As we&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/12/19/congress-poised-to-deliver-vital-aid-to-the-countryside/">noted</a>&nbsp;back in December 2024, the American Relief Act provided $30.78 billion in relief for agricultural producers—$10 billion for economic assistance and $20.78 billion for natural disaster relief.&nbsp;



Signup for the economic assistance—known as the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP)—began on March 19, 2025, and runs through August 15, 2025. Initial ECAP payments were factored by 85% to ensure total program payments do not exceed available funding. If all goes as planned, FSA may issue a second payment in August.



USDA has also started rolling out the $20.78 billion in natural disaster assistance. For example, on May 29, 2025, USDA announced that approximately $1 billion in Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP) payments were being issued to affected producers. At this point, anticipation is building for sign-up to begin for the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP). SDRP is the successor to the Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program (WHIP) and the Emergency Relief Program (ERP) summarized in Table 1.



Table 1. Recent History of Natural Disaster Relief for Agricultural Producers



<figure class="wp-block-table aligncenter is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>Program</td><td>Crop Year</td><td>Authorizing Statute</td><td>Enactment Date</td></tr><tr><td>WHIP</td><td>2017</td><td><a href="https://www.congress.gov/115/statute/STATUTE-132/STATUTE-132-Pg64.pdf">P.L. 115-123</a></td><td>2/9/18</td></tr><tr><td>WHIP+</td><td>2018 &amp; 2019</td><td><a href="https://www.congress.gov/116/statute/STATUTE-133/STATUTE-133-Pg871.pdf">P.L. 116-20</a></td><td>6/6/19</td></tr><tr><td>ERP</td><td>2020 &amp; 2021</td><td><a href="https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ43/PLAW-117publ43.pdf">P.L. 117-43</a></td><td>9/30/21</td></tr><tr><td>ERP</td><td>2022</td><td><a href="https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ328/PLAW-117publ328.pdf">P.L. 117-328</a></td><td>12/29/22</td></tr><tr><td>SDRP</td><td>2023 &amp; 2024</td><td><a href="https://www.congress.gov/118/plaws/publ158/PLAW-118publ158.pdf">P.L. 118-158</a></td><td>12/21/24</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Authorizing Statutes are clickable links. </figcaption></figure>



SDRP will provide assistance to producers for necessary expenses related to losses of revenue, quality or production of crops (including milk, on-farm stored commodities, crops prevented from planting, and harvested adulterated wine grapes), trees, bushes, and vines, as a consequence of droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, derechos, excessive heat, tornadoes, winter storms, freeze, including a polar vortex, smoke exposure, and excessive moisture occurring in calendar years 2023 and 2024. While the details will be released by USDA once approved by OMB, following are a few key observations:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Sign-up Date.&nbsp;USDA has announced a target date of July 7, 2025, for sign-up to begin. While that date may slip a bit as OMB finalizes its review, all indications are that a sign-up announcement is imminent.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Funding.&nbsp;While $20.78 billion was reserved for natural disaster assistance, Congress earmarked $2 billion for livestock (via ELRP), and block grants to states for hurricane relief must also be funded from that total. As a result, the amount available for SDRP will be significantly less than $20.78 billion.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Factoring.&nbsp;When compared against projected losses, there is virtually no question that USDA will have to implement a payment factor.&nbsp;&nbsp;Recall, the Biden Administration noted that—had they implemented a flat payment factor for ERP 2022—it would have been 27%. Their solution at the time was to implement progressive factoring instead, an approach that U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has repeatedly rejected. So, while we know there will not be progressive factoring, we do not know what the flat factor will be. Regardless, we’d argue that you shouldn’t get too hung up on the payment factor. Why? USDA will simply estimate projected payments, compare it to available funding, and set the factor accordingly. In other words, if USDA’s approach with SDRP is generous in calculating payments, then it will require a more significant factor to make sure it doesn’t exceed available funding. The most important part to remember is that USDA will be allocating a historic amount of disaster funding in the months ahead…and any payment factor will be applied uniformly to all program applicants.</li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Sequence.&nbsp;&nbsp;USDA has noted that SDRP sign-up will focus first on those with indemnified losses. USDA is targeting September 15, 2025, to begin sign-up for those with uncovered losses (i.e., shallow losses) including producers without crop insurance, and quality losses.</li>
</ul>



We will provide additional details once SDRP is officially released.



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



Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. &#8220;S<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/sign-up-for-natural-disaster-relief-beginning-soon/">ign-up for Natural Disaster Relief Beginning Soon.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(27.4). July 3, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42189">Permalink</a>

Sign-up for Natural Disaster Relief Beginning Soon

For its first official production estimates of the new crop year, published in the May&nbsp;World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), USDA relies on the planted acreage number from the&nbsp;Prospective Plantingssurvey conducted in late February to mid-March and reported at the end of March. Compared to those March survey numbers, the annual&nbsp;Acreage&nbsp;and quarterly&nbsp;Grain Stocks&nbsp;reports released by USDA at the end of June can change those numbers significantly, thus having the potential to be a major market mover.&nbsp;&nbsp;



In the May WASDE (and carried forward unchanged in the June WASDE), USDA estimated 95.3 million acres of corn for 2025 (Table 1) and harvested acres of 87.4 million (91.7% harvest rate).&nbsp;&nbsp;That compares to 90.6 million acres planted in 2024 and 82.9 million harvested (91.5% harvest rate).&nbsp;&nbsp;The average guess by traders ahead of the June Acreage report was 95.2 million corn acres planted.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Acreage report also showed U.S. farmers planted 95.2 million acres of corn for 2025, 100,000 acres below the March survey, but right on the average trade guess.&nbsp;



Also revised in the Acreage report was estimated acres harvested for corn.&nbsp;&nbsp;While acres planted were down only 100,000 from previous estimates, acres harvested were down 600,000. The harvested percentage dropped from 91.7% to 91.1%.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Plugging those numbers into the supply and demand balance sheet from the June WASDE, and leaving all other supply and demand factors unchanged, these new acreage numbers lower corn production for 2025 (and ending stocks) by 114 million bushels (Table 2). With use held steady and a reduction in ending stocks, days of use on hand at the end of the marketing year (a representation of the stocks-to-use ratio) decreases from a 41.3-day supply in the June WASDE down to a relatively tight 38.6-day supply.&nbsp;&nbsp;



June 1 Grain Stocks were estimated at 4.64 billion bushels of corn, 1.01 billion bushels of soybeans, and 851 million bushels of wheat. Corn stocks are down compared to a year ago while soybeans and wheat stocks are higher. Corn disappearance in the period from December 1 to June 1 was a record 7.432 billion bushels, as depicted in Figure 1 as the difference from the December 1 stock to the June 1 stock. Last year, use in that period was 7.174 billion bushels compared to the five-year average 6.937 billion bushels.&nbsp;



Other items in the June USDA reports focused on Soybeans and Wheat.&nbsp;&nbsp;Soybeans came in at 83.4 million acres planted, 100,000 below the March Prospective Plantings and 200,000 below average trader expectations. Soybean acres harvested were revised from 82.7 million to 82.5 million, a 200,000-acre decrease.&nbsp;&nbsp;All wheat at 45.5 million acres was up 100,000 compared to Prospective Plantings and trader expectations.&nbsp;&nbsp;All wheat harvested acres were revised downward by 600,000 acres from 37.2 million to 36.6 million.&nbsp;



Given the numbers reported by USDA in the 2025 Acreage report, production estimates for U.S. corn, soybeans, and wheat will likely be revised lower on fewer harvested acres. However, the Grain Stocks report shows a small decrease in corn carryover and increased carryover of soybeans and wheat relative to trade expectations, implying forthcoming changes in old crop use estimates.&nbsp;&nbsp;Adding old crop ending stock adjustments to new crop production estimates, it looks like the new crop supply numbers got a little tighter for corn and wheat, and a small increase for soybeans.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Table 1. Planted Acreage and Grain Stocks from USDA and Industry Reports



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6">June 30th&nbsp;Acreage&nbsp;and&nbsp;Grain Stocks</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">2025 Planted Acres (millions)</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Planted</td><td>Average from Experts</td><td>Range&nbsp;from Experts</td><td>March Intentions</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>Corn</td><td>95.2</td><td>95.2</td><td>93.8-96.0</td><td>95.3</td><td>90.6</td></tr><tr><td>Soybeans&nbsp;</td><td>83.4</td><td>83.6</td><td>83.0-85.0</td><td>83.5</td><td>87.1</td></tr><tr><td>All Wheat&nbsp;</td><td>45.5</td><td>45.4</td><td>45.0-46.0</td><td>45.4</td><td>46.1</td></tr><tr><td>Winter Wheat</td><td>33.3</td><td>33.3</td><td>33.0-33.4</td><td>33.3</td><td>33.4</td></tr><tr><td>Spring Wheat&nbsp;</td><td>10.0</td><td>10.1</td><td>9.8-10.2</td><td>10.0</td><td>10.6</td></tr><tr><td>Durum&nbsp;</td><td>2.1</td><td>2.0</td><td>2.0-2.1</td><td>2.0</td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">June 1st&nbsp;Grain Stocks (million bushels)</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>June 1, 2025</td><td>Average From Experts</td><td>Range from Experts</td><td>Mar 1, 2025</td><td>Jun 1, 2024</td></tr><tr><td>Corn</td><td>4,644</td><td>4,648</td><td>4,459-4,955</td><td>8,151</td><td>4,997</td></tr><tr><td>Soybeans</td><td>1,008</td><td>971</td><td>936-1,020</td><td>1,910</td><td>970&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Wheat</td><td>851</td><td>835</td><td>805-852</td><td>1,237</td><td>696</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Source: USDA and DTN</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



Table 2. U.S. Corn Supply and Demand Balance Sheet



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>U.S. Corn</td><td>2024/25</td><td>June WASDE2025/26</td><td>June Acreage2025/26</td></tr><tr><td>Planted Acreage (Mil. Acs.)</td><td>90.6</td><td>95.3</td><td>95.2</td></tr><tr><td>Harvested Acreage (Mil. Acs.)&nbsp;</td><td>82.9</td><td>87.4</td><td>86.8</td></tr><tr><td>Yield (Bushels)</td><td>179.3*</td><td>181.0*</td><td>181.0*</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Supply&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&#8212;Million Bushels&#8212;</td></tr><tr><td>Beginning Stocks</td><td>1,763</td><td>1,365</td><td>1,365</td></tr><tr><td>Production</td><td>14,867</td><td>15,820*</td><td>15,706*</td></tr><tr><td>Imports</td><td>25</td><td>25</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Total Supply</td><td>16,655</td><td>17,210*</td><td>17,096*</td></tr><tr><td>Disappearance&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Domestic Use</td><td>12,640</td><td>12,785*</td><td>12,785*</td></tr><tr><td>Exports</td><td>2,650</td><td>2,675</td><td>2,675</td></tr><tr><td>Total Use</td><td>15,290*</td><td>15,460*</td><td>15,460*</td></tr><tr><td>Ending Stocks</td><td>1,365</td><td>1,750</td><td>1,636</td></tr><tr><td>Carryover/Use (days on hand)&nbsp;</td><td>32.6</td><td>41.3</td><td>38.6</td></tr><tr><td>Average Farm Price ($/Bu.)</td><td>4.35</td><td>4.20</td><td>4.20</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">*Record High</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Source: USDA World Agricultural Supply and demand Estimates and Acreage 2025</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



Figure 1. U.S. Corn Stocks, All Positions



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="895" height="604" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.27.3-F1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42181" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.27.3-F1-1.png 895w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.27.3-F1-1-768x518.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 895px) 100vw, 895px" /></figure>



References:



DTN/Progressive Farmer. “USDA Reports Preview”, June 26, 2025&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2025/06/26/acreage-stocks-reports-set-tone-us">https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2025/06/26/acreage-stocks-reports-set-tone-us</a>.



USDA, NASS.&nbsp;Acreage,&nbsp;<a href="https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/j098zb09z">https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/j098zb09z</a>.



USDA, NASS.&nbsp;Grain Stocks,&nbsp;<a href="https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/xg94hp534">https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/xg94hp534</a>.



USDA, Office of the Chief Economist.&nbsp;World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE),&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/staff-offices/office-chief-economist/commodity-markets/wasde-report">https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/staff-offices/office-chief-economist/commodity-markets/wasde-report</a>.

Market Impact of the June 30 Acreage and Grain Stocks Reports

In recent months, there have been Southern Ag Today articles discussing the impacts of tight fed cattle supplies on prices, cattle on feed, slaughter weights, and total beef production (Anderson 2025a, Anderson 2025b, Maples 2025). Each of the articles mentioned has highlighted the unique and historical differences between the current market and years past. One aspect that has not been covered, but is important, is slaughter capacity utilization (CU). In Martinez et al. (2023), we show how we measure slaughter capacity utilization, which measures the ratio of operational cattle slaughter capacity over physical capacity. Figure 1 displays the monthly national federally inspected (FI) slaughter capacity utilization.&nbsp;



Figure 1. Monthly National Federally Inspected Slaughter Capacity Utilization



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2158" height="1100" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42163" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.2-1.png 2158w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.2-1-1024x522.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.2-1-768x391.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.2-1-1536x783.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.2-1-2048x1044.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2158px) 100vw, 2158px" /></figure>



In May, slaughter capacity utilization averaged 82%, which was lower than May 2024 (88.29%), and the previous 5-year average (87.56%). Additionally, through the first five months of 2025, capacity utilization averaged 84.57%, which is lower than the same time frame last year (86.64%), and the previous 5-year average (88.57%). Historically, in March and April, the ramp up of slaughter for grilling season occurs, followed by a decrease for 1 to 2 months. Thus, the decrease this year from March (86.06%) to May was expected.&nbsp;



While May’s utilization is down 8.29% compared to May 2024, commercial beef production (figure 2) in May was down 7.53% compared to May 2024 and down 4.67% compared to the previous 5-year average. Through May, total commercial production is averaging 497.8 million pounds per month, which is also lower when compared to 2024 (504.95 million pounds per month) and the previous 5-year average (513.12 million pounds per month). When comparing total production, 2025 production is 1.33% lower than last year and 2.98% lower than the previous 5-year average.



Figure 2. Monthly National Commercial Beef Production



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2158" height="1100" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42164" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.2-2.png 2158w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.2-2-1024x522.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.2-2-768x391.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.2-2-1536x783.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.2-2-2048x1044.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2158px) 100vw, 2158px" /></figure>



Overall, the decline in 2025 capacity utilization compared to last year (down 2.07%) and the previous 5-year average (down 4%) is larger than the decline in total production compared to last year (down 1.33%) and the previous 5-year average (down 2.98%). Therefore, the increasing utilization difference between 2024 and 2025 signals the impact and realization of the tight supplies on capacity utilization. However, the supply chain is offsetting the tight supplies with larger carcasses and has led to market signals to have lower discounts for heavier cattle while operating at lower capacity utilization. As we get into the second half of the year, it will be interesting to see where capacity utilization and slaughter weights measure given even tighter supplies based on the latest Cattle on Feed reports. 



References



Anderson, David. “Fewer Marketings, Tighter Beef Supplies.”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;5(26.2). June 24, 2025.&nbsp;



Anderson, David. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/05/15/working-less-on-friday/">Working Less on Friday!</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;5(21.2). May 20, 2025.



Maples, Josh. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/04/09/cattle-prices-hit-new-highs-and-carcass-grading-trends-over-time/">Cattle Prices Hit New Highs and Carcass Grading Trends Over Time.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;5(19.2). May 6, 2025.



Martinez, C., Li, P., Boyer, C. N., Yu, T. E., &amp; Maples, J. G. (2023). Beef price spread relationship with processing capacity utilization.&nbsp;Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jaa2.48">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jaa2.48</a>

Beef Slaughter Capacity Utilization

Timber Market Update



The average south-wide stumpage prices for most major timber products remained relatively unchanged in Q1 2025, staying flat or trending slightly downward. Pine sawtimber averaged around $25/ton, slightly below the price a year ago and about 10% lower than its recent high in Q1 2022 (TimberMart-South, 2025). Pine chip-n-saw prices continued to decline, averaging around $17-18/ton, down about 10% year-over-year and 18% below their 2022 peak. Over the past two years, the average pine and hardwood pulpwood prices have stabilized around $7–8/ton, falling from early 2022 highs. One exception is hardwood sawtimber. Its price held better than other timber products, reaching a record high ($35/ton) in Q4 2024 before a modest retreat in Q1 2025.&nbsp;



While overall changes in south-wide averages are minimal, stumpage prices across the region vary greatly by state and subregion, largely depending on local weather conditions, local mill demand, and post-disaster salvage activities. Compared to a year ago, pine sawtimber prices fell sharply in Florida (-25%), declined moderately in South Georgia (-11%) and Louisiana (-8%), but remained stable in Alabama, Arkansas, North Georgia, and Mississippi.&nbsp;



A Closer Look at the Southern Timber Markets



Generally, weak pine sawtimber prices are mainly due to the sluggish housing market. Over 70% of the U.S. softwood lumber and structural panels are used in residential construction, especially in single-family homes, and home improvement activities (Alderman, 2022). Although newly built single-family houses now make up a significantly larger share of for-sale inventory than before the pandemic, their overall supply remains limited. Contributing factors include rising construction material costs, labor shortages, higher financing costs, restrictive zoning regulation, an increase in existing homes for sale (the highest in five years), and declining housing affordability. Uncertainty around tariffs and immigration policy further discourages expansion for homebuilders. In April, single-family housing starts fell to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 927,000, down 12% from the previous year and the lowest level since July 2024. A slowdown in remodeling and repair activity has also contributed to softer demand for lumber and timber products (JCHS, 2025).



Despite weak demand,&nbsp;southern softwood lumber mill capacity continues to grow,&nbsp;exceeding 28.4 billion board feet&nbsp;in 2024— a 35% increase from 2017&nbsp;(Figure 1)—with an additional&nbsp;753 million board feet by 2026 (Forisk, 2025).&nbsp;Much of this expansion is driven by&nbsp;Canadian lumber companies facing reduced log availability in Western&nbsp;Canada and ongoing U.S. tariffs. The combination of this increased capacity, while current production aligns with weak demand, means lower capacity utilization. Utilization rates of&nbsp;southern softwood lumber mills&nbsp;have declined from 85% in 2021 (Forisk, 2023) to 75% in 2024 due to softer lumber demand (Forisk, 2025; SFPA, 2025).



The decline in softwood and hardwood pulpwood prices reflects the continued closure and conversion of wood pulping mills in the South. In 2024,&nbsp;wood-using pulping capacity in the South continued&nbsp;to shrink, driven by product shifts in the paper and paperboard industries and the increased use of&nbsp;recycled&nbsp;fiber&nbsp;in pulp production (Figure 2). These structural changes are expected to keep pulpwood prices suppressed, especially in areas impacted by Hurricane Helene and recent paper mill closures.



Figure 1. U.S. South Softwood Lumber Mill Capacity, 2013-2024



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1430" height="1078" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.1-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-42150" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.1-1.jpg 1430w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.1-1-1024x772.jpg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.1-1-768x579.jpg 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1430px) 100vw, 1430px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: Forisk (2025).</figcaption></figure>



Figure 2. U.S. South Wood-using Pulping Capacity, 2013-2024



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1439" height="1145" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.1-2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-42151" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.1-2.jpg 1439w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.1-2-1024x815.jpg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.1-2-768x611.jpg 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1439px) 100vw, 1439px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: Forisk (2025).</figcaption></figure>



Figure 3. Added Softwood Lumber Mill Capacity by State, 2017-2025



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1240" height="892" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.1-3.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-42152" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.1-3.jpg 1240w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.1-3-1024x737.jpg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.27.1-3-768x552.jpg 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1240px) 100vw, 1240px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: Forisk (2025).</figcaption></figure>



Looking Ahead



As a leading indicator, single-family housing permits declined by 5.1% in April to an annualized rate of 922,000 units, 6.2% lower than the same time last year. Housing starts are expected to remain weak through the remainder of 2025. This downward pressure, combined with a lingering oversupply of sawtimber from a decade of underbuilding, is expected to weigh on southern timber markets.&nbsp;



The tariff on softwood lumber imports from Canada currently remains at 14.5% but is expected to increase in fall 2025 (NAHB, 2025). Higher tariffs may reduce Canadian lumber imports and promote U.S. domestic production over the long term. However, they could drive up construction costs in the short term, exacerbating already low housing affordability.&nbsp;



Areas that have a recent expansion in mill capacity may see localized increases in sawtimber prices (Figure 3). Counties devastated by Hurricane Helene (e.g., South Georgia) may face tighter timber supply and rising sawtimber prices due to local inventory shortages, particularly in areas with low growth-to-drain ratios (USDA Forest Service, 2024).



References



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



Forisk. 2023. Regional forest product mill utilization. Athens, GA: Forisk.



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



Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (JCHS). 2025.&nbsp;Leading Indicator of Remodeling Activity (LIRA). Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.



National Association of Home builders (NAHB). 2025. In win for NAHB, Canadian lumber exempt from Trump’s global reciprocal tariffs.&nbsp;



The Southern Forest Products Association (SFPA). 2025. Lumber shorts. Metairie, LA: SFPA.



TimberMart-South. 2025.&nbsp;Market news quarterly. Athens, GA: TMS.



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



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



Li, Yanshu. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/timber-market-remains-sluggish-amid-weakened-housing-starts/">Timber Market Remains Sluggish Amid Weakened Housing Starts.</a>&#8220; Southern Ag Today 5(27.1). June 30, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42141">Permalink</a>

Timber Market Remains Sluggish Amid Weakened Housing Starts

As of mid-June 2025, agricultural stakeholders are increasingly aware of claims by clean water advocates and regulatory concerns that land-applying municipal sewage waste (biosolids) may contaminate soil and groundwater with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). In 2023, approximately 60% of U.S. biosolids were land-applied,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.epa.gov/biosolids/basic-information-about-sewage-sludge-and-biosolids">according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA</a>).&nbsp;&nbsp;Also,&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas">according to the EPA</a>, PFAS exposure may pose health risks, though ongoing research continues to assess the impacts of low-level, long-term exposure, especially in children.



Federal and state regulators are working to eliminate PFAS compounds considered the most dangerous to our environment and our health, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), from consumer products.&nbsp;&nbsp;However, reducing environmental PFAS loads will also require alterations to current practices which may simply be recycling existing environmental loads, including agricultural uses of biosolids.&nbsp;Legal changes are expected.&nbsp;&nbsp;Farmers, who own or rent most of the land involved in applications of biosolids, will be a central focus.&nbsp;&nbsp;



What we have seen over the last few years has been a smattering of individual state government actions restricting and limiting the practice of land application of biosolids in various ways.&nbsp;&nbsp;In some extreme instances, these have included quarantine orders of entire tracts of farmland preventing or limiting further agricultural production.&nbsp;&nbsp;



A compilation of those individual state actions has been assembled by a national environmental consulting firm, ALL4 , and it is publicly available at this link:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.all4inc.com/4-the-record-articles/pfas-state-by-state-regulatory-update-march-2025-revision/">State-by-State&nbsp;Regulatory Update (March 2025 Revision)</a>(see Table 2 – State Water Regulation Highlights).&nbsp;&nbsp;This documents the patchwork in regulatory landscape faced across the country.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Complicating enforcement, biosolids are increasingly transported across state lines, undermining the consistency of state-level regulation and calling for a more unified approach. This regulatory inconsistency challenges both land-applicators and regulators tracking PFAS from production to final disposal.



While the Clean Water Act (CWA), via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), governs the permitting of biosolid land applications, PFAS-specific regulation under this system remains limited. EPA has issued only non-binding&nbsp;<a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/NPDES_PFAS_State%20Memo_December_2022.pdf">guidance</a>&nbsp;to states for performing their CWA duties.&nbsp;



Adding a new pollutant to those already identified and regulated in biosolids is ultimately controlled by the text of 33 U.S.C. §1345(d) of the CWA (“Disposal or Use of Sewage Sludge”), and regulations at 40 CFR Part 503. These require EPA to establish numeric limits and mandatory management practices to protect public health and the environment from the reasonably anticipated adverse effects of designated pollutants during the use or disposal of biosolids. EPA is also required to review these regulations at least every two years and develop standards where evidence warrants.&nbsp;&nbsp;To date, EPA has not established numeric PFAS limits for biosolids, but a draft risk assessment released on January 15, 2025, marks a first step in that direction.&nbsp;



Historically, EPA’s “<a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/pfas-roadmap_final-508.pdf">PFAS Strategic Roadmap</a>”&nbsp;progress reports have stated it would complete by winter 2024 a risk assessment for PFAS in biosolids for use in determining whether to regulate these particular substances in biosolids.&nbsp;&nbsp;



On January 15, 2025, EPA commenced that process by publishing in the Federal Register the following document,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/15/2025-00734/draft-sewage-sludge-risk-assessment-for-perfluorooctanoic-acid-pfoa-and-perfluorooctane-sulfonic">“Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid (PFOS).</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;After multiple extensions, the public comment period is now scheduled to close on August 14, 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;The public comments so far are available at the following regulatory docket<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OW-2024-0504">:&nbsp;EPA-HQ-OW-2024-0504</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The upshot of EPA’s draft risk assessment states the following:&nbsp;



The draft risk assessment indicates that there are potential risks to human health to those living on or near impacted properties or primarily relying on their products from land application. . .&nbsp;&nbsp;



*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*



After the public comment period has closed, the EPA will. . . prepare a final risk assessment. . . If the final risk assessment indicates that there are risks above acceptable thresholds when using or disposing of sewage sludge, the EPA expects to propose a regulation under CWA section 405 to manage PFOA and/or PFOS in sewage sludge to protect public health and the environment.&nbsp;



Last year, on June 6, 2024, a federal lawsuit was commenced seeking to compel EPA to establish regulatory standards for PFAS in land-applied biosolids.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-07/6_6_24_complaint_farmer-v-epa_24-1654_as-filed.pdf">Farmer, et al. v. EPA</a>, No. 24-cv-1654.&nbsp;&nbsp;The plaintiffs in that case allege the EPA’s inaction has allowed PFAS-laden biosolids to contaminate millions of acres, harming farmers and the public.&nbsp;&nbsp;This lawsuit is currently moving slowly with preliminary matters and no resolution is expected for at least another year.



One thing is certain in the coming months and years.&nbsp;&nbsp;Those farmers and agricultural stakeholders across the country involved in the common practice of land-applying biosolids will see significant change mandated in their practices and operations by the emergence of PFAS regulation in biosolids.&nbsp;



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



Duer, Brook, and Paul Goeringer. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17why-arent-pfas-compounds-in-land-applied-biosolids-prohibited-by-epa/">Why aren’t PFAS compounds in land applied biosolids prohibited by EPA?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(26.5). June 27, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42139">Permalink</a>

Why aren’t PFAS compounds in land applied biosolids prohibited by EPA? 

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>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities