Heading into grilling season, it is interesting to look at the shares of meat production and consumption in the U.S. One fact that may surprise, the United States now produces more pork than beef, yet Americans still eat more beef per person.



The USDA ERS May 2026 Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook projects 2026 pork production near 28 billion pounds against 25.5 billion pounds of beef. The gap reflects a shrinking cattle herd while hog supplies remain ample. ERS projects the gap to widen further in 2027. Broiler chicken production is projected at 49 billion pounds.&nbsp;



Production is not the same as consumption. ERS projects 2026 per capita availability at 60 pounds of beef and 49.6 pounds of pork, with chicken far ahead at 105.6 pounds. Total red meat and poultry disappearance per capita is projected to top 230 pounds in 2026 which would be the highest on record.&nbsp;



So why does beef lead pork at the dinner table when we raise more hogs? Trade. The U.S. is expected to export roughly a quarter of its pork production but only about 9 percent of beef production. Additionally, beef imports outweigh exports and will add more beef to consumers plates.&nbsp;



Looking at price changes adds important context. The all-fresh retail beef value hit a record high $9.64 per pound in April, up 13% from a year earlier. Retail pork prices were essentially flat at $4.89 per pound and retail broiler prices declined slightly to $2.39 per pound. Despite the highest price tag, beef demand has stayed firm as consumers are paying more and still reaching for it.



Production volume and consumer demand are different signals, and it will be important to track both over the next few years. Across proteins, it appears there will be lots of meat on grills this summer.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="936" height="634" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.211.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44130" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.211.png 936w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.211-768x520.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 936px) 100vw, 936px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="936" height="630" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.222.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44131" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.222.png 936w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.222-768x517.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 936px) 100vw, 936px" /></figure>



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



Maples, Josh. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/u-s-meat-production-and-consumption-patterns/">U.S. Meat Production and Consumption Patterns</a>. Southern Ag Today 6(24.2). June 9, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/u-s-meat-production-and-consumption-patterns/">Permalink</a>

U.S. Meat Production and Consumption Patterns

Authors: Jeffrey H. Dorfman, Blake Hoarty, and Younghyeon Jeon, North Carolina State University



As previously reported&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/03/26/census-reveals-tobacco-farms-disappearing-from-southern-agriculture/">here</a>, both the number of tobacco farms and the acres planted have been in sharp decline in the United States, with farms down by 95 percent and acreage down 51 percent in the twenty years from 2002 to 2022 (Snell, 2024). Over half of the remaining tobacco farms and an even larger share of tobacco acres are in either Kentucky or North Carolina. A new survey of tobacco growers in North Carolina suggests some uncertainty over the survival of the crop in the U.S.



We surveyed tobacco farmers in North Carolina&nbsp;in December 2025 and January 2026&nbsp;by emailing all of them a link to an online survey as well as using county agents to remind them to complete the survey. Responses from 114 producers give us a detailed current picture of tobacco growers.



The average acres of tobacco grown in North Carolina is 254 acres, and the median acres is 180. Only about 20 percent of growers report their average acres of tobacco as being less than 100 acres. There are very few “small” tobacco farmers left in North Carolina, particularly when you consider that the average total acres farmed by our respondents is 1,883. In North Carolina, tobacco is most often a high-return part of a large-scale diversified farm. This is further confirmed by the fact that over half the respondents report income above $250,000 per year, and we find the median number of commodities grown on these farms is four. The most common other crops are soybeans, corn, wheat, other vegetables, sweet potatoes, and cotton.



The average tobacco farmer in North Carolina reports a breakeven price of $2.24 per pound and a desired profit-goal price of $2.63 per pound. Market prices&nbsp;over&nbsp;the last few years have generally produced profits above breakeven, but meeting profit goals at $2.63 has been less common.&nbsp;&nbsp;



However, the troubling part of the survey is the answers to a question about “how many more years do you expect to grow tobacco?” Almost 50 percent of growers choose “1-5 more years,” and only 30 percent selected “11 or more years.” Only about four percent of farmers reported a breakeven price above common market prices, so farmers are not planning to exit due to unprofitable conditions. Instead, the more likely explanation is uncertainty surrounding the long-term future of tobacco production. Ongoing FDA tobacco regulatory proposals, potential restrictions on tobacco products, rising labor costs and hassles, and continued declines in domestic cigarette consumption may discourage growers from making long-term investments. As a result, when a farmer needs to replace their curing barns, they decide it is not worth the additional investment given they are not sure how many more years tobacco will remain a viable crop.



These survey results suggest that if cigarette manufacturers want to continue to have access to high quality American tobacco, they need to figure out a way to make further investment in modern infrastructure a choice farmers feel comfortable making. Without some movement on this front, it is likely that domestic tobacco production will look much different in the next ten to twenty years.



Figure 1. Expected Years of Continued Tobacco Farming



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2268" height="1361" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44106" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.1-1.png 2268w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.1-1-1024x614.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.1-1-768x461.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.1-1-1536x922.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.1-1-2048x1229.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2268px) 100vw, 2268px" /></figure>



Figure 2. Histogram of Breakeven Prices Reported by NC Tobacco Farmers



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1278" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.1-2-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44107" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.1-2-scaled.png 2560w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.1-2-1024x511.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.1-2-768x383.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.1-2-1536x767.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.1-2-2048x1023.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /></figure>



References



Snell, Will. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/03/26/census-reveals-tobacco-farms-disappearing-from-southern-agriculture/">Census Reveals Tobacco Farms Disappearing from Southern Agriculture.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;4(13.3). March 27, 2024.



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



Dorfman, Jeffery H., Blake Hoarty, and Younghyeon Jeon. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/is-there-a-future-for-tobacco-farming/">Is There a Future for Tobacco Farming?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(24.1). June 8, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/is-there-a-future-for-tobacco-farming/">Permalink</a>

Is There a Future for Tobacco Farming?

On May 18, the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois&nbsp;<a href="https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQgMCXPRvTXhprgGHrmjMxHBvKl?projector=1&amp;messagePartId=0.1">preliminarily approved</a>&nbsp;John Deere’s settlement of the&nbsp;In re: Deere &amp; Company Repair Services Antitrust Litigation&nbsp;MDL No. 3030, Case No. 3:22-cv-50188 class action lawsuit. The agreement settles the lawsuit &#8211; launched in 2022 ultimately reaching 200,000 plaintiffs &#8211; for $99 million. John Deere bears no admission of wrongdoing in the settlement agreement. For a more detailed treatment of the lawsuit and underlying issues, see&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/john-deere-agrees-to-settle-antitrust-lawsuit/#:~:text=Note%2C%20the%20settlement%20does%20not,approval%20before%20it%20becomes%20enforceable.">this article</a>&nbsp;by the National Agricultural Law Center.



“Right to Repair” is the term used by purchasers of farm equipment who are prohibited by the purchase license to do their own or hire third party repair services not authorized by the manufacturer. Major manufacturers of farm equipment &#8211; including CNH Industrial (Case IH and New Holland), AGCO (Massey Ferguson, Fendt, and Challenger), and New Holland, as well as John Deere &#8211; have had various forms of this restriction, which have been relaxed somewhat by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fb.org/issue/right-to-repair">agreements with the American Farm Bureau Federation</a>.&nbsp;



Deere and other companies have pointed to four primary justifications for the limitations: emissions compliance under the Clean Air Act, operator safety and liability, protection of investment in intellectual property, and cybersecurity and data privacy. Manufacturers argue that third party repair could lead to bypass of emissions control, safety, and data systems.



The farmers’ argument is straightforward: when a machine breaks down, the time lost waiting for an authorized company repair could be devastating, particularly during narrow planting, application, and harvest windows in relatively remote farming areas. Farmer plaintiffs also argue that the restrictions create an expensive after-purchase repair monopoly. Plaintiffs in the John Deere suit alleged overcharge for repair services.



The agreement validates John Deere’s safety and intellectual property concerns, and distinguishes between&nbsp;repairing&nbsp;a machine (allowed) and&nbsp;modifying&nbsp;its core code to change factory performance (which remains restricted). Deere has also agreed to provide diagnostic tools over a 10-year period.



Eligibility for compensation requires having owned or leased&nbsp;&nbsp;John Deere Large Ag Equipment (all 6000, 7000, 8000, and 9000 Series models of tractors, combines, and harvesters, etc.) and having paid an authorized dealer for repair services between January 10, 2018, and May 2026.



John Deere has granted access to its internal billing database to the settlement administrator, and an outreach campaign is imminent. Notice recipients have until September 15, 2026 to opt out of the settlement to pursue their own claims and a deadline to file claims forms by October 15, 2026. Notice recipients will likely receive pre-filled notices of potential claims with instructions on substantiation, which will likely include itemized dealer service invoices (breaking out labor rates and parts), proof of payment and the Product Identification Numbers (PIN) or serial numbers for each piece of equipment serviced.&nbsp;



A claim portal &#8211;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.deererepairsettlement.com/">www.DeereRepairSettlement.com</a>&nbsp;&#8211; has been established but will go live over the summer. Updates on the settlement can be found at&nbsp;<a href="https://www.classaction.org/news/99m-john-deere-settlement-ends-antitrust-litigation-over-alleged-repair-market-monopoly">this page from ClassAction.org</a>.



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



Brannan, Andrew. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/settlement-approved-in-right-to-repair-litigation/">Settlement Approved in Right to Repair Litigation.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(23.5). June 5, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/settlement-approved-in-right-to-repair-litigation/">Permalink</a>

Settlement Approved in Right to Repair Litigation

Since the colonial days, trade has been vitally important for Southern agriculture.&nbsp;&nbsp;Historical records reveal that agricultural products accounted for 60-75% of Southern exports leading up to the American Revolution. In more recent times, USDA Economic Research Service trade data indicates that, despite recent trade challenges, agricultural exports from the Southern region have more than doubled (in nominal values) over the past 25 years and currently account for around 1/3 of agricultural cash receipts<a href="applewebdata://D2071814-66FA-4563-81E8-297AA90C1EE2#_edn1">[i]</a>&nbsp;(Table 1). While the Southern region has experienced significant ag trade growth over this volatile period, the Northeastern, Midwestern, and Western regions have achieved a much greater gain in ag exports (in percentage terms) since 2000. In addition, while trade dependency (measured as ag export share of ag cash receipts) has deteriorated for all regions in recent years amidst slumping U.S. ag exports and growing cash receipts, ag trade dependency in the Southern region has deteriorated relative to other U.S. regions. (Figure 1).



Table 1: Various Metrics on U.S. Ag Exports by Region (2000-2024)



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Nominal Change in the Value of Ag Exports</td><td>Real Change in the Value of Ag Exports</td><td>CompoundedAnnual Ag Export Growth Rate</td><td>Ag Exports As a % of Ag Cash Receipts</td></tr><tr><td>South</td><td>+105.0%</td><td>+53.4%</td><td>+2.9%</td><td>32.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Northeast&nbsp;</td><td>+213.9%</td><td>+134.9%</td><td>+4.7%</td><td>27.4%</td></tr><tr><td>Midwest&nbsp;</td><td>+266.8%</td><td>+174.5%</td><td>+5.3%</td><td>36.6%</td></tr><tr><td>West&nbsp;</td><td>+248.2%</td><td>+160.6%</td><td>+5.1%</td><td>34.0%</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Calculated from ERS State Ag Exports and Ag Cash Receipt Data, with real (inflation-adjusted) values deflated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Export Price Index</figcaption></figure>



Figure 1: Agricultural Exports as a Share of Agricultural Cash Receipts by U.S. Region (2000-2024)



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2452" height="1347" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44060" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.4.png 2452w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.4-1024x563.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.4-768x422.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.4-1536x844.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.4-2048x1125.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2452px) 100vw, 2452px" /></figure>



The reduction in Southern ag trade dependency in recent decades can partially be explained by the various trade challenges confronting several crops unique to the South like tobacco, cotton, rice, sugar, and certain fruits and vegetables. Trade data reveal that these crops have not kept pace with export gains achieved by soybeans, corn, poultry, beef, pork, dairy products, and tree nuts.



The one crop that sticks out for the Southern region in this discussion is ironically, the crop that was the dominant export commodity during colonial days – tobacco. During the early 2000s, tobacco accounted for nearly 20% of Southern ag exports, compared to less than 3% in recent years, as exports have fallen by more than 70% over the past 25 years. Consequently, tobacco producing states like Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee have experienced significant adverse impacts on their ag trade volumes and ag trade dependency relative to other Southern states where tobacco production is negligible.



In addition, many Southern crops, like tobacco, rice, sugar, tomatoes, and even ag related products like distilled spirits, face stiff competition from imports into the United States. Consequently, these trade trends have likely had a larger adverse net ag trade impact on the Southern region compared to other U.S. regions. Accordingly, commodity organizations for many of these impacted industries are currently pursuing trade policy adjustments such as tariffs and tariff rate quotas to deliver greater protection for their domestic growers.



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



<a href="applewebdata://D2071814-66FA-4563-81E8-297AA90C1EE2#_ednref1">[i]</a> Trade data are a challenge to measure on a regional or individual state basis, depending on the individual product. For a state like Kentucky, bourbon and horses are exported directly, whereas cattle or tobacco produced in the Commonwealth are typically transported to other states for finishing/processing and possibly shipped to another state for final export out of the United States. The ERS state ag trade data base uses market share of U.S. ag cash receipts for individual states to prorate U.S. ag exports values by individual ag commodities.  For a discussion of strengths and limitations of this methodology click <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-agricultural-trade-data/documentation">here.</a>



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



Snell, Will. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/trade-trends-show-a-greater-adverse-impact-on-southern-agriculture-compared-to-other-u-s-regions/">Trade Trends Show a Greater Adverse Impact on Southern Agriculture Compared to Other U.S. Regions.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(23.4). June 4, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/trade-trends-show-a-greater-adverse-impact-on-southern-agriculture-compared-to-other-u-s-regions/">Permalink</a>

Trade Trends Show a Greater Adverse Impact on Southern Agriculture Compared to Other U.S. Regions

In recent years, producers have faced repeated shocks to fertilizer markets because of events such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict and, more recently, the conflict involving Iran. These events have disrupted key markets affecting fertilizer and energy supplies, impacting trade routes and contributing to increased price volatility and supply uncertainty. However, the idea of discussing “fertilizer markets” means more than focusing on a single product with a single supply chain. Nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium (potash) are three major nutrients used for plant growth that each have a different production process, geographic concentration, and trade pattern. Nitrogen fertilizers are closely tied to natural gas and energy markets, while phosphate and potash are mined products concentrated in a relatively small number of countries. As a result, geopolitical disruptions can affect each nutrient differently and create unique risks for global fertilizer markets.



Nitrogen is the first essential plant nutrient that is commercially recovered from the atmosphere as ammonia, which is produced by combining atmospheric nitrogen with hydrogen derived from natural gas. Ammonia can then be converted into other nitrogen fertilizers such as urea, ammonium nitrate, and ammonium sulfate. Among the major fertilizer nutrients, nitrogen is the most closely tied to energy markets because natural gas is a key input in the production process.



Globally, China is the largest producer of nitrogen fertilizer (in the form of ammonia), accounting for 31% of global production in 2025 (Figure 1). India, Russia, and the United States (U.S.) are also major producers, each accounting for approximately 9% of production. Persian Gulf countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, are another significant production region, collectively accounting for roughly 9% of global ammonia production. These countries also account for a substantial share of global nitrogen fertilizer exports, especially to India. As a result, the Strait of Hormuz serves as a critical shipping route for global fertilizer trade. Any disruption to traffic through the Strait has the potential to significantly impact global nitrogen markets, increase transportation costs, and contribute to nitrogen price volatility worldwide.



While the U.S. relies on some nitrogen imports, domestic production has accounted for an average of 95% of U.S. nitrogen consumption over the last five years (Figure 2). Over the past decade, the U.S. has increased nitrogen production and reduced its reliance on imports. From 2021 through 2024, Canada accounted for 49% of U.S. nitrogen imports, while Trinidad and Tobago accounted for 47%. Ammonia production in Trinidad and Tobago has seen declines though over the past decade, primarily due to issues with the supply of natural gas. In October 2025, Nutrien announced a controlled shutdown of its nitrogen operations at the Point Lisas Industrial Estate, one of the country’s major ammonia production facilities that accounted for approximately 31% of the nation’s production (EnergyNow, 2025). Because Trinidad and Tobago is a key supplier of nitrogen fertilizer to the U.S., prolonged disruptions could tighten available supplies and increase U.S. reliance on alternative import sources.



Phosphorus is the second essential nutrient for plant growth, with a primary commercial source of phosphate rock. Thus, phosphate production depends on geographically concentrated mineral deposits and more limited global reserves. In 2025, China accounted for the largest share of global phosphate rock production at 44%, followed by Morocco, the U.S., and Russia. Although China is the leading producer, Morocco holds the world’s largest phosphate rock reserves, accounting for an estimated 68% of global reserves. This concentration of reserves gives Morocco an important role in long-term global phosphate supply.



In the U.S., phosphate rock is mined by five companies operating ten mines located in Florida, Idaho, North Carolina, and Utah (USGS, 2026). The U.S. produces most of the phosphate it consumes, although it still imports some phosphate materials, particularly from Peru.



Potassium is the third major nutrient essential for plant growth and is primarily supplied through potash fertilizers. Potash production is concentrated in a relatively small number of countries with economically recoverable deposits. Canada, Russia, and Belarus collectively account for approximately 63% of global potash production, making the global potash market particularly vulnerable to geopolitical disruptions and trade restrictions. Sanctions and trade disruptions involving Belarus and Russia have contributed to recent volatility in global potash prices and fertilizer availability.



The U.S. has limited domestic potash production and relies heavily on imports to meet domestic demand, with more than 90% of annual consumption supplied by imports. Canada accounts for the vast majority of these imports because of its large production capacity and geographic proximity to U.S. markets. The U.S. has also historically imported potash from Russia, although those trade flows have become more uncertain in recent years because of geopolitical tensions and sanctions.



Overall, fertilizer markets remain highly dependent on a relatively small number of producing regions and key global trade routes. Because nitrogen, phosphate, and potash each rely on different raw materials and supply chains, geopolitical disruptions can affect fertilizer availability and prices in different ways. While the U.S. produces much of its nitrogen and phosphate domestically, it remains heavily dependent on imports for potash and still relies on global trade for portions of all its fertilizer needs. As a result, uncertainty from global conflicts, trade disruptions, and energy market volatility will continue to play an important role in fertilizer markets and producer input costs. As part of a broader marketing plan, producers should consider how to best determine crop pricing strategies to insulate their operation from unexpected changes in key input markets.



Figure 1. Top Producing Countries of Plant Nutrients in 2025



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1375" height="919" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.3-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44049" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.3-1.png 1375w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.3-1-1024x684.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.3-1-768x513.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1375px) 100vw, 1375px" /></figure>



Figure 2. U.S. Nitrogen (Ammonia) Production, Consumption, and Imports



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1408" height="800" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.3-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44050" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.3-2.png 1408w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.3-2-1024x582.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.3-2-768x436.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1408px) 100vw, 1408px" /></figure>



Sources



EnergyNow. (2025).&nbsp;Ammonia production and export in T&amp;T face significant challenges.<a href="https://energynow.tt/blog/ammonia-production-and-export-in-tampt-face-significant-challenges?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://energynow.tt/blog/ammonia-production-and-export-in-tampt-face-significant-challenges</a>. Accessed 28 May 2026.



U.S. Geological Survey.&nbsp;Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026.&nbsp;Nitrogen (Fixed)—Ammonia, Phosphate Rock, and Potash chapters. Reston, VA: U.S. Geological Survey, 2026.&nbsp;



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



Maples, William E. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/understanding-global-fertilizer-markets/">Understanding Global Fertilizer Markets.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(23.3). June 3, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/understanding-global-fertilizer-markets/">Permalink</a>

Understanding Global Fertilizer Markets

Beef production is not increasing in the sense that we are producing more than last year.&nbsp;&nbsp;But, it is increasing seasonally and the year-over-year reductions are not as large as earlier this year.



Beef production tends to hit a seasonal low for the year in the Spring and then increases.&nbsp;&nbsp;From January through April weekly average beef production was 6.1 percent below the same period in 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;Year-over-year weekly beef production ranged from down 3.2 percent to down 11.2 percent.&nbsp;&nbsp;The decline in beef production moderated during May with the weekly decline in beef production averaging only 3.8 percent.&nbsp;&nbsp;The sharp decline in weekly beef production that occurs each year at this time is due to the Memorial Day holiday shortening the work week.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Beef production is the product of the number of cattle going to slaughter and weights.&nbsp;&nbsp;Steer slaughter tends to increase from Spring to Summer, before declining later in the year.&nbsp;&nbsp;There has been a slight uptick in steer slaughter in recent weeks.&nbsp;&nbsp;Heifer slaughter tends to decline into early Summer but, this year it has increased a bit.&nbsp;&nbsp;On the cow side, dairy cow slaughter is even with a year ago and is right on pace with its usual seasonal decline.&nbsp;&nbsp;Beef cow culling, while remaining below a year ago has jumped up in recent weeks compared to early in the year.&nbsp;&nbsp;Fed cattle weights remain historically large but, dressed steer and heifer weights have experienced a small decline in recent weeks.&nbsp;



Several phone calls about retail beef prices over the last couple of weeks prompted this look at beef production.&nbsp;&nbsp;Seasonal springtime lows in beef production combined with grilling season demands fuel rising retail beef prices through mid-year.&nbsp;&nbsp;Historically, rising beef production after the middle of the year tends to help bring down retail beef prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;More cattle on feed than a year ago, continued heavy dressed weights, and seasonality in beef production have the potential to increase beef production from the tight supplies this Spring.&nbsp;&nbsp;Overall, these factors won’t get beef production bigger than last year or consumer prices lower than last year but they might help moderate retail prices from recent highs.&nbsp;&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/2026/06/6.23.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44043" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.2-1.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.2-1-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.2-1-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.2-1-1536x1152.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/2026/06/6.23.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44044" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.2-2.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.2-2-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.2-2-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.2-2-1536x1152.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/2026/06/6.23.2-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44045" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.2-3.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.2-3-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.2-3-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.23.2-3-1536x1152.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/2026/05/12/beef-production-increasing/">Beef Production Increasing?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(23.2). June 2, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/beef-production-increasing/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities