Southern Timber Market Update



In the fourth quarter of 2025, average pine sawtimber stumpage prices across the South softened further. Pine sawtimber averaged $23.23/ton, about 6% lower than a year ago and 10% below its early-2022 peak (TimberMart-South, 2026). Pine chip-n-saw prices remain relatively stable at $17.50-18.20/ton, essentially unchanged from last year but roughly 20% below 2022 levels. Pine pulpwood prices continued to slide, averaging $5.96/ton, down 22% year over year and 46% below their 2022 peak. Hardwood pulpwood prices held around $8/ton, stable over the past two years but still 33% lower than 2022 levels. Hardwood sawtimber prices remained relatively stable at $33.55/ton.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Stumpage prices varied widely across states and subregions.&nbsp;<a>In Q4 2025, pine sawtimber prices ranged from about $17-21/ton in Tennessee, South Carolina, and Alabama to over $30/ton in Florida and North Carolina (Figure 1).&nbsp;</a>Timber prices are inherently local, influenced by mill demand, weather, accessibility, timber quality, species mix, and local inventories.&nbsp;<a>Compared to a year ago,&nbsp;</a>pine sawtimber prices rose moderately in North Georgia (+20%) and North-Central Florida (+14%), declined in South Carolina (-26%), Northeast Texas (-16%), Alabama (-19%), and North Carolina (-12%), while remaining relatively stable elsewhere.



Figure 1. Average pine sawtimber stumpage prices by state and subregion, Q4 2025



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1304" height="715" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.05.1-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43330" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.05.1-1.jpg 1304w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.05.1-1-1024x561.jpg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.05.1-1-768x421.jpg 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1304px) 100vw, 1304px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: TimberMart-South (2026)</figcaption></figure>



In Q4 2025, pine pulpwood prices ranged from below $4/ton in Arkansas, Southern Louisiana, Tennessee, and Southeast Texas to $9-14/ton in North-Central Florida, South Georgia, Eastern North Carolina, and Virginia (Figure 2). Compared to a year ago, prices declined sharply in South Georgia (-40%), South Carolina (-32%), Arkansas (-27%), and Louisiana (-26%), while remaining relatively stable in Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. 



Figure 2. Average pine pulpwood stumpage prices by state and subregion, Q4 2025



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1271" height="696" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.05.1-2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43331" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.05.1-2.jpg 1271w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.05.1-2-1024x561.jpg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.05.1-2-768x421.jpg 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1271px) 100vw, 1271px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: TimberMart-South (2026)</figcaption></figure>



A closer look at southern timber markets



Weaker pine sawtimber prices reflect softness in the housing market. Over 70% of the U.S. softwood lumber and structural panel consumption is tied to single-family construction and remodeling activity (Alderman, 2022). While new single-family homes now account for a larger share of for-sale inventory than before the pandemic, overall supply remains constrained by affordability challenges, higher construction and financing costs, labor shortages, zoning restrictions, and rising existing homes for sale. In October 2025, single-family housing starts fell 7.8% year over year to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 874,000 units (U.S. Census Bureau, 2026).&nbsp;



Tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber have increased sharply since August 2024, with total duties now reaching 45.16%. While these higher tariffs may support U.S. production over the long term, they are likely to increase construction costs in the short run and further constrain housing starts.&nbsp;



Reflecting weaker lumber demand, lumber mill utilization rates declined from 81% in Q2 2021 to 68% in Q3 2025 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2025). Several major lumber producers have announced deeper curtailments and downtime to better align output with market conditions.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The continued decline in pine pulpwood prices reflects ongoing structural changes in the pulp and paper industry, including product shifts,&nbsp;increased use of&nbsp;recycled&nbsp;fiber, mill modernization, and relocation to lower-cost regions.&nbsp;These trends intensified in 2025, reducing regional demand for pulpwood and placing downward pressure on stumpage prices&nbsp;(Figure 3). Between 2023 and 2025, more than 10 major pulp facilities in the South closed,&nbsp;removing over 25 million tons of annual fiber demand and significantly reshaping regional pulpwood markets.



In areas heavily impacted by Hurricane Helene, storm-related salvage further compounded these effects, leading to sharper price declines. Conversely, new investments and mill expansions in South Alabama and Arkansas have increased local demand and helped support pulpwood prices in those areas.&nbsp;



Figure 3. U.S. South wood-using pulping capacity, 2014-2025



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1312" height="987" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.05.1-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43332" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.05.1-3.png 1312w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.05.1-3-1024x770.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.05.1-3-768x578.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1312px) 100vw, 1312px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: Forisk (2025)</figcaption></figure>



Looking Ahead



Single-family building permits, a leading indicator of housing starts,&nbsp;fell to 876,000 units in October, 9.4% lower than a year earlier (U.S. Census Bureau, 2026). Although Federal Reserve interest rate cuts in 2025 may ease financing conditions, housing starts are expected to remain under pressure in 2026. Remodeling and repairing activity, however, is projected to continue slow but steady growth (JCHS, 2025; NAHB, 2026). Higher tariffs on Canadian lumber may provide modest support demand for domestic production.&nbsp;



Overall, pine sawtimber prices in the South are expected to remain relatively stable. Areas heavily damaged by Hurricane Helene may face tighter timber supply and upward pressure on sawtimber prices due to inventory losses, particularly where growth-to-drain ratios were already low (USDA Forest Service, 2024).&nbsp;Pulpwood prices are expected to continue trending downward in most areas through 2026, though prices may remain stable locally where new investments add demand.&nbsp;



References



Alderman, D. 2022. U.S. forest products annual market review and prospects, 2015-2021. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-289. Madison, WI.



Forisk. 2025. Forisk North American forest industry capacity database. Athens, GA: Forisk.



JCHS. 2025.&nbsp;Leading Indicator of Remodeling Activity (LIRA). Cambridge, MA.



NAHB. 2026. NAHB/Westlake Royal Remodeling Market Index (RMI).&nbsp;&nbsp;



TimberMart-South. 2026.&nbsp;Market news quarterly. Athens, GA.



U.S. Census Bureau. 2025. Quarterly survey of plant capacity utilization.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/qpc.html">https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/qpc.html</a>



U.S. Census Bureau. 2026. Monthly new residential construction, October 2025.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/index.html">https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/index.html</a>



USDA Forest Service. 2024. Forest Inventory Analysis Program Forest Inventory EVALIDator web-application. St. Paul, MN.&nbsp;



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



Li, Yanshu. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/01/22/pine-sawtimber-prices-soften-as-pine-pulpwood-continues-to-fall/">Pine Sawtimber Prices Soften as Pine Pulpwood Continues to Fall.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(5.1). January 26, 2026. <a href="http://pine-sawtimber-prices-soften-as-pine-pulpwood-continues-to-fall">Permalink</a>

Pine Sawtimber Prices Soften as Pine Pulpwood Continues to Fall

There are a number of considerations for farmers and ranchers when it comes to estate planning.&nbsp;&nbsp;Things like determining the fair market value of their estate for tax purposes, or deciding the best way to organize their operation to ensure success for the next generation, or selecting the right person to serve as their medical power of attorney all come to mind.&nbsp;&nbsp;One issue that is easy to overlook, however, is the importance of keeping beneficiary designations up to date.



There are certain assets that pass by contract outside the will, which are known as “non-probate assets.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Common examples of these types of assets include life insurance policies, Transfer on Death bank accounts, and retirement accounts with a designated beneficiary.&nbsp;&nbsp;For these assets, it is the beneficiary designation that will govern distribution at the person’s death, regardless of what a will or other estate planning tool might say.



An example of how failure to keep beneficiaries up to date was illustrated well in a 2016 case from the Dallas Court of Appeals in Texas.<a href="applewebdata://4FEFBB2A-D2B1-4B6D-A5CF-EDC8D45C2539#_ftn1">[1]</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;There, Mr. Switzer passed away in 2014 with a will leaving everything to his wife, Patricia.&nbsp;&nbsp;Prior to his marriage to Patricia, he was hired at the United States Postal Service, and a benefit of that employment was a life insurance policy.&nbsp;&nbsp;He, being unmarried at the time, named his co-worker and then-girlfriend, Kay, as his beneficiary.&nbsp;&nbsp;When Patricia contacted the life insurance company following his death, she learned that Mr. Switzer never made any updates to his beneficiary designations.&nbsp;&nbsp;Despite his being married to Patricia and his will leaving everything to her as his wife, the life insurance was a non-probate asset and would only be paid to the designated beneficiary, the ex-girlfriend, Kay.&nbsp;



It is easy to sign up for benefits or designate beneficiaries when a job is started early in one’s career, and then simply never look back to determine if those beneficiaries are up to date.&nbsp;&nbsp;For many people, a substantial portion of their estate value is governed not by a will, but by these beneficiary designations.&nbsp;&nbsp;Take the time today to do an audit of your own beneficiary designations to ensure they are current and reflect your wishes.&nbsp;



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



<a href="applewebdata://4FEFBB2A-D2B1-4B6D-A5CF-EDC8D45C2539#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;Switzer v. Vaughan, No. 05-15-00811-CV, Memorandum Opinion (Tex. Ct. App. – Dallas July 27, 2016).&nbsp;

Update Your Beneficiaries!

Authors Joe Outlaw and Bart L. Fischer



We have all heard the old proverb “it takes a village to raise a child.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Indeed, an entire community is needed to interact with and guide a young person to grow into a well- rounded adult.&nbsp;&nbsp;If the last 2 years are any proof, the same could be said about farm policy. Against the backdrop of exploding input costs and falling prices, the various components of the Federal government ultimately came together to begin addressing the bleak economic outlook. For example:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>While Congress was unable to get a farm bill done in 2024, they ultimately provided $30.78 billion in assistance for both economic and natural disaster losses from the 2023 and 2024 crop years.  Within 90 days of passage, the newly minted Secretary of Agriculture, Brook Rollins, had implemented the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) and quickly followed with the initial round of the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP).</li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>As 2025 unfolded, when it became apparent that a bipartisan farm bill was unlikely, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Agricultural Committees along with the leadership in each chamber and the administration worked to include more than $60 billion in enhancements to the farm safety net in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). OBBBA was passed through the reconciliation process and was signed into law on July 4th of last year, with the enhanced provisions taking affect for the 2025 crop which was already well underway. While the marketing year average prices that determine the amount of assistance are still being determined, it is safe to say that all of the efforts that were put into getting the enhanced safety net provisions in the OBBBA will be felt and greatly appreciated by producers when payments are distributed after October 1st for those crops that trigger assistance. And, at the moment, it looks like virtually all crops will trigger.  </li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>As we approached the end of 2025 with economic and trade-related losses still outstripping the assistance that will eventually arrive under the OBBBA, the Trump Administration stepped in and announced the creation of the Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) program that will inject an additional $12 billion of operating capital on farms by the end of February. </li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>The agricultural leaders in the U.S. Congress are considering taking this even further, with some reports suggesting yet another $15 billion in assistance could go out the door to address other 2025 crop year losses, including those of special crop and sugar producers that were not included in FBA and have yet to be addressed by USDA.</li>
</ul>



Getting the regulations completed for all of these program changes—and for the new programs—takes the effort of everyone from the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Risk Management Agency (RMA) at USDA to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the White House to the congressional agricultural committee staff, just to name a few. Despite all of the disfunction and infighting in Washington, “the village” has still managed to come together to make positive changes to address the bleak outlook facing U.S. farmers.



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



Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/01/08/it-takes-a-village/">It Takes a Village</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(4.4). January 22, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/01/08/it-takes-a-village/">Permalink</a>

It Takes a Village

With the continued growth of agricultural production in Brazil, it is increasingly important for U.S. row crop producers to monitor crop conditions there, as the two countries compete directly in global markets. With Brazil located in the Southern Hemisphere, its growing season runs opposite that of the United States, so soybean harvest in Brazil is just beginning, with corn, cotton, and other crops to follow later in the U.S. winter and spring. This article provides an update on current estimates and crop progress for the Brazilian production season<ins>&nbsp;based on the January WASDE report from USDA and other sources</ins>.



In Brazil, soybean planting typically runs from September through December, with harvest of early-planted soybeans beginning in January. While some regions experienced early-season planting delays in 2025 due to irregular rainfall, planting progressed strongly later in the season and was largely completed on schedule. As of January 10, soybean harvest has begun in select areas, though progress remains below 1% nationally.



&nbsp;The USDA is currently projecting Brazilian soybean production at 178 million metric tons, up from 171.5 million metric tons last year. If realized, this would represent another record level of production. Continued expansion of Brazil’s soybean sector is being driven by several factors, including the implementation of a new B15 biodiesel mandate and strong demand from China. Brazil is also expected to remain the world’s leading soybean exporter, with projected exports of 114 million metric tons, compared to 42.86 million metric tons for the United States. Brazil’s growing share of the Chinese import market will continue to pose a competitive challenge for U.S. soybean producers.



Brazil, unlike the United States, can produce two corn crops per year. The first corn crop is planted from October through December, with harvest beginning in February, and it has historically accounted for the majority of Brazilian corn production. Over the past 15 years, however, growth in Brazil’s corn output has been driven primarily by expansion of the second corn crop (safrinha) (Figure 1). This second crop is planted following the harvest of early-season soybeans in January and February and is harvested from June through September.



The 2024/25 crop year was a strong production year for Brazilian corn. However, the USDA currently projects 2025 corn production at 131 million metric tons, approximately 2 percent lower than last year. This outlook is driven primarily by expectations of lower yields associated with La Niña conditions. It is important to note that the second corn crop, which in recent years has accounted for approximately 79 percent of total Brazilian corn production, has not yet been planted this year, meaning production estimates could change significantly as the season progresses. In addition, early-season delays in soybean planting could delay harvest, which in turn may reduce the ability to plant the second-crop corn within the optimal planting window, increasing downside production risk.



Finally, the Brazilian cotton crop is planted from December through February and harvested from May through September. The USDA projects Brazilian cotton production to increase to 18.75 million bales, up 10 percent from last year and 28 percent from 2023. For the first time in 2024, Brazil surpassed the United States as the world’s leading cotton exporter and is projected to maintain that position during the current crop year. Improvements in cotton quality have been a key driver of growing global demand for Brazilian cotton. In addition, ongoing uncertainty in global trade has further supported demand, as importing countries seek to diversify their supplier base. For U.S. cotton producers, Brazil will remain a major competitor, with higher production levels contributing to increased global cotton stocks.



With Brazil remaining a major competitor to U.S. agricultural exports, it is important for producers to know where to find reliable information on Brazilian production. The USDA&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/staff-offices/office-chief-economist/commodity-markets/wasde-report">World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE)</a>report remains the primary source of supply and demand data for major commodities in the United States and globally. Brazil’s National Supply Company (CONAB) also publishes production estimates through its&nbsp;<a href="https://portaldeinformacoes.conab.gov.br/produtos-360.html">Agricultural Information Portal</a>, which contains a wide range of useful data. Although the website is in Portuguese, most internet browsers offer built-in translation tools that allow producers to navigate the information easily. As always, your state Extension crop marketing specialist is an excellent source of timely analysis and interpretation of these data.



Figure 1. Brazilian Corn Production by Corn Crop&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2145" height="1443" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43310" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.3.png 2145w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.3-1024x689.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.3-768x517.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.3-1536x1033.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.3-2048x1378.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2145px) 100vw, 2145px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: CONAB&nbsp;</figcaption></figure>



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



Maples, William E. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/01/08/brazilian-crop-progress-what-u-s-producers-should-watch/">Brazilian Crop Progress: What U.S. Producers Should Watch.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(4.3). January 21, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/01/08/brazilian-crop-progress-what-u-s-producers-should-watch/">Permalink</a>

Brazilian Crop Progress: What U.S. Producers Should Watch

USDA is set to release the January Cattle on Feed and the much-anticipated Cattle inventory report later this month.&nbsp;&nbsp;This SAT takes a brief look at expectations for each report, key points to look for when they are released, and some market implications of each.



Cattle on Feed



The Cattle on Feed report is set to be released on Friday, January 23rd.&nbsp;&nbsp;There was one more slaughter day during the month of December, based on when the weekends and holidays fell.&nbsp;&nbsp;That extra day shows up in pre-report estimates of increased marketings for the month.&nbsp;&nbsp;December marketings are expected to be about 2 percent higher than December 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;Daily average marketings should have lagged behind last year, which is to be expected with fewer cattle on feed.&nbsp;



Placements of feeders into feedlots are expected to be below a year ago, with pre-report estimates down around 5 percent.&nbsp;&nbsp;December placements versus a year ago reflect the border closure to cattle imports from Mexico, with no cattle imported in December 2024 and 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is the first full month of comparison with no imports for a month in either year.&nbsp;&nbsp;Large declines in placements during 2025 included the impact of no Mexican feeder cattle so in coming months year-over-year placements will indicate changes in domestic feeder cattle placements.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The combination of larger marketings and smaller placements results in the total number of cattle on feed expected to be down more than 2 percent on January 1, compared to January 1, 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;This report will include an estimate of the number of heifers on feed.&nbsp;&nbsp;This may be the most anticipated number in the report as evidence of any heifer retention for herd growth.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Cattle



The annual Cattle inventory report will be released on Friday, January 30th.&nbsp;&nbsp;This report will provide evidence of herd rebuilding and whether this cattle cycle has bottomed out with growth beginning.&nbsp;&nbsp;I tend to focus on the beef cow herd and heifers held for beef cow replacement more than other data points in the report.&nbsp;&nbsp;Cow herd: Pre-report estimates indicate close to the same number of cows as a year ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;Beef cow slaughter during 2025 was down almost 20 percent compared to the year before, and that is low enough for a slight increase in cow numbers.&nbsp;&nbsp;High calf prices certainly provided an incentive to try to get one more calf out of older cows before culling them.&nbsp;&nbsp;



There has been little hard evidence of heifer retention providing cow herd growth.&nbsp;&nbsp;Continued high heifer slaughter, a large number of heifers on feed as a percent of all cattle on feed, very low numbers of heifers held last year to enter the herd, and a historically small calf crop all contribute to expectations of little herd growth from the heifer side.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Beyond the cow herd, the dairy herd should show the largest number of cows since the early 1990s.&nbsp;&nbsp;The number of stockers on small grain pastures will be interesting for potential placements in the next couple of months.&nbsp;&nbsp;The number of all cattle will be interesting as a historical number for the cattle cycle.&nbsp;



<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/2026/01/6.04.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43302" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-1.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-1-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-1-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-1-1536x1152.png 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/2026/01/6.04.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43303" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-2.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-2-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-2-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-2-1536x1152.png 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/2026/01/6.04.2-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43304" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-3.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-3-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-3-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-3-1536x1152.png 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/2026/01/6.04.2-4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43305" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-4.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-4-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-4-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.2-4-1536x1152.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



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



Anderson, David. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/01/08/two-big-cattle-reports-this-month/">Two Big Cattle Reports This Month.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(4.2). January 20, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/01/08/two-big-cattle-reports-this-month/">Permalink</a>

Two Big Cattle Reports This Month

Low commodity prices, high input costs, and trade market uncertainty have placed significant financial strain on many row crop producers throughout the U.S. In response, the U.S. Department of Agriculture developed the Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) program (USDA-FSA, 2025a). The FBA program aims to deliver one-time commodity-specific payments ($/acre) to row crop producers to serve as a financial bridge until the benefits of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) become available in October 2026 (USDA-FSA, 2025b). Payments will be made to eligible producers based on 2025 planted acres reported to the FSA. Farmers who qualify for the FBA program can expect payments to be released by February 28, 2026 (USDA-FSA, 2025a). On December 31, 2025, the USDA released details on the per-acre payment rates for all eligible row crop commodities (USDA-FSA, 2025b). Rice farmers who qualify for the FBA program will receive a payment rate of $132.89/acre.&nbsp;



This article evaluates the impact of the FBA Program on rice returns to operating and total (operating plus fixed) costs in the southern U.S. The analysis is based on average rice production costs and average expected rice yields obtained from 2025 Cooperative Extension rice enterprise budgets from Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. Seven southern U.S. rice regions are evaluated (Eastern Arkansas, Mississippi Delta, Southeast Missouri, Northeast Louisiana, Southwest Louisiana, Texas Gulf East, and Texas Gulf West). Results for Southwest Louisiana and Texas Gulf West are evaluated for the first crop and for the first crop plus a ratoon crop. Average rice yields, costs, and returns per acre for the analysis are presented below in the accompanying table.



Figure 1 presents budgeted rice returns to both operating costs and total costs by southern U.S. rice region without assistance from the FBA program. Budgeted returns to both operating costs and total costs are negative for all regions except those located in Louisiana. Operating costs in the Louisiana rice regions are lower due to lower herbicide, fertilizer, and seed costs.&nbsp;



Figure 2 presents rice returns to both operating costs and total costs by southern U.S. rice region when assistance from the FBA program is included. Returns to total costs by region are still largely negative except for the Louisiana regions. However, returns to operating costs are either positive or close to breakeven for many of the remaining southern rice regions.&nbsp;



It is important to note that these results are from pre-season budget estimates not actual 2025 observations, but they do provide an estimated scope of the FBA program impact in rice.&nbsp;&nbsp;Results indicate the FBA program may not help with covering total costs in most instances, but would aid in covering most or all of rice operating costs. Thus, the FBA program could help many rice producers obtain operating loans for production inputs, thus allowing them to get a rice crop planted for the 2026 crop year.



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="756" height="485" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43296"/></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="756" height="485" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/6.04.1-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43297"/></figure>



Table 1. Average Rice Yields, Costs, and Returns by Southern U.S. Rice Region based on State Cooperative Extension Rice Enterprise Budgets, 2025



<figure class="wp-block-table aligncenter has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>Region</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Yield (cwt/acre)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Operating Costs ($/acre)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Total Costs ($/acre)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Gross Returns ($/acre)&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Returns Above Operating Costs ($/acre)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Returns Above Total Costs ($/acre)</td></tr><tr><td>Eastern AR</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">81</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">947</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1121</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">905</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-42</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-216</td></tr><tr><td>MS Delta</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">76</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1006</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1195</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">851</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-155</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-344</td></tr><tr><td>SE MO</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">78</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">953</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1286</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">865</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-87</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-420</td></tr><tr><td>NE LA</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">73</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">597</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">710</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">810</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">213</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">100</td></tr><tr><td>SW LA, First Crop</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">72</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">701</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">845</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">804</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">103</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-41</td></tr><tr><td>SW LA, First + Ratoon</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">98</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">859</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1034</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1089</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">230</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">55</td></tr><tr><td>TX Gulf, East</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">55</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">813</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">918</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">614</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-199</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-304</td></tr><tr><td>TX Gulf West, First Crop</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">70</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1054</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1129</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">782</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-272</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-347</td></tr><tr><td>TX Gulf West, First + Ratoon</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">86</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1241</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1341</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">960</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-280</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-381</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Note: Gross returns calculated assuming an average long grain rice price of $11.17/cwt for the months of August – October 2025 (USDA, NASS, 2026). Total costs are calculated as operating plus fixed costs and exclude charges for land and management.&nbsp;&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



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



References and Resources



Louisiana State University AgCenter. LSU College of Agriculture. Enterprise Budgets.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.lsuagcenter.com/portals/our_offices/research_stations/deanlee/features/enterprise-budgets">https://www.lsuagcenter.com/portals/our_offices/research_stations/deanlee/features/enterprise-budgets</a>



Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics. Budgets.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.agecon.msstate.edu/whatwedo/budgets.php">https://www.agecon.msstate.edu/whatwedo/budgets.php</a>



Texas A&amp;M Agrilife Extension, Extension Agricultural Economics. Texas Crop and Livestock Budgets.&nbsp;<a href="https://agecoext.tamu.edu/resources/crop-livestock-budgets/">https://agecoext.tamu.edu/resources/crop-livestock-budgets/</a>



University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. Crop Enterprise Budgets for Arkansas.&nbsp;<a href="https://uaex.uada.edu/farm-ranch/economics-marketing/farm-planning/budgets/crop-budgets.aspx">https://uaex.uada.edu/farm-ranch/economics-marketing/farm-planning/budgets/crop-budgets.aspx</a>



University of Missouri Extension. Missouri Crop and Livestock Enterprise Budgets.&nbsp;<a href="https://extension.missouri.edu/programs/agricultural-business-and-policy-extension/missouri-crop-and-livestock-enterprise-budgets">https://extension.missouri.edu/programs/agricultural-business-and-policy-extension/missouri-crop-and-livestock-enterprise-budgets</a>



USDA-FSA, 2025a. Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) Program.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/fact-sheets/farmer-bridge-assistance-program">https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/fact-sheets/farmer-bridge-assistance-program</a>



USDA-FSA, 2025b. USDA Announces Commodity Payment Rates for Farmer Bridge Assistance Program. December 31, 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-events/news/12-31-2025/usda-announces-commodity-payment-rates-farmer-bridge-assistance-program">https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-events/news/12-31-2025/usda-announces-commodity-payment-rates-farmer-bridge-assistance-program</a>



USDA-NASS (2026). United States Department of Agriculture, Quick-Stats.&nbsp;<a href="https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/">https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/</a>



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



Watkins, Brad. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/01/08/potential-impact-of-the-farmer-bridge-assistance-program-on-southern-u-s-rice/">Potential Impact of the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program on Southern U.S. Rice.</a>&#8220; Southern Ag Today 6(4.1). January 19, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/01/08/potential-impact-of-the-farmer-bridge-assistance-program-on-southern-u-s-rice/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities