Five countries produce 70 percent of the world’s peanuts annually. In the 2024/2025 marketing year, 51.4 million metric tons (MMT) of peanuts were grown, and these five leading countries contributed 35.1 MMT to that total. The United States ranks fourth in global peanut production (2.9 MMT) behind China (19 MMT), India (7.1 MMT), and Nigeria (4.3 MMT).



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="720" height="488" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.4-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42130"/></figure>



Production of peanut oil for the five largest markets together accounted for 81 percent of the 6.24 MMT of global production in the 2024 marketing year. Leading global producers, Chinese production has remained relatively stable between 3.1-3.23 MMT since the 2019/2020 marketing year. Indian production has been similar with production between 1.2-1.28 MMT since the 2019 marketing year. The three that follow together accounted for only 694 thousand metric tons (TMT).&nbsp;



Only 470 TMT of peanut oil production was traded in the 2024 marketing year, or 7.5 percent of peanut oil production. The five largest exporters accounted for 91.8 percent of exports in the most recent marketing year. On the other side of that trade, the three largest importers totaled 93.8 percent of peanut oil imports. China accounted for most of that, with 350 TMT in the most recent marketing year, or 74.4 percent of peanut oil imports. The European Union (55 TMT) and, United States (36 TMT) are the two other largest markets.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="720" height="488" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.4-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42131"/></figure>



In the 2024 marketing year, global demand for peanut oil totaled 6.16 MMT, with 83.7 percent going to the five largest markets. More than half of global demand for peanut oil can be attributed to China. India ranks second, despite being a recurring leader for global exports, with just over one million metric tons. Demand in the United States has remained stable around 123-148 TMT, with the exception of the 2019/2020 marketing year, which was around 111 TMT. Excluding the 2019 marketing year, where only 2 TMT of peanut oil was imported, 10-26 percent of demand for the United States is supplied from imports.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="720" height="488" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/4.26.4-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42132"/></figure>



References



USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Peanut Oil Custom Query. Production, Supply, Distribution (PSD). Online public database. Accessed June 2025.



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



Young, Landyn, and Luis Ribera. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/opportunity-for-increased-u-s-peanut-oil-production/">Opportunity for Increased U.S. Peanut Oil Production.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(26.4). June 26, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42128">Permalink</a>

Opportunity for Increased U.S. Peanut Oil Production

Like many other agricultural sectors, there has been consolidation in United States (US) farm-level sugar production. Sugar is a unique commodity because about 56 percent of the domestic production of sugar originates from sugarbeets and 44 percent originates from sugarcane. The US domestic production of sugar has increased from 8.02 million short tons raw value (STRV) in 1997 to 9.31 million STRV in 2024, an increase of 16% (USDA ERS, 2025a). However, there are now 50 percent fewer sugarbeet and sugarcane farms in the country.&nbsp;



In 1997, the USDA Census of Agriculture recorded a total of 8,136 sugarbeet and sugarcane producing farms (USDA NASS, 2025). However, by 2022 that number had declined to 4,002, a decrease of over 50 percent. Figure 1 shows sugarbeet and sugarcane production from 1997 through 2024 and the number of sugarbeet and sugarcane farms recorded by the US Census of Agriculture every five years, beginning in 1997.&nbsp;



Figure 1. Sugarbeet and Sugarcane Production and Farms.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1439" height="891" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42123" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.3.png 1439w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.3-1024x634.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.3-768x476.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1439px) 100vw, 1439px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA ERS (2025a) and USDA NASS (2025).</figcaption></figure>



Sugarbeets



From 1997 through 2022, while there was a decrease in sugarbeet farms and sugarbeet harvested acres, there was an increase in the amount of sugar produced from sugarbeets. The number of sugarbeet farms fell by 54 percent, from 7,057 farms in 1997 to only 3,257 in 2022 (Figure 1). Sugarbeet acres also fell by 20 percent from 1.43 million acres in 1997 to 1.14 million acres in 2022 (USDA ERS, 2025a). However, there was an 18% increase in sugar produced from sugarbeets during this time, with 4.39 million STRV of sugar produced from sugarbeets in 1997 and 5.19 million STRV of sugar produced from sugarbeets in 2022 (Figure 1).&nbsp;



These trends indicate that in 1997, the average sugarbeet farm size was 203 acres contributing to final sugar production of 622 STRV (3.06 STRV of sugar per acre). Meanwhile in 2022, the average sugarbeet farm size was 350 acres contributing to final sugar production of 1,593 STRV (4.55 STRV of sugar per acre). Thus, sugarbeet farms have become not only larger (350 acres per farm versus 203 acres per farm), but they have also become 49 percent more efficient! One reason for this increased efficiency is that all sugarbeets grown in the US have been genetically modified since 2009 (Kennedy, Schmitz and Lewis, 2020).



Sugarbeets are currently grown in four regions and 11 states: the Great Lakes (Michigan), the Upper Midwest (Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota), the Great Plains (Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming), and the Far West (Idaho, Oregon, Washington).<a href="applewebdata://C7E7FD2E-9AEE-4AF7-968D-00B9F437F7DE#_ftn1">[1]</a>&nbsp;Sugarbeets are grown in rotation with other crops. Historically, sugarbeet yields in the Far West have been highest. Western sugarbeet production typically utilizes irrigation, which is in contrast to the eastern regions of sugarbeet production that do not use irrigation (USDA ERS, 2025a, b). The largest region for sugarbeet production is the Upper Midwest (Minnesota and North Dakota) (USDA ERS, 2025a). The Upper Midwest represented 42 percent of sugarbeet total production in 1997 and represented 53 percent of sugarbeet total production in 2022 (USDA ERS, 2025a).&nbsp;



Each sugarbeet producing region has experienced both consolidation and increased efficiency over the years. For example, the number of sugarbeet farms in Michigan was 1,164 in 1997 (USDA NASS, 2025). That number decreased 43 percent by 2022 to only 663. However, the number of tons of sugarbeets harvested in 1997 was only 3.0 million, and by 2022 the state harvested 4.1 million tons of sugarbeets.&nbsp;



Sugarcane



Sugarcane has also experienced consolidation over the period of 1997 through 2022, where the number of sugarcane farms fell by approximately 31 percent from 1,079 in 1997 to 745 in 2022 without experiencing declines in sugar production or acres engaged in sugarcane production. Sugarcane acres actually increased by 3 percent in 2022 (913,738 acres) relative to 1997 (890,193 acres) (USDA NASS, 2025). Production of sugarcane (for sugar) also increased by approximately 11 percent to 4.06 million STRV in 2022 relative to 1997 (3.63 million STRV) (Figure 1).&nbsp;



These trends indicate that in 1997, the average size of a sugarcane farm was 825 acres and contributed to final sugar production of 3,365 STRV (4.08 STRV of sugar per acre). By 2022, the average sugarcane farm size was 1,226 acres and contributed to final sugar production of 5,454 STRV (4.45 STRV of sugar per acre). Thus, the sugarcane sector has seen improvements in production efficiency of approximately 9 percent over the observed period (1997-2022).&nbsp;



As recently as 2016, sugarcane was produced in four states (Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas). Sugarcane production in Hawaii and Texas ceased in 2016 and 2023, respectively. In Hawaii, rising labor and land cost were contributing factors in the closure of Hawaiian Commercial &amp; Sugar Company (HC&amp;S) in Maui. Production in Texas ceased&nbsp;due to water shortages exacerbated by Mexico’s consistent failure to fulfill its treaty obligations to share irrigation water from the Rio Grande. The lack of sugarcane production due to uncertain water availability resulted in the closure of the only sugar mill in the state, Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, Inc. Since 2017, overall sugarcane production has increased in the remaining sugarcane producing states of Louisiana and Florida, despite closure of the sugarcane industries in Hawaii and Texas. In Florida, the number of farms has actually increased from 152 to 240, with the average farm size contracting from 2,772 to 1,656 acres. However, in Louisiana, farms have decreased from 705 to 420 farms. The average size of a Louisiana farm has increased from 561 to 1,158 acres.&nbsp;



In Florida, sugarcane is mainly produced in organic soils along the southern and southeastern shore of Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida. The decrease in Florida’s sugarcane acreage leading to 2007 reflected conversion of cropland to public water storage in response to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and reallocation of cropland for sod production in the early 2000’s (VanWeelden et. al., 2023). Sugarcane cultivation on sandy soil is expanding as the expense of citrus cultivation has increased due to citrus greening disease (Sandhu et. al., 2024).&nbsp;



Sugarcane acreage across Louisiana has been expanding for the past decade, primarily because of the reduced volatility in sugar prices relative to other crops such as corn, rice, and soybeans. (Gautreaux, 2025). Louisiana sugarcane production has also expanded with the development and adoption of high-yielding sugarcane varieties and with the evolution of custom harvesting groups that induce nontraditional producers into sugarcane cultivation by alleviating concerns for those producers regarding increased capitalization costs of purchasing and maintaining specialized sugarcane harvest equipment.



<a href="applewebdata://C7E7FD2E-9AEE-4AF7-968D-00B9F437F7DE#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;California is producing sugarbeets in 2025, but the processing facility will close following this crop season (https://www.smbsc.com/ourstory-2/SMBSCMediaReleaseReSpreckelsSugarCompany2025.04.22.pdf).



References



Gautreaux, K. (2025). “Sugarcane expansion moving northward and westward but also increasing in traditional areas.” Louisiana State University AgCenter.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lsuagcenter.com/articles/page1738854832844">https://www.lsuagcenter.com/articles/page1738854832844</a>&nbsp;.&nbsp;



Kennedy, P. L., A. Schmitz, and K.L. DeLong. (2020). Biotechnology and demand concerns: the case of genetically modified US sugar beets.&nbsp;AgBioForum, 22(1), 49-60.



Sandhu, H., M. VanWeelden, A. Sharma, and W. Davidson. (2024). CP 03-1912: A Sugarcane Cultivar Expanding on Sand Soil in Florida, University of Florida, IFAS Extension.&nbsp;<a href="https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/SC111">https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/SC111</a>&nbsp;.&nbsp;&nbsp;



United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS). (2025a). Sugar and Sweeteners Yearbook Tables. Group 3 Tables. Retrieved from:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables</a>



United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service (ERS). (2025b). Sugar and Sweeteners-Background. Retrieved from:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-and-sweeteners/background#:~:text=Sugarbeet%20production%20in%20the%20Far,is%20typically%20on%20irrigated%20land">https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-and-sweeteners/background#:~:text=Sugarbeet%20production%20in%20the%20Far,is%20typically%20on%20irrigated%20land</a>.&nbsp;



United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). (2025). U.S. Census of Agriculture, Volume 1, Chapter 1: U.S. National Level Data. Retrieved from: &nbsp;<a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/index.php">https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/index.php</a>&nbsp;.&nbsp;



VanWeelden, M., C. Kammerer, W. Davidson, M. Baltazar, and R. Rice. (2023). Sugarcane Variety Census: Florida 2022,&nbsp;Sugar Journal&nbsp;86 (2), July 2023.



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



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



 Headline Photo By: <a href="https://www.vecteezy.com/free-photos/young">Young Stock photos by Vecteezy</a>



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



Delberto, Michael, Brian Hilbun, and Karen L. DeLong. &#8220;Sugarbeet and Sugarcane Production and Farm Trends.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(26.3). June 25, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42117">Permalink</a>

Sugarbeet and Sugarcane Production and Farm Trends 

USDA released the latest Cattle on Feed report amid record high cattle and beef prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;While the report did not have any big surprises compared to analyst’s pre-report estimates there were some noteworthy data points.&nbsp;&nbsp;Marketings were 10.1 percent fewer in May 2025 than last May.&nbsp;&nbsp;Some of that was attributable to one less working day in the month, but the rest was due to fewer fed cattle slaughtered.&nbsp;&nbsp;An earlier SAT discussed fewer fed cattle being processed on Fridays over the last couple of months.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Fewer cattle were placed into feedyards in May, with placements 7.8 percent below last year.&nbsp;&nbsp;But, placements in Texas and Oklahoma feedyards were down 16.8 and 21.6 percent compared to last year, likely reflecting the continued border closing restricting the supply of Mexican feeder cattle.&nbsp;&nbsp;Fewer placements and marketing left the total number of cattle on feed down 1.2 percent compared to last year.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Fewer cattle marketed from feedlots means reduced fed cattle slaughter and beef production.&nbsp;&nbsp;Beef production over the last 8 weeks has been 5.5 percent below the same period last year.&nbsp;&nbsp;A smaller percentage of the beef graded has been grading Choice indicating tighter supplies of Choice beef in addition to lower overall supplies.&nbsp;&nbsp;While a lot has been made of continued good demand for beef pushing prices higher, certainly reduced supplies are helping higher prices too.



On the price side, the Choice cutout surged to $390 per cwt on Friday June 20th.&nbsp;&nbsp;That was a record except for May 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;All of the Choice primal cuts have been racing higher except for the rib which has been declining, as it often does this time of the year.&nbsp;&nbsp;Of note, just as Texas Monthly’s Top 50 BBQ joints edition hit the mailbox primal Choice briskets kept climbing to almost $3.40 per pound.&nbsp;&nbsp;This would be a record brisket price except for May 2020 when the pandemic closed packing plants and a surge of buying depleted supplies.&nbsp;&nbsp;



While not one of the primals that make up the boxed beef cutout value, 50 percent lean beef has skyrocketed in value to almost $190 per cwt, compared to about $1.00 per pound last year.&nbsp;&nbsp;This beef is largely the product of fed cattle and makes up part of the supplies of ground beef.&nbsp;&nbsp;Fewer fed cattle marketed and slaughtered in recent weeks has likely cut into supplies while the demand for ground beef remains good.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The marketings side of the cattle on feed report highlights today’s tight supplies of cattle and beef.&nbsp;&nbsp;Reduced production is part of the story of record beef prices.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-1.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-42111" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-1.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-1-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-1-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-1-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-2.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-42112" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-2.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-2-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-2-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-2-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-3.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-42113" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-3.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-3-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-3-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-3-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-4.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-42114" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-4.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-4-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-4-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.2-4-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



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



Anderson, David. &#8220;Fewer Marketings, Tighter Beef Supplies.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(26.2). June 24, 2025. Permalink

Fewer Marketings, Tighter Beef Supplies

Planting rice in a suitable timeframe is critical for profitable rice production. Planting rice too early or too late can result in significant losses in grain yield and milling quality. The timing of rice planting is strongly impacted by weather, particularly excessive precipitation. Too much precipitation can delay rice planting and can also trigger rice replanting and levee repairs in rice fields. In extreme instances, excessive and persistent precipitation can lead to prevented planted rice acres. For example, prevented planted rice acres in Arkansas reached a record high of 512 thousand acres in 2019 due to flooding and excessive precipitation occurring throughout the growing season (Watkins and Gautam, 2021). The initiation and completion of rice planting in a growing season also varies by geographic location.&nbsp;



This article evaluates historic and current rice planting progress for the southern United States (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas) using weekly crop progress data from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA, NASS 2025). Historical and current weekly rice planting progress curves are presented for each southern rice-producing state in the accompanying figures. Historic rice planting progress is defined as the 10-year average percent of rice area planted by week for the period 2015 – 2024, while current rice planting progress is defined as the percent rice area planted by week for the 2025 growing season. The early and late planting timelines are based on how much land is usually planted each week, adjusted to show either earlier-than-normal or later-than-normal planting by using a typical range of variation. Dates in the figures represent the ending dates for each week evaluated. For example, 20-Apr represents the week of 14-Apr through 20-Apr.



A few things stand out when looking at the charts of the five states. First, rice plantings begin and end earlier for the more southerly states (Louisiana, Texas) relative to the more northerly states (Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri), as would be expected. Second, rice planting progress becomes more variable moving south to north. The gaps between early and delayed rice planting curves are wider for Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri than for Louisiana and Texas, implying weather variability has a stronger impact on rice plantings in the more northerly states. Third, the timing of variability in rice planting progress is different when moving south to north. The gaps between early and delayed planting curves for Louisiana and Texas are widest during the beginning of rice planting and become narrower thereafter, implying weather variability is more of a factor for both states when rice planting begins. In contrast, gaps between early and late planting curves in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri expand after rice planting starts and are widest during the second week of April through the second to third week of May. Thus, mid-spring weather can greatly accelerate or greatly delay rice plantings in the northern states.Rice plantings in 2025 have concluded or are very close to completion for all five southern rice states as of this writing. How did rice plantings in 2025 compare with historic 10-year averages? The answer of course varies by state. Arkansas and Mississippi experienced intermittent precipitation throughout the 2025 planting season, leading to rice plantings tracking early and behind the 10-year average for both states at different times in the season. Heavy rain events occurred in both states, resulting in planting delays, flooded fields, washed-out levees, and the need for replanting. In Missouri, rain events slowed rice planting during the first three weeks of April, but planting eventually accelerated thereafter to track closely with the 10-year average. Louisiana and Texas rice plantings were at or ahead of the 10-year average during much of the 2025 planting season. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="985" height="591" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42093" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-1.png 985w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-1-768x461.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 985px) 100vw, 985px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="972" height="585" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42094" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-2.png 972w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-2-768x462.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 972px) 100vw, 972px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="958" height="575" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42095" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-3.png 958w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-3-768x461.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 958px) 100vw, 958px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1012" height="608" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42096" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-4.png 1012w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-4-768x461.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1012px) 100vw, 1012px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="974" height="585" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-5.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42097" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-5.png 974w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.26.1-5-768x461.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 974px) 100vw, 974px" /></figure>



References and Resources



USDA-NASS (2025). United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Crop Progress.&nbsp;<a href="https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/8336h188j">https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/8336h188j</a>



Watkins, K.B., and T.K. Gautam (2021). An Overview of Rice Prevented Planting Acres in Arkansas, 2011 to 2020. In: J. Hardke, X. Sha, and N. Bateman (eds.) B.R. Wells Arkansas Rice Research Studies 2020. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Series 676:317-321. Fayetteville.&nbsp;<a href="https://scholarworks.uark.edu/aaesser/200/">https://scholarworks.uark.edu/aaesser/200/</a>



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



Watkins, Brad. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/historic-and-current-rice-planting-progress-in-the-southern-united-states/">Historic and Current Rice Planting Progress in the Southern United States</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(26.1). June 23, 2025. <a href="http://historic-and-current-rice-planting-progress-in-the-southern-united-states">Permalink</a>

Historic and Current Rice Planting Progress in the Southern United States

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a powerful and accessible tool to solve a multitude of problems. Increasingly, people turn to AI to solve matters previously entrusted to professionals, including legal matters. This article briefly summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of using AI to address legal issues and suggests a role for AI in the legal needs of individuals and businesses. The authors acknowledge that AI was used to research this article.



In many ways, using artificial intelligence to provide professional services is not new. Commercial companies offer legal document drafting (particularly simple wills and trusts) and tax preparation services and have done so for years. Early will forms used very primitive artificial intelligence to draft simple wills.



The most compelling reason to use AI for legal needs is affordability. Lawyers are expensive and that cost can prevent people from seeking any legal help. AI is also fast, convenient, and easily accessible. An hour or so on the computer can provide a lot of information. No need to make appointments weeks in advance and brave traffic to drive to the appointment. Costs are generally minimal, especially compared to attorneys’ fees.



On the other hand, AI cannot make legal judgments. Law often involves gray areas and uncertain outcomes. Attorneys, unlike AI, have experience and education that aid in interpreting laws and advising clients based on particular circumstances. Legal systems are complex, nuanced, and evolving. Humans, although far from perfect, are better able to deal with legal systems. With respect to litigation, only licensed, human attorneys may represent a client in court. Although individuals may represent themselves and use AI as a support tool, that strategy may backfire. Finally, AI does not offer attorney-client privilege. Information shared with AI systems may not be kept private and confidential.



When the authors searched AI, the results suggested that AI could handle “routine or low-stakes legal matters.” Tasks that AI described as ideal for AI included “filing a business formation, applying for a trademark, or writing a simple contract.” In addition, AI can “quickly help someone generate a will, draft a lease agreement, or respond to a landlord dispute.”&nbsp;



As an experiment, one of the authors had AI draft a will for them. The author responded to the prompts and then asked for a will compliant in the author’s state of residence. The will produced complied with state law and was a legally valid will. However, the will did not name an alternate executor (AI did not ask!), but had the court appoint an alternate executor, if necessary, a costly and time-consuming process. The named executor is about the same age as the author, meaning that they may well predecease the author, necessitating the naming of an alternate. In addition, the named executor lived out-of-state, likely meaning that the executor would have to post bond, adding more expense.&nbsp;



The will also did not name alternate beneficiaries (AI did not ask!). Since the author named their 86-year-old mother as the sole beneficiary, odds are that she would predecease him, meaning that intestacy law would apply, thereby essentially negating the purpose of having the will drafted in the first place.



AI also failed to ask about special requests as to burial or cremation or other wishes at death. Most egregiously, the AI generated will failed to include a self-proving affidavit, meaning that the witnesses to the author signing the will would have to be tracked down after the death of the author to swear that the author was competent at the time the will was made. Any licensed attorney would likely include a self-proving affidavit, eliminating the need to have witnesses file affidavits at a later time, saving time and money. In summary, the will would be valid but lacking in many respects. A will drafted by an attorney would include the vital provisions that were missed and, in the long run, save money.



In conclusion, AI promises to revolutionize law practice. More importantly, individuals and businesses can use AI in meaningful ways to assist in legal matters. AI can analyze data quickly and efficiently, can do research, and compose draft documents. Individuals and businesses can use AI to learn about the law in a particular area and become aware of different options. If the alternative is no legal representation at all, AI may be the better option. However, AI is not a substitute for legal advice. In the words of ChatGPT, after being queried by the authors, “[u]se AI to learn, explore, and prepare – but when it comes time to make real legal decisions, always consult an attorney.”



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



Richardson, Jessie, and Tiffany Lashmet. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/who-needs-attorneys-when-you-have-ai/">Who Needs Attorneys When You Have AI?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(25.5). June 20, 2025. <a href="http://who-needs-attorneys-when-you-have-ai">Permalink</a>

Who Needs Attorneys When You Have AI?

We often are asked by the media about the size of and need for government assistance that is provided to U.S. farmers when something goes wrong (e.g., bad prices, yields or both). The first thing we do is highlight that the safety net provided for by Congress is designed to offset some – but not all – of the risks faced by farmers.&nbsp;&nbsp;It might sound like semantics, but in the policy world…words matter.



The rest of the conversation generally involves talking about uncertainty in U.S. agriculture.&nbsp;&nbsp;Rather than provide an exhaustive list here, let’s just focus on the three primary determinants of profitability: prices, yields and costs.



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>U.S. farm prices are determined by world supply and demand for the crop, the price of its substitutes, and policy.  What type of policy?  First, U.S. producers must compete against producers that are heavily subsidized by the governments of our competitors around the world.  Second, the trade policies of those countries (such as tariffs or other non-tariff barriers to trade) impact prices received by U.S. producers as well. Third, monetary policy in the U.S. impacts interest rates that farmers have to pay to finance their crops, land and equipment and exchange rates that tend to make our exports relatively more expensive than our competitors.  Other types of policies that can impact U.S. crop prices are conservation, biofuels, taxes, and more recently health regulations such as those listed in the MAHA report that questions the health impacts of certain agricultural products (e.g., sugar) or bi-products (e.g., vegetable oils). </li>



<li>U.S. farm yields are primarily impacted by weather…enough said about that. </li>



<li>U.S. crop production costs are impacted by the supply and demand of each of the individual inputs, from seed, fertilizer, and chemicals to equipment, farmland, and labor, among others. Increasingly, for many producers, these purchases also must be financed at elevated interest rates. In addition, all of the policy areas discussed under farm prices above can also impact crop production costs.  </li>
</ul>



These conversations usually conclude with an explanation that, even though there is a lot of uncertainty, U.S. farmers understand how the forces of supply and demand impact crop prices and input costs and are accustomed to dealing with erratic weather. However, it’s the uncertainty that comes from policy that keeps them up at night.&nbsp;&nbsp;In our minds, the government safety net helps reduce some of their and their lender’s uncertainty regarding the ability to remain viable and able to try again next year in search of profits.



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



Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/june-wasde-delivers-sharp-reduction-in-u-s-rice-and-cotton-crops/">Dealing With Uncertainty in Agriculture.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(25.4). June 19, 2025. Permalink

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities