The USDA released the latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) on September 11, 2026. These are the first updates to last month’s survey-based yield estimates and adjusted area estimates using data from the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) certified acres (Maples, 2026). This month’s WASDE report continues to refine those yield and acreage estimates. Overall, the September report forecasts increased prices for most crops, relative to the August forecast.



There was little change in projected harvested acres, compared to the August report. Sorghum forecast harvested acres decreased by 3.7% compared to the August projection, to 5.2 million acres. This change was driven by 50-thousand-acre declines in planted acres in both Kansas and Texas. Peanuts had a 0.9% decrease in projected harvested acres, due to small declines across a number of states. Corn, cotton, rice, and soybeans all had less than a 0.5% change in predicted harvested acres, relative to the August forecast.



Forecasted yields were down for the most part, relative to August. Upland cotton showed the largest decline at 2.8%, to 766 lb. per acre, which would mark a 9.0% decrease compared to last year. Texas – the largest cotton producing state – is forecasted to have a 15.8%-lower yield than last year, driving the decreased national yield. Drought across the Texas High Plains is the main cause of the lower forecast cotton yield, as 63% of US total cotton acres are in areas of drought. Sorghum yields were predicted to fall by 1.8% to 54.4 bu. per acre, also due to the drought across the Southern Plains. If realized, this would mark a 25.1% decrease in yield compared to 2025. Peanut yields are forecast 1.9% lower than August, due to decreases across most of the peanut-producing states. This is prior to any impacts that may occur from the closing of the Delta Peanut facility in Arkansas (Reneau, 2026). Lastly, corn yields are forecast down 1.2% nationwide, while rice and soybeans are up 0.6% and 0.2%, respectively.



These updated yield and acreage levels have led to decreased production estimates for most crops. Cotton and sorghum had the largest drop in production compared to the August forecast, at 3.0%. Peanuts are projected to have a 2.8% decrease in production, corn a 1.3% decrease, and rice a 0.1% decrease compared to August. In contrast, soybean production is up 0.4%.



Forecasted marketing-year prices increased for all crops except for rice (table 1). Sorghum had the largest rise (7.0%), followed by corn (6.7%), soybeans (5.3%), and upland cotton (4.0%). Despite an increase in estimated soybean production, soybean prices were buoyed by increased expected usage due to higher exports. While this month’s WASDE report provided more information about the size of this year’s crop, these values will continue to be refined throughout the rest of the year in subsequent reports.



Table 1: Past and Projected US Marketing-year Prices by Crop



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table style="border-style:none;border-width:0px"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Crop</td><td colspan="3">Price</td></tr><tr><td>2025/26E</td><td>2026/27F August</td><td>2026/27F September</td></tr><tr><td>Corn (bu.)</td><td>$4.15</td><td>$4.50</td><td>$4.80</td></tr><tr><td>Cotton (cwt.)</td><td>$62.00</td><td>$75.00</td><td>$78.00</td></tr><tr><td>Rice (cwt.)</td><td>$12.40</td><td>$14.90</td><td>$14.90</td></tr><tr><td>Sorghum (bu.)</td><td>$3.70</td><td>$4.30</td><td>$4.60</td></tr><tr><td>Soybeans (bu.)</td><td>$10.50</td><td>$11.40</td><td>$12.00</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: USDA. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. September 11, 2026.</figcaption></figure>



References



Maples, William E. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/08/18/august-wasde-brings-new-acreage-and-yield-estimates/">August WASDE Brings New Acreage and Yield Estimates.</a>” Southern Ag Today 6(34.3). August 19, 2026.



Reneau, A. “Arkansas Peanut Growers Face Uncertainty after Delta Peanut Loses Federal Warehouse Bond.” K8News. Available at: <a href="https://www.kait8.com/2026/09/12/arkansas-peanut-growers-face-uncertainty-after-delta-peanut-loses-federal-warehouse-bond/">https://www.kait8.com/2026/09/12/arkansas-peanut-growers-face-uncertainty-after-delta-peanut-loses-federal-warehouse-bond/</a>



USDA. US Agricultural Commodities in Drought. September 8, 2026. Available at: <a href="https://agindrought.unl.edu/Maps.aspx?1">https://agindrought.unl.edu/Maps.aspx?1</a>



USDA-NASS. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. September 11, 2026. Available at: <a href="https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/release-files/796054/wasde0926.pdf">https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/release-files/796054/wasde0926.pdf</a>



USDA-NASS. Crop Production. September 11, 2026. Available at: <a href="https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/release-files/796056/crop0926.pdf">https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/release-files/796056/crop0926.pdf</a> &nbsp;



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



Recommended citation format: Sawadgo, Wendiam. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/september-wasde-forecasts-lower-production-higher-prices-for-most-crops/">September WASDE Forecasts Lower Production, Higher Prices for Most Crops.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(38.3). September 16, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/september-wasde-forecasts-lower-production-higher-prices-for-most-crops/">Permalink</a>

September WASDE Forecasts Lower Production, Higher Prices for Most Crops

Authors: Sanchez Philocles, Manuel Garcia, Texas A&amp;M AgriLife Extension Service- Department of Agricultural Economics and Samuel Zapata, Texas A&amp;M University- Department of Agricultural Economics



Certified halal represents a premium-generating attribute in meat production, comparable in commercial terms to organic, grass-fed, antibiotic-free (ABF), or kosher designations (USDA AMS, 2025). Halal certification requires that animals be processed, handled, and stored in accordance with Islamic dietary laws and traditions. This market niche is of particular interest given the significant expansion of halal food markets in the United States (US). To illustrate, Al-Mahmood (2020) showed that the number of halal food markets in the US went from 200 stores in 1998 to 2,100 in 2018, with 85% of those stores selling halal meat. Furthermore, <a>Green and Gammon (2016)</a> have found that halal food is important not only to the US Muslim Population but also to young non-Muslim Americans, many of whom have embraced halal food believing it to be a healthier dietary alternative. This trend creates growth opportunities for livestock operations, slaughter facilities, restaurants, and foodservice providers, in a market expected to reach $20 billion in annual sales (Halawa, 2018).



In this article, we compare retail prices for conventional and halal-certified beef, lamb, goat, and chicken. Data for this analysis comes from the 2025 weekly grocery store feature activity reports published by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). For example, in 2025, conventional ground beef was sold for an average of $5.65/lb., compared with $8.76/lb. for ABF, $8.19/lb. for USDA organic, $8.08/lb. for grass-fed, and $7.09/lb. for halal (Table 1). Similar price premium patterns were observed across other cuts and meat types.



To highlight price differences, Figure 1 presents the percentage premiums across the four main protein categories: beef, lamb, goat, and chicken. Among halal beef products, ribs were sold at a premium of 60% relative to conventional alternatives. Loin cuts commanded the highest premium (127%), while ground beef exhibited the lowest premium (25%). Halal goat products also showed substantial premiums; in particular, goat stew meat was sold at a premium of 147% in 2025. This result has important implications for US goat producers and livestock processors because most of the halal goat consumed in the US is imported from Australia. Therefore, industry stakeholders can develop targeted strategies to capture a market segment with untapped potential.



Halal chicken exhibited the highest average premium across all three cuts included in the analysis. Boneless chicken breasts, drumsticks, and thighs were sold at premiums of 181%, 125%, and 74%, respectively. Despite the high premiums on halal chicken, beef, and goat, higher prices do not automatically translate into higher profits. Premiums should be considered in conjunction with sales volumes, market demand, certification costs, production adjustments, and marketing requirements needed to serve halal consumers.



Finally, halal lamb products showed the smallest and most variable premium levels across four major cuts. Lamb legs were sold at a premium of 10%, while loin and ribs cuts commanded premiums of 50% and 63%, respectively. On the other hand, ground lamb was sold at a discount of 15% compared to conventional.



These findings highlight halal certification as a value-added strategy for US livestock producers and processors, particularly those involved in goat and chicken production, as these categories exhibited some of the highest premiums. However, the potential for higher returns must be weighed against the additional costs and production adjustments required to meet halal certification and market requirements. The premiums reported here should be treated as inputs to that evaluation, rather than a forecast of profitability.



Table 1. Average retail price by product and certification attribute in 2025.



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Commodity</td><td rowspan="2">Section/type</td><td colspan="7">Avg. retail price ($/lb.)</td></tr><tr><td>Conventional</td><td>Grass Fed</td><td>Antibiotic Free</td><td>Kosher</td><td>USDA Organic</td><td>Free Range</td><td>Halal</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Beef</td><td>Ground</td><td>5.65</td><td>8.08</td><td>8.76</td><td>6.24</td><td>8.19</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>7.09</td></tr><tr><td>Loin</td><td>10.59</td><td>22.67</td><td>21.59</td><td>15.31</td><td>23.05</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>23.99</td></tr><tr><td>Rib</td><td>9.76</td><td>19.92</td><td>16.40</td><td>11.49</td><td>19.45</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>15.64</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Lamb</td><td>Ground</td><td>8.77</td><td>9.10</td><td>9.39</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>7.42</td></tr><tr><td>Leg</td><td>7.74</td><td>7.86</td><td>8.24</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>8.52</td></tr><tr><td>Loin</td><td>10.39</td><td>12.03</td><td>10.21</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>15.56</td></tr><tr><td>Rib</td><td>16.06</td><td>18.08</td><td>19.51</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>26.21</td></tr><tr><td>Goat</td><td>Other: Stew meat</td><td>5.06</td><td>10.99</td><td>10.99</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>12.49</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Chicken</td><td>Breast, boneless/skinless</td><td>3.03</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>4.63</td><td>7.98</td><td>8.02</td><td>6.39</td><td>8.51</td></tr><tr><td>Drumsticks</td><td>1.26</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>1.91</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>3.51</td><td>2.86</td><td>2.84</td></tr><tr><td>Thighs</td><td>1.63</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>2.19</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>5.57</td><td>3.36</td><td>2.84</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Note: All beef cuts included in the analysis were classified as ungraded. Source: USDA AMS 2025</figcaption></figure>



Figure 1. Retail price premiums (%) for halal meat cuts relative to conventional alternatives in 2025



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1307" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.2-2-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44782" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.2-2-scaled.png 2560w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.2-2-1024x523.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.2-2-2048x1046.png 2048w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.2-2-768x392.png 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.2-2-1536x784.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA AMS 2025</figcaption></figure>



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



References:



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>Al-Mahmood, O. A., Jiang, X., Bridges, W. C., &amp; Fraser, A. M. (2024). A Longitudinal Study: Microbiological Quality of Raw Beef from Halal and Non-Halal Meat Markets in the United States.&nbsp;Applied Microbiology,&nbsp;4(3), 1193-1202.</li>



<li>Green, J., &amp; Gammon, C. (2016). How halal food became a $20 billion hit in America.&nbsp;Bloomberg, available at: www. bloomberg. com/news/articles/2016-09-14/america-loves-muslim-food-so-much-for-a-clash-of-civilizations (accessed 25 October 2016).</li>



<li>Halawa, A. (2018). Acculturation of Halal Food to the American Food Culture Through Immigration and Globalization: A Literature Review. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies 5(2):53–63. <a href="https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/89">https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/89</a></li>



<li>U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Service (2025). Grocery Store Feature Reports, available at: <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news/grocerystore">https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news/grocerystore</a></li>



<li>U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2025). Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System. <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system</a></li>
</ol>



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



Recommended citation format: Philocles, Sanchez, Manuel Garcia, and Samuel Zapata. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/market-opportunities-for-certified-halal-meat-in-the-united-states/">Market Opportunities for Certified Halal Meat in the United States.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(38.2). September 15, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/market-opportunities-for-certified-halal-meat-in-the-united-states/">Permalink</a>

 Market Opportunities for Certified Halal Meat in the United States

Authors: Kelli Russell, Jean Ribert Francois, Madison Harris, and Mykel Taylor, Auburn University-Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology



Depending on their vantage point, people define “good farming” in a myriad of ways,&nbsp; from profitability and production yields to conservation and innovation. To better understand how Southern producers think about good farming, we surveyed farmers across Alabama about their perspectives on what it means to be a good farmer. Using data from the 2025 Alabama Farm Poll pilot, which included 321 Alabama growers, we show how producers rate aspects of being a “good farmer” across four categories: production and profitability, soil and environmental stewardship, technology and management, and community and long-term responsibility. The Alabama Farm Poll is a biennial producer survey conducted by Auburn University.



Survey respondents rated the importance of various practices and activities using a five-point scale ranging from “very important” to “not important at all” regarding being a good farmer. Figure 1 highlights the results from the survey. Notably, no producers viewed the protection of streams as “not important at all,” meaning that all producers viewed this practice at least slightly important to being a good farmer. Reducing soil erosion had the highest percentage of respondents (28%) rating it as “very important” to being a good farmer. Overall, more than 80% of all producers who responded to the survey rated reducing soil erosion as either very important or important.



Figure 1. Alabama farmers’ ratings of the importance of practices and activities to being a “good farmer.” Survey statements are shortened for presentation.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1430" height="660" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44754" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.1-1.png 1430w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.1-1-1024x473.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.1-1-767x354.png 767w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1430px) 100vw, 1430px" /></figure>



In contrast, producers placed relatively little emphasis on using modern equipment as a defining characteristic of good farming. Only 3% of producers surveyed rated it as “very important” and 13% rated it as “important.” This finding is notable, as many precision agriculture technologies aimed at supporting soil and environmental stewardship (practices that producers rated as important) require modern equipment. Future research in the Southern region should explore how producers consider equipment investments in relation to conservation decisions.



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



Recommended citation format: Russell, Kelli, Jean Ribert Francois, Madison Harris, and Mykel Taylor. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/can-cooperatives-help-reverse-the-decline-in-rural-grocery-stores/">Defining a Good Farmer.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(38.1). September 14, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/can-cooperatives-help-reverse-the-decline-in-rural-grocery-stores/">Permalink</a>

Defining a Good Farmer

Independent rural grocery stores have been in decline due to factors such as competition from newer, smaller-footprint rivals, buying-power disadvantages relative to larger chains, rural population loss, and the aging out of independent grocery store owners. This decline is leading some small towns to explore starting cooperatively owned grocery stores, as history shows that many cooperatives were formed to serve rural areas where private investment failed. Examples include farmers&#8217; cooperatives, rural electric and telephone cooperatives, and the Farm Credit System.



Recently, the South Carolina Center for Cooperative Development surveyed a small town to assess interest in a cooperatively owned grocery store and found interesting results.



The Positive Findings



In general, the survey found substantial enthusiasm for a grocery store. The survey drew 773 complete responses from a population center of about 9,000 people. Most participants (84%) either lived in the city center or were within a 20-minute drive. Participants’ shopping habits showed that they use a variety of food outlets, with many respondents (~80%) shopping at major grocery chains and discount stores. Average monthly grocery spending ranged from $200 to $800, with a median of $400–$599.



When choosing where to shop, respondents ranked product quality first (80.7%), followed by price or value (62.7%) and product availability, selection, and variety (48.9%). When asked which product offerings were the most important, fresh produce was ranked highest, followed by meat and seafood, dairy products, organic or natural foods, and prepared foods. Locally sourced products seemed to matter more than organically sourced products for most participants: 88.6% rated local sourcing at least moderately important, while 65.7% rated organic sourcing at least moderately important.



Respondents also viewed the store as more important than a typical retail outlet, like an “anchor store” that drives foot traffic for a struggling main street. A deli or café was the most desired additional service, followed by online ordering and pickup, cooking demonstrations, community events, delivery, and nutritional education. Respondents also emphasized accessibility, parking, operating hours, professional management, and a welcoming atmosphere.



The Lukewarm Findings



Familiarity with the cooperative concept was limited. Sixty-nine percent said they were either only slightly familiar or not familiar at all with the model. Membership interest was more measured. About 61% were somewhat or very interested in becoming member-owners. Of those asked about investing, roughly three-quarters considered a one-time stock purchase of less than $300 reasonable. Engagement interest was limited, with interest in serving on a board or committee split evenly at 50% “yes” and 50% “no.”



The sample was also comparatively affluent, with about 70% reporting household incomes of $100,000 or more, suggesting that the findings may not fully reflect all income groups in the wider community.



Next Steps and Sources for Assistance



Cooperative groceries can work, though they typically do not resemble traditional grocery stores. While the survey findings point to a potentially promising market, long-term success depends on clear education (and engagement) with the cooperative model, and thoughtful collaboration with existing farmers, farm markets, and other local businesses. Potential cooperative “owners-as-customers” must also be realistic about the variety of products offered, as grocery store margins are low and inventory costs high.



The <a href="https://coopcentersc.org">South Carolina Center for Cooperative and Enterprise Development</a> is an example of how most states have resources to help rural towns with this issue. If you are looking to start a cooperative, many <a href="https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/land-grant-university-website-directory">land-grant universities</a> have extension personnel and cooperative specialists who can help with these items.&nbsp; Also, there are <a href="https://fci.coop/">national organizations</a> available to help <a href="https://www.ncg.coop/">cooperative grocery stores</a>, once a cooperative has been established.



For more information:



Food Co-op Initiative&nbsp; <a href="https://fci.coop">https://fci.coop</a>



National Co-op Grocers&nbsp; <a href="https://www.ncg.coop">https://www.ncg.coop</a>



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



Recommended citation format: Richards, Steve. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/can-cooperatives-help-reverse-the-decline-in-rural-grocery-stores/">Can Cooperatives Help Reverse the Decline in Rural Grocery Stores?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(37.5). September 11, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/can-cooperatives-help-reverse-the-decline-in-rural-grocery-stores/">Permalink</a>

Can Cooperatives Help Reverse the Decline in Rural Grocery Stores?

Prior to the reopening of the Chinese market in 2017, China was a negligible destination for U.S. beef exports; however, imports subsequently expanded rapidly, reaching a peak of approximately $2.1 billion in 2022 and establishing China as the third-largest market for U.S. beef exports, behind Japan and South Korea (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2026a). All of this changed in 2025. Rising trade tensions between the United States and China led to higher tariffs and the lapse of export establishment registrations for many U.S. beef suppliers (Muhammad, 2025). As a result, U.S. beef exports to China fell sharply, reversing much of the progress made in recent years.



Figure 1 shows the rapid growth and subsequent collapse of Chinese imports of U.S. beef and beef products between 2018 and the first half of 2026. Imports expanded from less than $20 million per quarter in 2018 to more than $500 million in the third quarter of 2022, reflecting China’s emergence as a major destination for U.S. beef exports. Although imports moderated during 2023 and 2024, quarterly values remained historically high before declining sharply in 2025. The downturn coincided with rising trade tensions, retaliatory tariffs, and disruptions to export establishment registrations, causing imports to fall from over $330 million in the first quarter of 2025 to less than $10 million by the fourth quarter. By the first half of 2026, imports had fallen to their lowest levels (less than $5 million by the second quarter) since the reopening of the Chinese market to U.S. beef in 2017.



Looking ahead to the second half of 2026 and 2027, the outlook for U.S. beef exports to China remains challenging despite China’s continued need for imported beef. Following a recent safeguard investigation on the impacts of beef imports on domestic producers, China implemented a country-specific tariff-rate quota (TRQ) system on January 1, 2026, concluding that rising imports had caused serious injury to the domestic cattle industry. Under a TRQ system, a specified quantity of imports may enter at the normal tariff rate, while imports exceeding the quota face substantially higher duties. In China’s case, imports above each country’s quota allocation are subject to an additional 55% tariff, greatly increasing the cost of accessing the market once quota limits are reached. The U.S. quota was set at 164,000 metric tons in 2026 and rises only modestly to 168,000 metric tons in 2027, limiting the scope for export growth even if demand for U.S. beef recovers (Dokken, 2026). For context, China’s imports of U.S. beef averaged approximately 169,500 metric tons per year between 2022 and 2024 (Trade Data Monitor, 2026). In effect, the policy places a ceiling on the volume of U.S. beef that can enter China under more favorable tariff conditions while discouraging additional shipments through significantly higher import costs



Additional challenges extend beyond the quota itself. Most U.S. beef products continue to face a 10 percent reciprocal tariff in addition to normal import duties, while exporters and importers remain concerned about establishment eligibility, customs clearance risks, and residue testing requirements. At the same time, U.S. beef continues to face a price disadvantage relative to major South American suppliers, particularly Brazil (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2026b). As a result, any recovery in U.S. beef exports is likely to be gradual and constrained by both policy barriers and market conditions. Consequently, the extraordinary growth achieved in the Chinese market between 2018 and 2024 may prove difficult to replicate in the coming years, leaving the future of U.S. beef exports to China highly uncertain.



Figure 1. Quarterly Chinese Imports of U.S. Beef and Beef Products: 2018-2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="468" height="228" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44764" style="aspect-ratio:2.052710094480358;width:470px;height:auto"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Trade Data Monitor® (2026)</figcaption></figure>



References



Dokken, V. 2026. China Announces TRQ Following Beef Safeguard Investigation. GAIN Report No. CH2026-0001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service.



Muhammad, A. 2025. “Recent Trade Tensions Cause U.S. Beef to Lose Ground in China, Spurs Gains for Australia and Brazil.” Southern Ag Today 5(44.4) (October 30, 2025). <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/10/30/recent-trade-tensions-cause-u-s-beef-to-lose-ground-in-china-spurs-gains-for-australia-and-brazil/">https://southernagtoday.org/2025/10/30/recent-trade-tensions-cause-u-s-beef-to-lose-ground-in-china-spurs-gains-for-australia-and-brazil/</a>



Trade Data Monitor. 2026. https://tradedatamonitor.com/.



U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2026a. Global Agricultural Trade System. Foreign Agricultural Service. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/Default.aspx.



U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2026b. Livestock and Products Annual. GAIN Report No. CH2026-0108. Foreign Agricultural Service.



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



Recommended citation format: Muhammad, Andrew. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/trade-tensions-and-the-uncertain-future-of-u-s-beef-exports-to-china/">Trade Tensions and the Uncertain Future of U.S. Beef Exports to China.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(37.4). September 10, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/trade-tensions-and-the-uncertain-future-of-u-s-beef-exports-to-china/">Permalink</a>

Trade Tensions and the Uncertain Future of U.S. Beef Exports to China

Producers that grew winter wheat in 2026 were most likely glad to put the season behind them. Winter wheat acres planted in the U.S. were the lowest since 2020. With only 67 percent harvested (tied with 2023 as the lowest on record), wheat acres harvested were the lowest since the USDA began reporting in 1909.&nbsp; The winter wheat yield of 47.0 bushels per acre was the lowest since 2015 (42.5 bushels). That resulted in a 990 million bushel winter wheat crop, the smallest since 1963.&nbsp;



However, wheat prices surged late in the growing season with Ukraine and Russia escalating attacks on shipping and port facilities in the Black Sea region. Even with a war extending past four years, that region still accounts for about 30% of global wheat exports.&nbsp;



Alternatively, the war with Iran has negative repercussions for producers planning for 2027. The restriction of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has resulted in much higher fertilizer and fuel prices, and overall inflation continues to pressure all prices higher, squeezing profit margins even more.&nbsp;



Given the geopolitical situation and commodity and input price environment, let’s take an early season look at production, price, and profits for winter wheat.&nbsp;



Production. It is likely that U.S. winter wheat acres will increase in 2027. While wheat is not a major crop in every state in the South, the region as a whole accounts for about 20% of U.S. winter wheat production. Though the overall trend in wheat acres in the U.S. is on the decline, we tend to see an increase in acres when we see an increase in the season average farm price the year before. Moving from a $5.06 per bushel wheat price in 2025 to $6.20 in 2026 signals an increase in acres for 2027.



The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is also predicting more than a 90% chance that the region will face a very strong El Nino weather pattern this fall and winter. That means an increased likelihood of a wetter and colder winter across the South. Since 2000, every state has seen above average precipitation in El Nino winters (December/January/February) (Iowa Environmental Mesonet, 2026). The forecast temperature track of the current El Nino is the strongest since the winter of 2015/16 (Figure 1). The 2016 winter wheat yield is the highest on record.



El Nino years also tend to produce a higher percentage of planted wheat harvested: 81% versus a 78% average since 2000. With an increase in acres and increased precipitation, winter wheat production prospects in 2027 look much improved from 2026.



Price. As of September 4, 2026, the price for July 2027 winter wheat contracts is $7.53 per bushel for Chicago soft red winter wheat and $8.11 for Kansas City hard red winter wheat. That is up from the July 2026 contract closing prices of $6.31 for Chicago wheat and $6.64 for Kansas City wheat. &nbsp;&nbsp;The current futures prices for both Chicago wheat and Kansas City wheat are &nbsp;trading in the top third of their nearby price ranges going back over the last 10 years (Figure 2).&nbsp;



Profit. USDA’s Risk Management Agency sets the crop insurance base price for winter wheat using the average closing price of the Chicago and Kansas City July contracts from August 15 through September 14. This is important because higher base prices mean the revenue guarantee from crop insurance will provide a higher safety net for wheat in 2027.



Costs, however, are going to be higher too. But costs for wheat compared to other crops are generally considerably less, as shown by USDA’s most recent forecast of costs of production for 2027 (Figure 3).&nbsp; If the El Nino winter results in higher-than-average wheat yields, that will help lower next year’s breakeven price for wheat.



Planting winter wheat can also provide cover crop benefits that promote soil health and benefit overall farm productivity, whether the crop is kept for harvest or not. And with wheat, the decision can be made in late winter whether to take to grain, harvest as forage or pasture, or &nbsp;terminate and plant another crop when &nbsp;we have more clarity around comparative profitability of all the farm’s enterprise possibilities.



Figure 1. Sea Surface Temperature Deviations, El Nino Winters since 2000



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="789" height="522" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.37.3-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44743" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.37.3-1.png 789w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.37.3-1-768x508.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 789px) 100vw, 789px" /></figure>



Figure 2.&nbsp; Nearby Chicago Soft Red Winter Wheat Futures (Tuesday prices)



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="744" height="518" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.37.3-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44744"/></figure>



Figure 3. 2027 Cost of Production Forecast&#8211;Total Operating Costs



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="706" height="422" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.37.3-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44745"/></figure>



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



References



Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). SRW Wheat Futures



USDA, NASS. Quick Stats. Accessed online August 25, 2026, <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/">USDA &#8211; National Agricultural Statistics Service &#8211; Quick Stats</a>.



USDA, RMA. Price Discovery-Home. Accessed online August 11, 2026, <a href="https://public-rma.fpac.usda.gov/apps/PriceDiscovery">RMA Price Discovery &#8211; Home</a>.



USDA, ERS. Commodity Costs and Returns. Accessed online August 11, 2026, <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns">Commodity Costs and Returns | Economic Research Service</a>.



Iowa Environmental Mesonet, Iowa State University. Monthly/Yearly Precip/Temperature Statistics by Year. Accessed August 10, 2026, <a href="https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/plotting/auto/?q=108">108. Accumulated Station Departures of Precip/GDD/SDD (Long Term Climate)</a>.



NOAA, Climate Prediction Center. El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Diagnostic Discussion, August 24, 2026, <a href="http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory">http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory</a><a href="http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/">/</a>



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



Recommended citation format: Welch, Mark. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/production-price-and-profit-prospects-for-the-2027-wheat-crop/">Production, Price, and Profit Prospects for the 2027 Wheat Crop.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(37.3). September 9, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/production-price-and-profit-prospects-for-the-2027-wheat-crop/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities