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>

Beef Production Increasing?

Cover crops are plants typically grown by farmers to improve soil health, help with carbon sequestration, weed suppression, and reduce erosion. Unlike cash crops, cover crops are not intended to be sold for a profit, but rather, to serve as a natural complement to the production of cash crops (typically corn and soybeans). As such, cover crops are normally planted between the growing seasons of the cash crops, which is usually during the winter. The most common types of cover crops are legumes, grasses, and brassicas.&nbsp;



Despite the well-known soil benefits of planting cover crops, their use across the country remains relatively low at less than 5% of total cropland (Bowman and Morales, 2024). However, significant variation in relative use is seen across the US territory. Figure 1 shows the spatial (county-level) distribution of cover crop planting based on data from the 2022 Census of Agriculture. Darker tones indicate a higher percentage of cover crop use. As seen in the graph, cover crops are relatively more common in the South and the Northeast than in the Midwest, reflecting both managerial decisions and weather factors that facilitate their planting. However, in absolute terms (given by the total number of acres planted with cover crops), none of the top ten states relying on this so-called “climate smart” practice are in the Southeast or Mid Atlantic (Table 1). Texas leads with 1.55 million acres, followed by Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, and Missouri. All states in the list experienced an increase in the number of acres with cover crops between 2017 and 2022.&nbsp;



Despite the agronomic benefits associated with cover crops, their use remains limited largely due to the costs of planting the crops, terminating them in a timely manner, the labor involved in these tasks, and the potential negative impact on the yield of the following cash crop. Moreover, the benefits to the soil are generally experienced after two or more years, rendering their financial impact negative over short periods of time. For this reason, federal programs run by the USDA generally offer monetary support to encourage the use of cover crops. Importantly, recent research by Gutierrez-Li and Rejesus (2026) finds evidence that cover crops (if planted for several years and in a large enough area) can help reduce pesticide use, likely by fostering the development of natural predators that aid in pest control. Their work suggests that the benefits of planting cover crops are likely broader and not limited to enhancing soil quality.&nbsp;



For farmers considering implementing this practice, several considerations ought to be made. First, a clear determination of the short-term costs, such as seed, termination, additional input requirements for the subsequent cash crop (e.g., additional nitrogen), and yield loss of the cash crop. Second, an estimation of the savings associated with a lower need for fertilizers and pesticides over the long run. Third, the specific combination of species that will maximize the benefits to the cash crops and align with their growing seasons. Starting small, as well as talking to other local farmers and Extension agents with knowledge on cover crops, can prove essential for learning about the opportunities associated with this planting practice.



Figure 1. Cover Crops as a Percent of Total Cropland: 2022



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="468" height="420" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.23.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44034"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service</figcaption></figure>



Figure 2. Top 10 States in Cover Crop Use: Millions of Acres in 2017 and 2022



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="978" height="520" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.23.1-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44036" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.23.1-2.png 978w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.23.1-2-768x408.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 978px) 100vw, 978px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Farmdoc Daily, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Values in red (blue) correspond to 2017 (2022).</figcaption></figure>



References



Bowman, M. and Morales, M. (2024). 2022 Census of Agriculture: Cover Crop use Continues to be Most Common in Eastern United States. Charts of Note. Economic Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture.



Gutierrez-Li, A. and Rejesus. R. (2026). Cover Crops and Pesticide Use. Unpublished manuscript. North Carolina State University.&nbsp;



Zurlauf, C. (2024). Cover Crops and Covered Cropland, 2022 US Census of Agriculture. Farmdoc Daily (14): 37.&nbsp;University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign



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



Gutiérrez-Li, Alejandro. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/cover-crops-in-the-united-states-trends-benefits-and-considerations-for-farmers/">Cover Crops in the United States: Trends, Benefits, and Considerations for Farmers.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(23.1). June 1, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/cover-crops-in-the-united-states-trends-benefits-and-considerations-for-farmers/">Permalink</a>

Cover Crops in the United States: Trends, Benefits, and Considerations for Farmers

Recent events have brought renewed attention to a long-running legal battle between the state of Oklahoma and major poultry companies in Arkansas over environmental concerns and water pollution.&nbsp;&nbsp;The case centers on allegations that poultry waste generated in northwest Arkansas was contributing to water pollution in eastern Oklahoma, particularly in the Illinois River Watershed (IRW).



The lawsuit began in 2005 when Oklahoma officials filed claims in federal court against several poultry companies, including Tyson Foods, Cargill, and Cobb-Vantress.&nbsp;&nbsp;Poultry production generates large quantities of chicken litter- a mixture of manure, bedding, feathers, and feed residue.&nbsp;&nbsp;Growers commonly apply chicken litter to fields as fertilizer because it contains valuable nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. However, excessive phosphorus application can create runoff problems that impair nearby streams and rivers.&nbsp;&nbsp;In this case, Oklahoma officials argued that phosphorus from chicken litter spread on farmland in Arkansas was washing into the IRW, contributing to algae growth and declining water quality.



After years of discovery, pretrial motions and a fifty-two day trial, closing arguments were heard in February 2010.&nbsp;&nbsp;The trial involved numerous legal claims, including public nuisance, trespass, negligence, and violations of environmental laws. Oklahoma sought injunctive relief that would require changes to litter management practices and requested damages for environmental remediation. The poultry companies denied liability and argued that growers, as independent contractors, controlled litter application decisions and should be held directly responsible for any damages. The companies also argued that the growers complied with existing state regulations and nutrient management requirements.



In January 2023, the court issued its&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/OKAR23.pdf">219 page ruling</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;In short, however, the court held that poultry litter was a key non-point source of pollution in the watershed.&nbsp;&nbsp;Additionally, it found that the poultry companies were responsible for the damages caused by the litter.&nbsp;&nbsp;The court did not, however, specifically forbid the future use of litter.&nbsp;&nbsp;Further, the court did not identify specific consequences for the ruling.&nbsp;&nbsp;Instead, the parties were directed to “meet and attempt to reach an agreement with regard to remedies to be imposed”.



The parties were unable to reach an agreement.&nbsp;&nbsp;Further, the poultry companies filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that in the 13 years between the trial and the ruling, conditions in IRW “materially changed” enough that it was unfair to hold the poultry companies responsible for litter application.&nbsp;&nbsp;The court held a hearing on the motion in December 2024, where experts from both sides presented evidence about the effects of the litter.&nbsp;&nbsp;Six months after the hearing, the court issued&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/OKAR25.pdf">a ruling</a>&nbsp;finding that conditions in the watershed were not “materially changed,” and continuing phosphorus run-off from litter application continued to be a significant source of injury to the IRW.



Soon after that, the court issued&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Frizzell-Judgement-1.pdf">its ruling on damages</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;In addition to civil penalties of $10,000 per violation, the court held the companies jointly and severally responsible for environmental cleanup efforts of the watershed.&nbsp;&nbsp;Remediation would be paid for through a dedicated account, initially funded by the companies at $10 million.&nbsp;&nbsp;A court-appointed special master would oversee remediation activities- predicted by the court to last 30 years- and provide ongoing progress reports.&nbsp;&nbsp;The remedies also included restrictions on poultry litter application rates, generally limiting application to two tons per acre, while also holding the companies responsible for removal, storage, transport and disposal of future litter from barns in the watershed.



In the next few months, however, the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office announced settlements with several of the companies that would 1) provide a sum of money to facilitate cleanup and 2) progressively reduce the amount of litter applied in the IRW.&nbsp;&nbsp;No civil penalties would be imposed.&nbsp;&nbsp;The settling companies include Cargill, George’s, Peterson Farms and Tyson, who cumulatively agreed to pay $31 million.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;



However, in April 2026, the judge rejected the settlement proposals.&nbsp;&nbsp;In&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.oknd.22038/gov.uscourts.oknd.22038.3300.0.pdf">his ruling</a>, he held that the proposed sum and scope of the settlements, which was substantially less than his ruling on damages, was insufficient to cover the costs of the cleanup.



Currently, there are pending appeals for both the substantive rulings and the rejection of the settlement.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Oklahoma Attorney General and Oklahoma Secretary of Energy have joined the settlement appeal.&nbsp;&nbsp;



While the results of this case are yet to be finalized, the Oklahoma legislature has passed legislation ensuring that similar cases in the future will be limited.&nbsp;&nbsp;In 2024,&nbsp;<a href="https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB1424/id/3004880/Oklahoma-2024-SB1424-Enrolled.pdf">Senate Bill 1424</a>&nbsp;was passed.&nbsp;&nbsp;It prevents lawsuits against poultry companies over chicken waste pollution as long as the poultry farm has an approved waste disposal plan with the state.&nbsp;



This case underscores the difficulty of regulating “nonpoint source pollution,” a category that includes runoff from farms and agricultural land. Nonpoint source pollution is not directly regulated in the Clean Water Act, which leaves much of the responsibility for addressing agricultural runoff to the states and creates significant challenges for enforcing water quality protections when pollution comes from widespread, diffuse sources rather than a single discharge point.



The consequences of this ruling will have significant implications not only for poultry companies, but also for growers and others involved in the poultry industry, as well as residents of the area and those who enjoy the recreational opportunities available within the watershed.&nbsp;&nbsp;As future decisions are made, updates will be available in Southern Ag Today.&nbsp;&nbsp;



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



Rumley, Elizabeth. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/oklahomaarkansas-chicken-litter-case-continues/">Oklahoma-Arkansas Chicken Litter Case Continues.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(22.5). May 29, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/oklahomaarkansas-chicken-litter-case-continues/">Permalink</a>

Oklahoma–Arkansas Chicken Litter Case Continues

Authors: Walker Davis and Amy Hagerman



The Crop and Livestock Income Protection (CLIP) product, first offered in 2026, acts as an umbrella policy layered on top of your existing Revenue Protection (RP) policies, offering a higher coverage level across two or more different spring crops grown in the same county. Producers do still need to enroll in RP for each individual crop to be eligible for CLIP. RP policies trigger as they normally would, where CLIP triggers when&nbsp;combined&nbsp;revenues fall below the CLIP guarantee.&nbsp;



In a year with a revenue loss, indemnities trigger in two stages. First, individual crop revenue losses still work as they normally would. Consider a producer who has both corn and grain sorghum in a single county that experiences losses for both crops. The producer would work with his or her crop insurance agent to report the loss for each crop individually. Second, after all RP policy production to count valuations are determined, the combined revenue to count of the CLIP insured commodities is compared to the CLIP guarantee. If there is a shortfall, CLIP pays the difference. Because CLIP can be set at a higher coverage level than your underlying RP, it may trigger even when neither individual RP policy does.



CLIP coverage levels run from 55% to 85%, capped at 25 points above your lowest individual RP policy coverage election. To show what this means in practice, consider a Garfield County, Oklahoma producer with 500 acres each of corn and grain sorghum, both under RP at 75% coverage—a common coverage level in this area. The producer’s cost of that base coverage and comparisons of three options are provided in Table 1: (1) increase the coverage level of individual RP policies, (2) adding CLIP umbrella policy on top of 75% coverage RP, and (3) adding a Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) area coverage on top of 75% RP policies. SCO will trigger based on county average revenue, and preference may be heavily influenced by field level performance as compared to the county average. A producer cannot enroll in both SCO and CLIP. This comparison is shown in Table 1.&nbsp;



Table 1. Premium Cost Comparison: Revenue Protection Coverage Level Increase vs. CLIP



<figure class="wp-block-table aligncenter is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>Scenario</td><td>RP Level</td><td>Add On</td><td>Total Premium</td><td>Producer Premium</td><td>Subsidy Amount</td></tr><tr><td>Base</td><td>75%</td><td>None</td><td>&nbsp;$56,777&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$22,711&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$34,066</td></tr><tr><td>RP1</td><td>80%</td><td>None</td><td>&nbsp;$66,439&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$32,555&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$33,884&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>RP2</td><td>85%</td><td>None</td><td>&nbsp;$77,330&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$45,625&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$31,705&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>CLIP1</td><td>75%</td><td>CLIP 80%</td><td>&nbsp;$59,467&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$23,494&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$35,982&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>CLIP2</td><td>75%</td><td>CLIP 85%</td><td>&nbsp;$63,006&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$25,452&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$37,554&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>SCO</td><td>75%</td><td>SCO 86%</td><td>&nbsp;$69,511&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$25,258&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$44,253&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA RMA Cost Estimator, 2026 crop year. Note: Premium estimates were generated using the USDA Risk Management Agency Cost Estimator tool for the 2026 crop year using county transitional (T) yields. Individual producer premiums will vary based on their actual APH yield history, total acreage of commodities insured by CLIP, unit structure, insurable type, production practice, and location (e.g. state, county, and map area if applicable).</figcaption></figure>



The simple comparison in a single county offers a few insights.&nbsp;



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>CLIP offers comparable individual-based revenue coverage at significantly lower producer-paid premium. CLIP1 yields savings of $9,061, or 28% less than RP1 for comparable 80% coverage protection for producers growing multiple spring crops. </li>



<li>Savings widen substantially at higher coverage levels. Electing 85% RP on both crops individually carries a producer premium of $45,625, while a CLIP 85% umbrella policy achieves comparable protection for a producer premium of $25,452.</li>



<li>SCO offers a comparable producer cost to CLIP but with a fundamentally different trigger. The SCO scenario (86% coverage) has a near-identical producer premium to a CLIP policy with 85% coverage, differing by just $194 for the entire operation. However, these two products behave very differently at claim time: SCO triggers on county-average revenue loss, where CLIP triggers on personal revenue loss. Your crop insurance agent can provide a comparison of SCO with CLIP for an individual operation, including the production history of the fields in question and the county benchmarks. </li>
</ol>



CLIP may provide a viable option to increase protection for a producer growing multiple spring crops. Although it cannot currently be used for winter crops such as wheat or oats, producers do have the option to include under CLIP livestock insured through the Weaned Calf Risk Protection program. CLIP is now available in 13 states. These states include Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas. It must be purchased by the earliest sales closing date of your eligible crops and is sold exclusively through licensed crop insurance agents.&nbsp;



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



Davis, Walker, and Amy Hagerman. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/crop-and-livestock-income-protection-clip-basics-for-spring-crop-producers/">Crop and Livestock Income Protection (CLIP) Basics for Spring Crop Producers.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(22.4). May 28, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/crop-and-livestock-income-protection-clip-basics-for-spring-crop-producers/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities