Authors: Grant Gardner and Matt Dixon, University of Kentucky



Large-scale climate patterns can shift the odds toward wetter, drier, warmer, or cooler conditions over several months. For winter 2026‑27, all eyes are on El Niño, a phase of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) pattern in the equatorial Pacific that influences weather around the world. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center has an El Niño Advisory in place, with better than an 83 percent chance that a strong to very strong event holds through March and a similarly high chance that October through December will exceed the intensity of any El Niño since 1950 (NOAA-CPC, 2026). This article investigates what past strong El Niño winters have meant for the crop that followed.



There have been nine strong El Niño winters since 1950 (NOAA-CPC, n.d.). This article analyzes eight of them, removing the 1982‑83 El Niño because the 1983 drought that followed was a significant outlier event. In each instance, the following year’s crop yield is compared with a normal trend-line expected yield to estimate a potential yield impact. Figures 1 through 4 represent those average impacts as a percentage above or below normal (USDA-NASS, 2026). Blue states yielded better than normal, red states yielded worse. The outlined states are those where the difference is larger than the state’s normal year-to-year swing would explain, the standard for calling a result statistically significant.



The strongest impact shows up in winter wheat in the Plains (Figure 1). In the years after strong El Niño winters, wheat averaged about 18 percent above normal in South Dakota, 14 percent in Texas, 14 percent in Kansas, 13 percent in Oklahoma, 12 percent in Nebraska, and 12 percent in Colorado. South Dakota, Nebraska, and Texas were above normal in seven of the eight years. That fits expectations, since El Niño winters tend to bring above normal rain to the southern Plains and milder conditions to the north (Welch, 2025). NOAA’s winter outlook for 2026‑27 shows the same pattern, with wetter than average odds across the southern tier and warmer than average odds across the north (NOAA, 2026). The 2024 crop was the last example, with winter wheat condition ratings well above average coming out of that El Niño winter (Welch, 2024). Outside those states, the gain is negligible. Wheat is flat through the Corn Belt and slightly negative in the Southeast, about 2 percent under normal in Kentucky and 7 percent under in the Carolinas.



Cotton shows a similar impact in the same region (Figure 2). Texas averaged about 10 percent above normal in the years after these winters, above normal in six of the eight and steady across them, and it is the only cotton state where the gain is larger than normal variation would explain. Oklahoma averaged more, 18 percent, but three years carry it, 1958, 1973, and 2016, and without them the average is about 1 percent. Georgia averaged 5 percent above normal and Mississippi 3, both inside the normal swing, while California, Missouri, Louisiana, and Arkansas averaged 3 to 5 percent under. Texas grows 37 percent of the U.S. crop, much of it dryland on the High Plains, where a wet winter recharges the soil profile before planting.



Corn is another story (Figure 3). No state stands out, but the map splits west from east. Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska averaged 6 percent, 5 percent, and 4 percent above normal, while Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky came in within about 2 percent of normal and the Atlantic states ran 9 to 11 percent under. The South in general sees lower corn yields after strong El Niño winters, and the results are progressively worse moving east, but no state moves more than its normal year-to-year swing, making it a tilt in the odds rather than a number to plan around.



Soybean impacts are mixed (Figure 4). Kansas averaged 12 percent above normal, North Dakota 11, Nebraska 8, and Missouri 7, though only Missouri’s gain is larger than that state’s normal year-to-year variation. Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama averaged 2 to 9 percent under normal, again inside the usual swing. For corn and soybeans, a strong El Niño winter is not a reason to move acres or budget a different yield in 2027.



What has mattered for corn and soybeans shows up later. The El Niño pattern was gone by the following summer every time, and in three of the nine years (1973, 1998, and 2010) La Niña had taken hold by June, July, or August (NOAA-CPC, n.d.). Those summers hurt: U.S. corn averaged about 4 percent under normal, Kentucky corn 8 percent under, and Kentucky soybeans 8 percent under. That makes next spring’s outlook worth watching, while insurance and input decisions are still open.



While this El Niño is stronger than anything on record, the numbers above represent a direction, not a specific yield to budget. USDA will hold trend yields until the August surveys regardless of what the winter does (Gardner, 2026). The same winter that favors wheat and cotton in Texas and the southern Plains tends to work against corn in the Southeast, something to weigh on diversified southern acres. For now, southern Plains wheat and cotton growers may plan accordingly, with top-dress nitrogen, fungicide plans, and harvest and storage capacity set up for a better than normal crop, while corn and soybean growers have little reason to act before spring.



Figure 1. Winter wheat in the year after a strong El Niño winter, the crop that grew through the winter. Percent above (blue) or below (red) a normal year for that state, averaged over eight El Niño winters. Outlined states stand out from normal variation; gray states grow little or no wheat. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1958" height="1445" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45070" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-1.png 1958w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-1-1024x756.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-1-767x566.png 767w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-1-1536x1134.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1958px) 100vw, 1958px" /></figure>



Source: USDA NASS; NOAA Climate Prediction Center.



Figure 2. Cotton in the year after a strong El Niño winter, planted the following spring. Percent above (blue) or below (red) a normal year for that state, averaged over eight El Niño winters. Outlined states stand out from normal variation; gray states grow little or no cotton. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1958" height="1445" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45071" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-2.png 1958w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-2-1024x756.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-2-767x566.png 767w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-2-1536x1134.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1958px) 100vw, 1958px" /></figure>



Source: USDA NASS; NOAA Climate Prediction Center.



Figure 3. Corn in the year after a strong El Niño winter, planted the following spring. Percent above (blue) or below (red) a normal year for that state, averaged over eight El Niño winters. Outlined states stand out from normal variation; gray states grow little or no corn. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1958" height="1445" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45073" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-3.png 1958w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-3-1024x756.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-3-767x566.png 767w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-3-1536x1134.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1958px) 100vw, 1958px" /></figure>



Source: USDA NASS; NOAA Climate Prediction Center.



Figure 4. Soybeans in the year after a strong El Niño winter, planted the following spring. Percent above (blue) or below (red) a normal year for that state, averaged over eight El Niño winters. Outlined states stand out from normal variation; gray states grow little or no soybeans. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1958" height="1445" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45074" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-4.png 1958w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-4-1024x756.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-4-767x566.png 767w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.46.1-4-1536x1134.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1958px) 100vw, 1958px" /></figure>



Source: USDA NASS; NOAA Climate Prediction Center.



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



References



Gardner, Grant. “July 2026 WASDE: Acreage Moves in July, Yields Move in August.” Southern Ag Today, July 15, 2026. https://southernagtoday.org/2026/07/15/july-2026-wasde-acreage-moves-in-july-yields-move-in-august/



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). “El Nino Looms Large Over U.S. Winter Outlook.” October 15, 2026. https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/el-nino-looms-large-over-us-winter-outlook



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Prediction Center (NOAA-CPC). “ENSO Diagnostic Discussion.” October 8, 2026. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Climate Prediction Center (NOAA-CPC). “Oceanic Niño Index (ONI).” Accessed September 11, 2026. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/oni.ascii.txt



U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). “Quick Stats.” Accessed September 11, 2026. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/



Welch, J. Mark. “2026 Wheat Outlook.” Southern Ag Today, December 17, 2025. https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/17/2026-wheat-outlook/



Welch, J. Mark. “An Early Look at 2024 Production Expectations for U.S. Wheat and Sorghum.” Southern Ag Today, April 22, 2024. https://southernagtoday.org/2024/04/22/an-early-look-at-2024-production-expectations-for-u-s-wheat-and-sorghum/



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



Recommended citation format: Gardner, Grant, and Matthew Dixon. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/what-does-a-strong-el-nino-winter-mean-for-next-years-crop-yields/">What Does a Strong El Niño Winter Mean for Next Year’s Crop Yields?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(46.1). November 9, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/what-does-a-strong-el-nino-winter-mean-for-next-years-crop-yields/">Permalink</a>

What Does a Strong El Niño Winter Mean for Next Year’s Crop Yields?

A frequent question that I receive at the National Agricultural Law Center involves trespassers on agricultural property. What steps can, or should, a landowner take to deal with trespassers? The answer, like any good legal answer, always starts with the phrase “it depends.”&nbsp;



First, there is a substantial difference in how the law treats adult trespassers and child trespassers. To learn more about child trespassers, there is a great Southern Ag Today article by Jesse Richardson available&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/01/17/duty-to-child-trespassers/">here</a>. This article will instead focus on the adult trespassers.&nbsp;



A second issue is whether the person is just a trespasser or whether they are causing an immediate danger to the life of the landowner or other people on the property. We will focus this article solely on the trespassing issue, as there are many other resources on self-defense laws.



Landowners owe trespassers on their property a legal responsibility, called a duty of care. The general duty of care is not to engage in willful or wanton misconduct that injures the trespasser. Basically, this boils down to not shooting them, again, this article assumes that self-defense is not an issue and not setting booby traps.&nbsp;



When presenting on this topic, a suburban or urban crowd asks why people would set up booby traps in the first place, and the rural crowds want to describe the innovative booby traps that they have devised over the years! Police response times tend to be much slower in rural areas because of the vast distances that law enforcement is expected to cover. Rural residents become frustrated after calling law enforcement multiple times about trespassers and law enforcement not having the ability to show up in time to catch the perpetrators. This frustration is often enhanced if the trespasser is poaching or committing theft. This frustration can lead to the landowners resorting to “self-help” which often involves booby traps in some form.&nbsp;



What is a booby trap? This depends on the facts surrounding the incident. Is an electric fence a booby trap?&nbsp;&nbsp;It depends! A hotwire fence to keep cattle in a wheat field is a very common method of fencing and would not be considered a booby trap if it is being deployed as is typical in a given area. A chain-link fence that has 240 volts running through it is a different matter altogether! Both of these are electric fences, but the purpose behind them is what matters.



What about dogs? A Pomeranian lap dog will likely never rise to the level of a booby trap because its sole purpose is to be a pet. An auto parts junkyard where pit bulls are kept, and they are released after closing and then penned back up before the junkyard opens, is different. Those dogs are there to deter or attack people that trespass after hours, so the law will likely treat them much differently than a small Pomeranian dog kept solely as a pet. The facts always matter in these types of cases.



Why does this matter? If a landowner sets up a booby trap, such as a spring gun which is a firearm attached to a tripwire, and that booby trap goes off successfully, then the landowner could potentially be civilly and criminally liable for that action. This means that a landowner could face potential jail time for this action, and the trespasser (or their heirs at law) could, and likely would, sue the landowner for their personal injury damages. Additionally, booby traps are indiscriminate. They will go off whether the trespasser is twenty-eight years of age or eight years of age.&nbsp;



What can a landowner do instead? Technology has provided another option for rural landowners. Landowners can now buy game cameras to set up on their property that will send photos or videos directly to their smartphone when someone crosses over their property line. They can call law enforcement from the comfort of their bed immediately and, because they call them so quickly, the chances of catching the trespasser are higher. Landowners also have evidence that the police can use if the decision is made to bring charges against the trespasser.&nbsp;



Setting booby traps only increases the likelihood that the landowner will be sued or prosecuted themselves. It is frustrating to watch a trespasser come to one’s property repeatedly, but the potential legal exposure of setting booby traps will likely greatly outweigh the value of property that the trespasser could be stealing.



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



Recommended citation format: Rumley, Rusty. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/what-can-legally-be-done-about-trespassers/">What can “Legally” be done about trespassers?</a>&#8220; Southern Ag Today 6(45.5). November 6, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/what-can-legally-be-done-about-trespassers/">Permalink</a>

What can “Legally” be done about trespassers?

Authors: K. Aleks Schaefer Associate Professor of International Markets, Trade and Policy and Morgan Ritz, Master of International Agriculture Program,&nbsp;Oklahoma State University&nbsp;



Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s reelection surprised financial markets following a closely contested presidential election against Flávio Bolsonaro. The reaction was immediate. Brazilian stocks fell sharply, and the country’s currency, the real, declined more than eight percent against the U.S. dollar.



For U.S. farmers, those developments matter because Brazil is one of the United States’ largest competitors in global agricultural markets, particularly for soybeans. Lula’s reelection could affect that competition through two different channels: a weaker Brazilian currency (real) that makes Brazilian exports more competitive in the short run, and environmental policies that could influence how rapidly Brazilian agriculture expands over the longer run.



The exchange rate effect is the more immediate concern. Soybeans are traded internationally in U.S. dollars, while Brazilian farmers pay many of their costs and measure their returns in Brazilian reais. When the real weakens relative to the dollar, each dollar earned from soybean exports translates into more reais.



That can make exporting more attractive to Brazilian producers and allow Brazilian soybeans to remain profitable at lower dollar-denominated prices. For major importers such as China, that can make Brazilian soybeans more competitive relative to soybeans produced in the United States.



This matters because Brazil’s soybean sector has already expanded dramatically. As Figure 1 shows, both soybean acreage and production have increased substantially during the past decade.



Figure 1. Soybean Acreage and Production in Brazil



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1436" height="861" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.4-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45060" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.4-1.png 1436w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.4-1-1024x614.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.4-1-767x460.png 767w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1436px) 100vw, 1436px" /></figure>



Source: Conab, Série Histórica – Soja and Safra 2026/27, 1º Levantamento



Brazil produced a record soybean crop of roughly 6.6 billion bushels during the 2025-26 crop year, and production is expected to reach another record in 2026-27. Current estimates place the 2026-27 crop at approximately 186 million metric tons (6.8 billion bushels), according to USDA.



This growth has not resulted from acreage alone. Brazil has also invested heavily in agricultural technology, transportation, storage, and other infrastructure. Nevertheless, continued increases in planted area have been an important part of Brazil’s rise as an agricultural exporter.



That brings up the second potential effect of Lula’s reelection. Lula has made reducing deforestation a central part of his administration’s environmental policy. When he returned to office in 2023, his government announced a goal of eliminating illegal deforestation in the Amazon by 2030. The government has expanded the use of satellite monitoring, enforcement against illegal logging and land clearing, and financial investigations aimed at identifying economic activity connected to illegal deforestation.



Those efforts appear to be having an effect. Between 2025 and 2026, deforestation in Brazil’s Cerrado fell nearly 24 percent, while Amazon deforestation fell nearly 42 percent. Both reached their lowest levels in their respective monitoring series. Figure 2 shows the longer-term pattern in Brazilian deforestation.



Figure 2. Deforestation in Brazil Over Time



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2160" height="1260" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.4-2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45063" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.4-2-1.png 2160w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.4-2-1-1024x597.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.4-2-1-768x448.png 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.4-2-1-1536x896.png 1536w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.4-2-1-2048x1195.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2160px) 100vw, 2160px" /></figure>



Source: TerraBrasilis Prodes



It would be tempting to conclude that stronger conservation policies will necessarily slow the growth of Brazilian soybean production. The relationship, however, is more complicated.



Brazil has already shown that agricultural production can increase while Amazon deforestation declines. Soybean acreage can expand onto existing pasture or other agricultural land, farmers can increase yields, and production can grow in regions outside the Amazon. As a result, Lula’s environmental policies do not necessarily imply that Brazilian soybean production will stop growing.



Instead, the more important question may be whether Brazil can continue expanding agricultural output at its recent pace without relying on continued conversion of native vegetation.



For U.S. soybean farmers, the near-term implications are clearer than the long-term ones. Brazil is already the United States’ principal competitor in global soybean markets, and a weaker real makes that competition even tougher. Lula’s conservation policies could eventually constrain some forms of agricultural expansion, but they are unlikely to reverse Brazil’s emergence as an agricultural powerhouse.



For now, U.S. soybean producers may therefore feel the effects of Brazil’s election less through Brazilian politics themselves than through something much more familiar: the price of the Brazilian real.



References



Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (Conab). (2026). Série histórica das safras: Soja [Data set]. Retrieved November 4, 2026, from <a href="https://www.gov.br/conab/pt-br/atuacao/informacoes-agropecuarias/safras/series-historicas/graos/soja">https://www.gov.br/conab/pt-br/atuacao/informacoes-agropecuarias/safras/series-historicas/graos/soja</a>



Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento (Conab). (2026, October). Acompanhamento da safra brasileira de grãos: Safra 2026/27, 1º levantamento. <a href="https://www.gov.br/conab/pt-br/atuacao/informacoes-agropecuarias/safras/safra-de-graos/boletim-da-safra-de-graos">https://www.gov.br/conab/pt-br/atuacao/informacoes-agropecuarias/safras/safra-de-graos/boletim-da-safra-de-graos</a>



Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE). (2026). TerraBrasilis: PRODES deforestation monitoring [Data set]. Retrieved November 4, 2026, from <a href="https://terrabrasilis.dpi.inpe.br/">https://terrabrasilis.dpi.inpe.br/</a>



Keske, J. (2026, October). A weaker real, a stubborn corn market and what U.S. farmers should watch now. Farm Progress. <a href="https://www.farmprogress.com/markets-and-quotes/a-weaker-real-a-stubborn-corn-market-and-what-u-s-farmers-should-watch-now">https://www.farmprogress.com/markets-and-quotes/a-weaker-real-a-stubborn-corn-market-and-what-u-s-farmers-should-watch-now</a>



Paraguassu, L., Boadle, A., Porter, M., &amp; Ellis, A. (2023). Brazil’s Lula unveils plan to stop deforestation in Amazon by 2030. Reuters. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazils-lula-launches-plan-stop-deforestation-amazon-by-2030-2023-06-05/">https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazils-lula-launches-plan-stop-deforestation-amazon-by-2030-2023-06-05/</a>



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. (2026, October). Oilseeds: World markets and trade. <a href="https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/oilseeds.pdf">https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/oilseeds.pdf</a>

What Does Lula’s Reelection in Brazil Mean for U.S. Soybean Farmers?

Peanut farmers are in the middle of peanut harvest with over 50 percent of U.S. peanuts harvested.  Near-term needs should be covered due to a record carryover from the near-record 2025 crop of 3.55 million tons (8,400 tons shy of the 2017 record).  Harvest is a little behind average because of later plantings and a short stoppage in the Southeast due to Hurricane Isaias.  The October U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Crop Production report projects total U.S. production to be 2.56 million tons, nearly a million tons (28%) less than 2025 (Figure 1).  The projected yield is about the same as last year at 3,766 pounds per acre.  Projected yields have fallen throughout the 2026 crop year due to hot and dry weather in parts of the peanut belt.  



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1248" height="744" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.3-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45055" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.3-1.png 1248w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.3-1-1024x610.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.3-1-767x457.png 767w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1248px) 100vw, 1248px" /></figure>



Consumption of peanuts may be described as fairly steady—compared to production from 2016 to 2024—ranging from a low of 2.96 million tons in 2018 to a high of 3.27 million tons in 2023 (Figure 1).&nbsp;&nbsp; However, peanut disappearance dropped to a low of 2.83 million tons during the 2025/26 marketing year while supply jumped to an all-time high, according to the USDA October Oil Crops Outlook report. &nbsp;Shelled edible peanut use was down across the board for peanut butter, candy, and snack categories, according to the August USDA Peanut Stocks and Processing report.&nbsp; Total consumption in 2025/26 is estimated by USDA to be down by 13.3%, largely due to a seed and residual use that decreased by about 658,000 tons from 2024/25.&nbsp; The seed and residual use estimate of 63,000 tons for the 2025/26 marketing year is a bit confusing, as it appears not to be enough to meet seed needs to plant 1.4 million acres in 2026.&nbsp; The drop in consumption and record supply resulted in record carryover stocks for the 2026/27 marketing year, and the buyers of shelled peanuts are now waiting to see the size and quality of the 2026 crop.&nbsp;



Peanut farmers responded to lower spring contract prices by cutting acres by 28%. With peanut production expected to be the lowest since 2013, peanut prices for uncontracted peanuts are expected to rebound some in areas with a short crop. The global supply of peanuts is down, resulting in U.S. exports remaining about the same as last year.&nbsp; Total U.S. consumption is projected to rebound to 3.1 million tons for the 2026/27 marketing year.&nbsp; Domestic consumption, however, has yet to show an improvement.&nbsp; The supply side has responded to low prices.&nbsp; Farmers are hoping the demand side will respond with more consumption.&nbsp;



References:



&nbsp;U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS). “Oil Crops Outlook: October 2026.” October 14, 2026. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/115629.



U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). “Crop Production.” October 9, 2026. https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/crop-production.



U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). “Crop Progress.” November 2, 2026. https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/crop-progress.



U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). “Peanut Stocks and Processing.” August 26, 2026.&nbsp; https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/peanut-stocks-and-processing.



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



Recommended citation format: Smith, Nathan. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/will-supply-or-demand-forces-drive-peanut-prices-post-harvest/">Will Supply or Demand Forces Drive Peanut Prices Post-Harvest?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(45.3). November 4, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/will-supply-or-demand-forces-drive-peanut-prices-post-harvest/">Permalink</a>

Will Supply or Demand Forces Drive Peanut Prices Post-Harvest?

Drought has been a problem for beef cattle producers for nearly all of 2026. On the October 27 U.S. Drought Monitor map, 52 percent of the nation&#8217;s beef cows were in areas of drought (D1 or worse), and about one-third (32 percent) were in severe drought or worse (D2-D4). These figures weight each county&#8217;s drought conditions by its beef cow numbers from the 2022 Census of Agriculture.&nbsp;This year&#8217;s drought stands out over the long run. The share of beef cows in severe drought or worse peaked at 49 percent in late April. That is the highest since the 2012-13 drought, when it reached 52 percent, and above the peaks of the 2006 and 2022 droughts (43 and 44 percent).



The South is carrying much of this burden. The 13 states in the Southern Risk Management Education Center region hold about 13 million beef cows, or 45 percent of the U.S. total. Across those states, 65 percent of beef cows were in drought on October 27, up from 29 percent a year earlier. More than 90 percent of beef cows in Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Mississippi were in drought, along with 77 percent in Texas and 67 percent in Tennessee. Conditions are better on the eastern edge of the region, where fewer than 20 percent of beef cows in Kentucky, Virginia and South Carolina were in drought.



More than half of U.S. beef cows have been in drought in 29 of the 43 weeks so far this year. Severity has also been higher than usual. Through April and May, about one in five beef cows was in an area with extreme or exceptional drought (D3-D4). For cow-calf producers, drought heading into winter means less stockpiled forage and earlier hay feeding and also increases fuel use for feeding and moving cattle. USDA-FSA Livestock Forage Disaster Program payments can help eligible producers in drought areas.&nbsp;



Certainly, drought has impacted the ability of producers to expand their herds.&nbsp;&nbsp;Drought has also led to higher production costs through increased feed purchases.&nbsp;&nbsp;Recent hay price data has indicated some sharply higher hay costs leading into Fall.&nbsp;&nbsp;El Niño might bring more rain this winter, but timing could be too late for much grass growth in some areas.&nbsp;&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="468" height="281" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45042"/></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="468" height="350" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45043"/></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="468" height="281" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/6.45.2-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45044"/></figure>



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



Recommended citation format: Maples, Josh. &#8220;Drought Grips Southern Cow Country Heading into Winter.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(45.2). November 3, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/drought-grips-southern-cow-country-heading-into-winter/">Permalink</a>

Drought Grips Southern Cow Country Heading into Winter

Earlier this year, an article in&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;titled&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/02/the-outlook-for-interest-rates-in-2026/">The Outlook for Interest Rates in 2026</a>&nbsp;examined how interest rates might change in 2026 based on the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC)&nbsp;Summary of Economic Projections. This article reviews those early-2026 projections, compares them with the FOMC’s actual policy decisions, and discusses what changes in the economic environment might mean for interest rates in 2027.&nbsp;



Table 1 summarizes the economic projections of the twelve FOMC members at the December 2025 and March 2026 meetings. At the start of the year, most FOMC members believed a federal funds rate between 2.9% and 3.6% was the appropriate path for 2026. At the time, the FOMC’s target range for the federal funds rate was 3.5%- 3.75%, implying a single quarter-point rate cut in 2026 was likely. However, at its September meeting, the FOMC raised the federal funds rate target range by a quarter point to 3.75%-4.0%. In addition, the FOMC’s September Summary of Economic Projections indicated that most members now favored a federal funds rate between 4.0% and 4.4% in 2026 (Table 2).



Two factors likely explain the change in the FOMC’s monetary policy path. First, the FOMC&#8217;s composition changed this year. In May, Kevin Warsh replaced Jerome Powell as the Chair of both the Federal Reserve and the FOMC. At the same time, four regional Federal Reserve bank presidents rotated off the committee, and four new presidents joined, as is standard practice each year. The addition of five new members may have shifted the board&#8217;s composition, leading to a more hawkish stance on inflation.&nbsp;



The second factor likely influencing the FOMC’s decisions this year is the trajectory of inflation in 2026, as shown in Figure 2. In January, annual inflation in the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index, the FOMC’s preferred measure of inflation, was 2.73%. By August, annual inflation had risen to 3.45% due to higher tariffs, the Middle East conflict, and resulting increases in input and energy costs across multiple sectors of the economy (FOMC 2026). These events put pressure on the FOMC to reverse course and raise the federal funds rate.



What does this mean for the final two months of 2026 and into 2027? The most likely scenario is higher rates, at least in the short term. If the FOMC’s September projections are accurate, a quarter-point increase at its December meeting would not be unexpected. The long-term outlook is less certain. According to the September summary, the median projection is for the federal funds rate to hold steady at 4.1% next year. How the FOMC manages monetary policy will depend on inflation&#8217;s trajectory and the economy&#8217;s strength. If the U.S. economy shows signs of a recession, the FOMC may feel compelled to lower rates.



If the FOMC raises the federal funds rate in December and keeps the target rate between 4.0% and 4.25% in 2027, expect higher agricultural loan rates as well. Agricultural rates rose in the third quarter of 2026, possibly in anticipation of the committee’s September decision. Figure 2 offers insight into where agricultural rates may end up next year. For most of 2025, the FOMC held the federal funds rate steady between 4.25% and 4.5%. At the same time, long- and intermediate-term agricultural rates were near 8.0%, while short-term rates were closer to 8.5%. The actual rate a borrower receives will depend on their relationship with the lender and their perceived creditworthiness; however, as producers begin planning for 2027, they should expect to pay higher interest rates on operating loans next year.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Table 1. Summary of FOMC Committee Member Projections, December 2025 and March 2026



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">Median (%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">Central Tendency (%)1</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">Range (%)</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">December</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">March</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">December</td><td>March</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">December</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">March</td></tr><tr><td>Change in Real GDP</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2.1 &#8211; 2.5</td><td>2.2 &#8211; 2.5</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2.0 &#8211; 2.6</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2.1 &#8211; 2.7</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployment Rate</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4.4</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4.4</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4.3 &#8211; 4.4</td><td>4.3 &#8211; 4.5</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4.2 &#8211; 4.6</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4.3 &#8211; 4.6</td></tr><tr><td>PCE Inflation</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2.4</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2.7</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2.3 &#8211; 2.5</td><td>2.6 &#8211; 3.1</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2.2 &#8211; 2.7</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2.3 &#8211; 3.3</td></tr><tr><td>Federal Funds Rate</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">3.4</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">3.4</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2.9 &#8211; 3.6</td><td>3.1 &#8211; 3.6</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2.1 &#8211; 3.9</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2.6 &#8211; 3.6</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">1&nbsp;The central tendency represents the range of projections, excluding the 3 highest and 3 lowest values.</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



Table 2. Summary of FOMC Committee Member Projections, September 2026



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td colspan="2">Median (%)</td><td colspan="2">Central Tendency (%)1</td><td colspan="2">Range (%)</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>2026</td><td>2027</td><td>2026</td><td>2027</td><td>2026</td><td>2027</td></tr><tr><td>Change in Real GDP</td><td>2.3</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.2 &#8211; 2.4</td><td>2.2 &#8211; 2.6</td><td>2.1 &#8211; 2.6</td><td>2.0 &#8211; 2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployment Rate</td><td>4.1</td><td>4.1</td><td>4.1 &#8211; 4.2</td><td>4.0 &#8211; 4.2</td><td>4.0 &#8211; 4.3</td><td>4.0 &#8211; 4.5</td></tr><tr><td>PCE Inflation</td><td>3.7</td><td>2.3</td><td>3.5 &#8211; 3.7</td><td>2.2 &#8211; 2.5</td><td>2.9 &#8211; 3.8</td><td>2.0 &#8211; 2.6</td></tr><tr><td>Federal Funds Rate</td><td>4.1</td><td>4.1</td><td>4.1 &#8211; 4.4</td><td>3.6 &#8211; 4.4</td><td>3.9 &#8211; 4.4</td><td>3.1 &#8211; 4.4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">1&nbsp;The central tendency represents the range of projections, excluding the 3 highest and 3 lowest values.</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



Figure 1. Agricultural Loan Rates, Q1 2023 – Q3 2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="981" height="600" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.45.1-F1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45036" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.45.1-F1.png 981w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.45.1-F1-768x470.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 981px) 100vw, 981px" /></figure>



Figure 2. Annual Personal Consumption Expenditures Index (measure of Inflation) compared to the Federal Funds Rate, January-August 2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="981" height="610" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.45.1-F2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45037" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.45.1-F2.png 981w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.45.1-F2-768x478.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 981px) 100vw, 981px" /></figure>



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



References



Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Federal Funds Effective Rate [FEDFUNDS], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis;&nbsp;<a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS">https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS</a>.



Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Bank Prime Loan Rate [MPRIME], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis;&nbsp;<a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MPRIME">https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MPRIME</a>.



Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Agricultural Survey, retrieved from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dallasfed.org/research/surveys/agsurvey">https://www.dallasfed.org/research/surveys/agsurvey</a>.



Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), December 30, 2025: FOMC Projections Materials, Accessible Version.&nbsp;&nbsp;Retrieved from:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20251210.htm">https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20251210.htm</a>.



Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), March 18, 2026: FOMC Projections Materials, Accessible Version.&nbsp;&nbsp;Retrieved from:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20260318.htm">https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20260318.htm</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), September 16, 2026: FOMC Projections Materials, Accessible Version.&nbsp;&nbsp;Retrieved from:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20260916.htm">https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20260916.htm</a>.



Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), September 16, 2026: Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee.&nbsp;&nbsp;Retrieved from:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20260916.htm">https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20260916.htm</a>.



U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Consumption Expenditures: Chain-type Price Index [PCEPI], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis;&nbsp;<a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEPI">https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEPI</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities