outcomes were mixed. Corn yields rebounded sharply from last year’s drought-reduced crop, with NASS estimating 139 bu/acre, pushing corn production up about 75% from 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;Late-November cash bids for No. 2 yellow corn are mostly $4.60 at country elevators and around $4.80 at feed mills, with a firm basis of $0.40-$0.50. Soybean yields, by contrast, slipped to about 36 bu/acre, below last year’s 39 bu/acre, leaving statewide soybean production down roughly 6% from 2024. Cash soybean bids are currently in the $10.50–$11.10/bu range at elevators and $11.25 at processors, with basis typically -$0.30 at elevators and $0.02 at processors.&nbsp;&nbsp;On wheat, growers have responded to several years of weak prices and weather risk by cutting back acreage: NASS reports 2025 winter wheat seedings at about 350,000 acres, down from 410,000 acres last year and near the low end of the historical range for the state.&nbsp;&nbsp;Looking Ahead to 2026 – North Carolina growers should carefully pencil out expected corn and soybean margins when making planting decisions for 2026, and pay close attention to wheat growing conditions in the next few months since they will shape production levels, basis strength, and marketing opportunities for 2026.



Tennessee – Aaron Smith, University of Tennessee



In Tennessee, 2025 row production was highly variable. Drought during July and August reduced yields and contributed to a second consecutive season of losses for many corn, soybean, and cotton farmers. Cotton and soybean yields were hardest hit by the drought and will likely result in further downward revisions from current USDA yield estimates. High input costs, low commodity prices, and below trend yields resulted in per-acre losses between $100 and $250 for many producers. Before crop insurance and other government payments, Tennessee corn, cotton, soybean, and wheat farmers are projected to lose over $400 million in 2025. With substantial year-over-year losses, many producers will carry operating debt over into the next season for the second straight year. Obtaining credit for the 2026 crop will be challenging for many producers without ad hoc government payments. Canola acres in Tennessee and Kentucky continued to expand in the fall of 2025, providing producers with an alternative to more traditional double-cropping systems. Growth in canola acreage has been driven by contracted acres, primarily in Northwest Tennessee, to support a pilot program to produce sustainable aviation fuel.



Texas – Mark Welch and John Robinson, Texas A&amp;M University



Grain production across Texas in 2025 was generally an improvement from 2024. Overall, yields for wheat, corn, and grain sorghum were above their most recent 10-year averages.&nbsp; Cash grain prices for the year peaked in February and followed a decline throughout the growing season. &nbsp;A major feature of planning for 2026 will be changes to the farm safety net compared to the beginning of last year: a higher level of support in programs administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and increased cost-sharing for crop insurance products. This could make higher levels of revenue protection a viable consideration for the upcoming crop year.&nbsp;



Texas cotton production in 2025 benefited from favorable, timely moisture conditions.&nbsp; This is in contrast to the preceding three years, which suffered from excessive heat and dryness.&nbsp; Unfortunately, the 2025 cotton production still suffered from unprofitably low market prices. &nbsp;The upcoming 2026 cotton season is concerning with a return of dry conditions and an uncertain market outcome.

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities