The latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report was released on August 12. As discussed in last month’s <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/07/15/july-2026-wasde-acreage-moves-in-july-yields-move-in-august/">article</a> (Gardner, 2026), the August WASDE marks an important point in USDA’s crop forecasting process. Beginning in August, USDA replaces the trend-line yields used earlier in the growing season with its first survey-based yield forecasts. These estimates incorporate considerably more information than was available earlier in the summer, including producer surveys, field observations, and satellite imagery. As a result, August often brings some of the more notable yield revisions of the growing season. The same information is also used to refine planted and harvested acreage estimates, and this month’s acreage revisions added another element of surprise to the report.



Corn planted acreage was revised 1.4 million acres higher in the August WASDE, bringing the national estimate to 96.7 million acres. The additional acreage more than offset a reduction in the U.S. corn yield forecast to 180.7 bushels per acre. As a result, estimated corn production actually increased by 13 million bushels from the July estimate. However, lower beginning stocks and stronger projected exports more than offset the increase in production, pulling 2026 ending stocks down to 1.65 billion bushels. That would be 292 million bushels below the previous marketing year. With a somewhat tighter and more price-supportive supply-and-demand outlook, USDA raised the season-average farm price to $4.50 per bushel.



Soybean planted acreage was also revised upward by 1.4 million acres, bringing the national estimate to 86.8 million acres. The U.S. soybean yield forecast was lowered slightly to 52.7 bushels per acre, compared with 53.0 bushels per acre last month. As with corn, the increase in acreage more than offset the lower yield estimate, raising projected production to 4.52 billion bushels. USDA also increased projected crush by 30 million bushels, reflecting strong crush margins and demand for soybean products, but ending stocks still increased by 10 million bushels to 320 million bushels. The season-average farm price was unchanged at $11.40 per bushel.



Following the same general pattern as corn and soybeans, cotton planted acreage was revised higher while the yield forecast was lowered. Cotton planted acreage increased by 620,000 acres to 10.47 million acres, while the U.S. yield forecast was reduced to 798 pounds per acre, down from 872 pounds per acre last month. Unlike corn and soybeans, however, the lower yield more than offset the increase in acreage, reducing projected production by about 90,000 bales to 13.61 million bales. With no changes to the demand side of the balance sheet, projected ending stocks declined to 4.0 million bales, down from 4.2 million bales last year. USDA also raised the season-average farm price to 75 cents per pound.



While the August yield forecasts incorporate considerably more information than estimates made earlier in the growing season, history shows that they can still change substantially before the final estimate. The chart below shows the difference between the final U.S. yield and USDA’s August forecast from 2010 through 2025. Over that period, the final corn yield differed from the August forecast by an average of 3.8 bushels per acre in absolute terms, while soybean yields differed by an average of 1.5 bushels per acre. Cotton experienced much larger revisions, averaging nearly 48 pounds per acre. The revisions have also occurred in both directions. Since 2010, final corn yields have averaged 1.5 bushels per acre below the August forecast, while soybean and cotton yields have averaged slightly above their August forecasts. This variability provides useful perspective for the 2026 estimates: the August forecasts represent USDA’s best assessment of current crop conditions, but there is still room for meaningful changes in yields, production, and ending stocks as the growing season progresses.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1672" height="941" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44642" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.3.png 1672w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.3-1024x576.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.3-768x432.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.3-1536x864.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1672px) 100vw, 1672px" /></figure>



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



Recommended citation format: Maples, William E. &#8220;<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>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(34.3). August 19, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/08/18/august-wasde-brings-new-acreage-and-yield-estimates/">Permalink</a>

August WASDE Brings New Acreage and Yield Estimates

Cull cow and cow-beef prices have slowly declined from their peak.&nbsp; Auction prices in the Southern Plains peaked at $187 per cwt and have since declined to about $172 in early August.&nbsp; National average cutter cow values have declined from about $156 to $142 per cwt over the same period.&nbsp; While prices have declined, they remain higher than last year.&nbsp; Cow beef markets have declined in price along with the live cow market.&nbsp; The boxed cow-beef cutout has declined from about $361 to $353 per cwt over the last two months.&nbsp; Wholesale 90 percent boneless lean beef has declined about $8 per cwt over the same time period to $456 per cwt.&nbsp;



Cow culling is poised to increase, seasonally, led by larger dairy cow slaughter.&nbsp; For the year, dairy cow slaughter is up 4.6 percent, or 66,300 head, compared to last year.&nbsp; Weekly culling tends to increase by about 10 percent from mid-year to Fall.&nbsp; The larger dairy herd should support the increase in culling and likely a larger than normal seasonal increase.&nbsp;



Beef cow slaughter remains historically small.&nbsp; After experiencing its seasonal mid-year increase, slaughter has begun to decline, with the week of July 25th only 36,500, one of the smallest non-holiday slaughter weeks on record.&nbsp; Over the last 4 weeks, total cow slaughter has been 2,500 head below last year.&nbsp; For the year to date, weekly total cow slaughter is 4,500 head lower than last year.&nbsp; The year-over-year decline in beef cow slaughter is narrowing.



Cow slaughter should continue to increase seasonally as dairy cow slaughter remains close to last year&#8217;s levels.&nbsp; Beef cow slaughter should remain below last year but increase into Fall after calf weaning.&nbsp; Beef demand remains strong, which will keep prices at historically high levels.&nbsp; But it’s worth remembering that cull cow prices tend to decline through the end of the year.&nbsp; Overall tight supplies kept cow prices from declining last year, and tight supplies this year will moderate any potential decline.&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/2026/08/6.34.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44633" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-1.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-1-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-1-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-1-1536x1152.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/2026/08/6.34.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44634" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-2.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-2-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-2-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-2-1536x1152.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/2026/08/6.34.2-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44635" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-3.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-3-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-3-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-3-1536x1152.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44636" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-4.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-4-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-4-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.34.2-4-1536x1152.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



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



Recommended citation format: Anderson, David. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/07/27/cull-cow-prices-continue-slow-slide/">Cull Cow Prices Continue Slow Slide.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(34.2). August 18, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/07/27/cull-cow-prices-continue-slow-slide/">Permalink</a>

Cull Cow Prices Continue Slow Slide

Many farms are involved in business arrangements, whether through a partnership (or multi-member LLC), a joint venture, a contractual agreement, or a handshake deal. Farm transition plans often include a business partnership between the generations as an in-between step.



Sometimes, business partnerships just happen, such as a farm family deciding to file a partnership tax return to save on taxes or reduce certain payment limitations. In any case, farm partners are stuck with each other for a while, so how does one cultivate a successful business partnership? &nbsp;



Choosing the Right Soil



The Southern Ag Today article “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/03/16/before-doing-business-together/">Before Doing Business Together</a>” outlined considerations to keep in mind before entering a joint business arrangement with someone else. If the business arrangement is intentional, ensure an attorney prepares a legal agreement that spells out everything, especially how decisions are made, how money is handled, and how to unwind the partnership.&nbsp;



Amending the Soil



If things are going well, it is easy to forget that other people are involved in managing your business. But relationships change over time: expectations change, people change, and not always for the better. Sometimes one can inherit a new business partner due to the retirement or death of a previous business partner.



Expectations for a business partner’s performance may have been clearly stated in the past, but a reset may be needed. Ideally, this would involve revisiting and amending the business agreement. At a minimum, a farm business meeting should be held on a routine schedule (at least annually) to discuss expectations and performance among the group.



Getting Rid of the Weeds



Unresolved conflicts, no matter how small, are like weeds choking a business. Unchecked negative feelings can seriously affect business and family relationships. The only way to eradicate these infestations is by resolving the conflict. The responsibility for resolving conflict weighs equally on both parties, the one responsible as well as the one who is upset. Many times, the “offender” doesn’t even know that they have done anything wrong.&nbsp;



Regular business meetings are a great way to stay on top of expectations and resolve conflicts. If neither party can discuss the problem, it may be necessary to use a neutral third-party facilitator to get things out on the table.



Protecting from Diseases and Pests



Protect against further conflict by improving communication and planning techniques between business partners. An old friend, Dr. George Conneman, often spoke about the 7 Cs for family business success: communication, commitment, common objectives, compromise, cooperation, contribution, and consultation.



Knowing When to Replant



All business partnerships end at some point.&nbsp; It is best to have a plan for how this will happen. A properly documented exit plan will ease partnership dissolutions, minimizing the potential for conflict, hard feelings, and courtroom battles.



Resources



If you need personal assistance, Cooperative Extension agricultural agents and specialists have experience, resources, and referrals to help farm families discuss the topics mentioned above. If you would like to learn more about joint business arrangements, download this <a href="https://coopcentersc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/sccced_jointbusinessagreementguide2021_web.pdf">free workbook</a>.&nbsp;

Cultivating Successful Business Partnerships

For generations, your family has farmed the same land that has passed down from grandparents to grandchildren. Now imagine suddenly receiving a demand to vacate the land because it no longer belongs to your family. For heirs property owners, this is an ever-present threat. Heirs property is land inherited by descendants of someone who died without a will or with an improperly written or probated will. As tenants in common, any co-owner can petition the court to sell the property. Historically, partition actions led to a courthouse auction for a fraction of fair market value. <a href="#_ftn1" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a> Unscrupulous investors could thus acquire land against families’ wishes, sometimes without their knowledge.



To combat this, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act (UPHPA) for adoption by the States in 2010.<a href="#_ftn2" id="_ftnref2">[2]</a> The UPHPA helps keep property in the family by providing due process protection to heirs. Although the UPHPA was approved over a decade ago, implementation has been slow. &nbsp;Landowners should be aware of their rights and responsibilities under the UPHPA and proactively seek assistance from an experienced heirs property attorney in the event of a partition action to effectively protect their family land.



The UPHPA entitles heirs property co-owners to rights not available to heirs property owners in non-UPHPA states, including: notice of a partition action by placement of a conspicuous sign on the property, notice of the fair market value of the property as determined by a disinterested appraiser, the right to obtain a copy of the appraisal, the right to dispute the valuation within thirty days, and the right of first refusal to buy out the petitioner’s interest before the property goes to sale. &nbsp;



Additionally, in UPHPA states, courts are subject to additional requirements when dealing with partitions of heirs property. If buyout fails, courts are required to evaluate whether dividing the property (partition in kind) or sale of the whole property (partition by sale) is the most equitable option. Courts evaluate the following factors: the practicability of physical division, the value of the divided parcels, duration of the family’s ownership, sentimental attachment to the property, ongoing lawful uses and potential harm of disruption, co-tenants’ financial contributions to the property, and other factors the court deems relevant. After evaluation, if the property goes to sale, it must take place on the open market, at a price no lower than the determined fair market value.



So far, in the Southern Ag Today area, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, Maryland, Virginia, and Mississippi have adopted versions of the UPHPA.<a href="#_ftn3" id="_ftnref3">[3]</a> Efforts to introduce and pass the UPHPA in other states are ongoing. Please find more information at the <a href="https://www.aces.edu/blog/topics/home/alabama-heirs-property-alliance/">Alabama Heirs Property Alliance</a>.<a href="#_ftn4" id="_ftnref4">[4]</a> &nbsp;&nbsp;



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



<a href="#_ftnref1" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> Rabinowitz, Adam, Justin Anderson, and Jamie Mardis. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/08/01/land-ownership-and-the-preservation-of-family-farm-legacies/">Land Ownership and the Preservation of Family Farm Legacies.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;4(35.5). August 30, 2024; Richardson, Jesse. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2022/08/heirs-property-and-agriculture/">Heirs Property and Agriculture</a>”.&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;2(36.5). September 2, 2022.



<a href="#_ftnref2" id="_ftn2">[2]</a> &nbsp;Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act, Uniform Law Commission, Final Act, 2010, Uniform Laws,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&amp;&amp;p=7cda3b9ecb92507f34f0f2ff01f1a3912fa140d579f285f57c39acb1aa169867JmltdHM9MTc4NDc2NDgwMA&amp;ptn=3&amp;ver=2&amp;hsh=4&amp;fclid=08c154f5-1876-6f99-29d2-436b19206e70&amp;u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudW5pZm9ybWxhd3Mub3JnL3ZpZXdkb2N1bWVudC9maW5hbC1hY3QtOTc&amp;ntb=1">https://www.uniformlaws.org/viewdocument/final-act-97</a>.&nbsp;



<a href="#_ftnref3" id="_ftn3">[3]</a> Uniform Law Commission (2026, June 25).&nbsp;Partition of Heirs Property Act. Retrieved July 27, 2026, from <a href="https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home/librarydocuments?communitykey=50724584-e808-4255-bc5d-8ea4e588371d&amp;LibraryFolderKey=&amp;DefaultView=">https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home/librarydocuments?communitykey=50724584-e808-4255-bc5d-8ea4e588371d&amp;LibraryFolderKey=&amp;DefaultView=</a>.



<a href="#_ftnref4" id="_ftn4">[4]</a> <a href="https://www.aces.edu/blog/topics/home/alabama-heirs-property-alliance/">Alabama Heirs Property Alliance &#8211; Alabama Cooperative Extension System</a>



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



Recommended citation format: Keown, Katie. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/07/27/dont-lose-the-farm-know-your-rights-under-the-uphpa/">Don’t Lose the Farm: Know Your Rights Under the UPHPA.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(33.5). August 14, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/07/27/dont-lose-the-farm-know-your-rights-under-the-uphpa/">Permalink</a>

Don’t Lose the Farm: Know Your Rights Under the UPHPA

Authors: Landyn Young and Luis A. Ribera



On July 7th, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) chose to leave in place anti-dumping policies for imports of preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia (Andberg, 2026). The initial ruling took place in December 1998. Dumping occurs when a producer sells their products at a lower price internationally than they do in their home country or below their production costs. A week after the ruling for preserved mushrooms was continued, on July 14th, it was announced that a preliminary determination had been reached regarding dumping of fresh mushrooms in the U.S. market from Canada (Federal Register, 2026). The USITC implemented an&nbsp;8.26%&nbsp;preliminary antidumping tariff on most fresh mushrooms from Canada, following a separate 2.84% countervailing duty for alleged unfair subsidies. In 2025, the United States imported 91.2 thousand metric tons (TMT) of mushrooms, valued at $416.9 million. Based on imports from Canada in 2025, it is estimated that 81 percent of fresh mushroom imports could face antidumping tariffs, with Agaricus mushroom imports being 92 percent.



Since 2019, between 96 and 98 percent of U.S. grown mushrooms were the Agaricus variety, which is primarily grown in Pennsylvania and California. Around 69 percent of total production of Agaricus mushrooms occurred in these two states in 2025, or 205 thousand metric tons (TMT) of the 304 TMT grown nationwide. The remaining 31 percent is spread throughout the United States.



In 2025, 91.2 TMT of mushrooms were imported, with 79.2 TMT being Agaricus; the other 12 TMT were other varieties. By far the largest exporter of fresh mushrooms to the United States was Canada, which sent an estimated 74.2 TMT of mushrooms to the United States worth $345 million. It is estimated that imports accounted for as much as 23 percent of all fresh mushrooms available in the United States in 2025, up from 16.8 percent in 2019.&nbsp; On the other hand, exports have dropped considerably since 2020, while consumption has remained relatively steady. With production on the decline and the reliance on imports rising, this could negatively impact prices for consumers of fresh mushrooms but may also be a windfall for mushroom growers in the United States trying to stay competitive.



Volume of U.S. Mushroom Imports, 2011 – June 2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="487" height="365" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.33.4-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44613" style="width:487px;height:auto"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Global Agricultural Trading System (GATS), USDA/FAS</figcaption></figure>



Volume of U.S. Mushroom Exports, 2011 – June 2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="497" height="373" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.33.4-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44618"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Global Agricultural Trading System (GATS), USDA/FAS</figcaption></figure>



Share of U.S. Mushroom Consumption from Imports, 2019 – 2025



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="485" height="364" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.33.4-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44619"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Global Agricultural Trading System (GATS), USDA/FAS</figcaption></figure>



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



Sources:



Andberg, Jennifer. United States International Trade Commission. “USITC Makes Determinations in Five-Year Reviews Concerning Preserved Mushrooms from Chile, China, India, and Indonesia.” Published July 2026.



Federal Register. “Fresh Mushrooms From Canada: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determinations and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination.” Published July 2026.



Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS). Online Database. Online public database accessed August 2026.



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



Recommended citation format: Young, Landyn, and Luis Ribera. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/07/27/usitc-maintains-anti-dumping-order-on-fresh-mushrooms/">USITC Maintains Anti-Dumping Order on Fresh Mushrooms.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(33.4). August 13, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/07/27/usitc-maintains-anti-dumping-order-on-fresh-mushrooms/">Permalink</a>

USITC Maintains Anti-Dumping Order on Fresh Mushrooms

Authors: Ryan Loy, Assistant Professor and Extension Economist, H. Scott Stiles, Extension Economist, and Hunter D. Biram, Assistant Professor and Extension Economist, University of Arkansas



According to USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS), world cotton mill use is projected to reach 121.95 million bales in 2026/27, which is an increase of about 2 million bales from 2025/26 and the highest level since the 2017/18 marketing year. This increase marks the fourth consecutive year of growth in global mill use (Figure 1).



Figure 1. World Cotton Mill Use, Million 480 Lb. Bales, 2021 – 2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="914" height="547" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.33.3-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44596" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.33.3-1.png 914w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.33.3-1-768x460.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 914px) 100vw, 914px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, World Cotton Supply and Distribution, July 2026</figcaption></figure>



The increase in mill use this year is concentrated in a handful of countries (Figure 2): China’s mill use is forecast at 41.5 million bales, up 500,000 bales and the highest since 2020. China remains the largest supplier of apparel products to the world. India’s use is currently projected at 26 million bales, up from 25.5 million bales in 2025, matching the record set in the 2020/21 marketing year. Together, China and India are expected to account for 55 percent of global mill use in 2026/27. Pakistan is also expected to mill 10.2 million bales after a 900,000-bale decline in 2025. Similarly, Bangladesh’s use is expected to grow to 7.8 million bales, up from 7.6 million bales in 2025, but down from 8.2 million bales in 2024. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh are looking to expand their textile and apparel exports this year and into the near future. In contrast, the United States’ mill use remains a fraction of these countries’ totals, forecasted at 1.6 million bales in 2026. This is down from 2.5 million bales in 2021 (USDA-FAS, 2026). However, nearly every major milling country is projected to grow this year, with the major countries (i.e., China, India, and Pakistan) representing nearly 75% of the global mill use gain in 2026 (USDA-ERS, 2026).



Figure 2. Mill Use by Major Spinning Country, Million 480 lb. Bales, 2021 – 2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="968" height="650" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.33.3-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44597" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.33.3-2.png 968w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/6.33.3-2-768x516.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 968px) 100vw, 968px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, World Cotton Supply and Distribution, July 2026</figcaption></figure>



These gains are the result of current market forces, such as underlying consumer demand for cotton apparel, which is expected to rise with world economic growth. Cotton fiber prices were relatively stable through the 2025/26 marketing year, which supports global mill demand. Synthetic fibers, such as polyester, are strongly correlated with crude oil, which has seen a dramatic increase in 2026. As a result, cotton has become more price competitive with synthetic fibers (Metcalfe, 2025). Additionally, mills are working through low yarn and fabric inventories from previous years, creating a restocking demand. Mill restocking, combined with tighter supply from lower production this year, is a major reason world ending stocks are projected to fall to 71.1 million bales (down from 75.7 million in 2025 and the lowest since the 2018/19 marketing year). The strengthening demand for cotton lint is expected to provide sustained upward pressure on farm prices, as reflected in USDA’s July 2026 WASDE report, which projects the 2026/27 season-average farm price as $0.73/lb, a 10.5-cent increase over the 2025/26 marketing year. It’s worth noting the information presented here draws on the most recent data available. The August 2026 WASDE report, which is scheduled for release this afternoon, may revise these projections.



References



Metcalfe, S. 2025. “Understanding the forces that drive global cotton prices.” Oxford Economics. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/understanding-the-forces-that-drive-global-cotton-prices/">https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/understanding-the-forces-that-drive-global-cotton-prices/</a>



USDA – Economic Research Service (ERS). 2026. “Cotton and Wool Outlook: July 2026.” Retrieved from <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/115080">https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/115080</a>



USDA – Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). 2026. “Production, Supply, and Distribution: Cotton.” Retrieved from <a href="https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/downloads">https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/downloads</a>



USDA – World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. 2026. “July 2026 WASDE Report.” Retrieved from <a href="https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0726.pdf">https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0726.pdf</a>



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



Recommended citation format: Loy, Ryan, H. Scott Stiles and Hunter Biram. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/07/27/global-cotton-mill-use-at-a-six-year-high/">Global Cotton Mill Use at a Six-Year High.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(33.3). August 12, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/07/27/global-cotton-mill-use-at-a-six-year-high/">Permalink</a><a id="_msocom_1"></a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities