Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a powerful and accessible tool to solve a multitude of problems. Increasingly, people turn to AI to solve matters previously entrusted to professionals, including legal matters. This article briefly summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of using AI to address legal issues and suggests a role for AI in the legal needs of individuals and businesses. The authors acknowledge that AI was used to research this article.



In many ways, using artificial intelligence to provide professional services is not new. Commercial companies offer legal document drafting (particularly simple wills and trusts) and tax preparation services and have done so for years. Early will forms used very primitive artificial intelligence to draft simple wills.



The most compelling reason to use AI for legal needs is affordability. Lawyers are expensive and that cost can prevent people from seeking any legal help. AI is also fast, convenient, and easily accessible. An hour or so on the computer can provide a lot of information. No need to make appointments weeks in advance and brave traffic to drive to the appointment. Costs are generally minimal, especially compared to attorneys’ fees.



On the other hand, AI cannot make legal judgments. Law often involves gray areas and uncertain outcomes. Attorneys, unlike AI, have experience and education that aid in interpreting laws and advising clients based on particular circumstances. Legal systems are complex, nuanced, and evolving. Humans, although far from perfect, are better able to deal with legal systems. With respect to litigation, only licensed, human attorneys may represent a client in court. Although individuals may represent themselves and use AI as a support tool, that strategy may backfire. Finally, AI does not offer attorney-client privilege. Information shared with AI systems may not be kept private and confidential.



When the authors searched AI, the results suggested that AI could handle “routine or low-stakes legal matters.” Tasks that AI described as ideal for AI included “filing a business formation, applying for a trademark, or writing a simple contract.” In addition, AI can “quickly help someone generate a will, draft a lease agreement, or respond to a landlord dispute.”&nbsp;



As an experiment, one of the authors had AI draft a will for them. The author responded to the prompts and then asked for a will compliant in the author’s state of residence. The will produced complied with state law and was a legally valid will. However, the will did not name an alternate executor (AI did not ask!), but had the court appoint an alternate executor, if necessary, a costly and time-consuming process. The named executor is about the same age as the author, meaning that they may well predecease the author, necessitating the naming of an alternate. In addition, the named executor lived out-of-state, likely meaning that the executor would have to post bond, adding more expense.&nbsp;



The will also did not name alternate beneficiaries (AI did not ask!). Since the author named their 86-year-old mother as the sole beneficiary, odds are that she would predecease him, meaning that intestacy law would apply, thereby essentially negating the purpose of having the will drafted in the first place.



AI also failed to ask about special requests as to burial or cremation or other wishes at death. Most egregiously, the AI generated will failed to include a self-proving affidavit, meaning that the witnesses to the author signing the will would have to be tracked down after the death of the author to swear that the author was competent at the time the will was made. Any licensed attorney would likely include a self-proving affidavit, eliminating the need to have witnesses file affidavits at a later time, saving time and money. In summary, the will would be valid but lacking in many respects. A will drafted by an attorney would include the vital provisions that were missed and, in the long run, save money.



In conclusion, AI promises to revolutionize law practice. More importantly, individuals and businesses can use AI in meaningful ways to assist in legal matters. AI can analyze data quickly and efficiently, can do research, and compose draft documents. Individuals and businesses can use AI to learn about the law in a particular area and become aware of different options. If the alternative is no legal representation at all, AI may be the better option. However, AI is not a substitute for legal advice. In the words of ChatGPT, after being queried by the authors, “[u]se AI to learn, explore, and prepare – but when it comes time to make real legal decisions, always consult an attorney.”



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



Richardson, Jessie, and Tiffany Lashmet. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/who-needs-attorneys-when-you-have-ai/">Who Needs Attorneys When You Have AI?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(25.5). June 20, 2025. <a href="http://who-needs-attorneys-when-you-have-ai">Permalink</a>

Who Needs Attorneys When You Have AI?

We often are asked by the media about the size of and need for government assistance that is provided to U.S. farmers when something goes wrong (e.g., bad prices, yields or both). The first thing we do is highlight that the safety net provided for by Congress is designed to offset some – but not all – of the risks faced by farmers.&nbsp;&nbsp;It might sound like semantics, but in the policy world…words matter.



The rest of the conversation generally involves talking about uncertainty in U.S. agriculture.&nbsp;&nbsp;Rather than provide an exhaustive list here, let’s just focus on the three primary determinants of profitability: prices, yields and costs.



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>U.S. farm prices are determined by world supply and demand for the crop, the price of its substitutes, and policy.  What type of policy?  First, U.S. producers must compete against producers that are heavily subsidized by the governments of our competitors around the world.  Second, the trade policies of those countries (such as tariffs or other non-tariff barriers to trade) impact prices received by U.S. producers as well. Third, monetary policy in the U.S. impacts interest rates that farmers have to pay to finance their crops, land and equipment and exchange rates that tend to make our exports relatively more expensive than our competitors.  Other types of policies that can impact U.S. crop prices are conservation, biofuels, taxes, and more recently health regulations such as those listed in the MAHA report that questions the health impacts of certain agricultural products (e.g., sugar) or bi-products (e.g., vegetable oils). </li>



<li>U.S. farm yields are primarily impacted by weather…enough said about that. </li>



<li>U.S. crop production costs are impacted by the supply and demand of each of the individual inputs, from seed, fertilizer, and chemicals to equipment, farmland, and labor, among others. Increasingly, for many producers, these purchases also must be financed at elevated interest rates. In addition, all of the policy areas discussed under farm prices above can also impact crop production costs.  </li>
</ul>



These conversations usually conclude with an explanation that, even though there is a lot of uncertainty, U.S. farmers understand how the forces of supply and demand impact crop prices and input costs and are accustomed to dealing with erratic weather. However, it’s the uncertainty that comes from policy that keeps them up at night.&nbsp;&nbsp;In our minds, the government safety net helps reduce some of their and their lender’s uncertainty regarding the ability to remain viable and able to try again next year in search of profits.



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



Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/june-wasde-delivers-sharp-reduction-in-u-s-rice-and-cotton-crops/">Dealing With Uncertainty in Agriculture.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(25.4). June 19, 2025. Permalink

Dealing With Uncertainty in Agriculture

The USDA’s June Supply and Demand report (WASDE) is generally characterized as a “quiet” report with few, if any, changes from the previous month.&nbsp;&nbsp;That held true for the U.S. corn and soybean outlook.&nbsp;&nbsp;The only adjustments USDA made to the 2025/26 corn balance sheet included a 50-million-bushel reduction in beginning stocks.&nbsp;&nbsp;This reflected an increase in exports for 2024/25. With no demand changes for 2025/26, ending stocks were lowered 50 million bushels to 1.75 billion. The season-average farm price received by producers was unchanged at $4.20 per bushel. There were no changes this month to the U.S. 2025/26 soybean outlook, with new crop ending stocks remaining at 295 million bushels. The U.S. season-average soybean price is forecast at $10.25 per bushel.&nbsp;&nbsp;On the World balance sheet, Brazil’s production estimate was unchanged at 169 million metric tons and Argentina’s was also unchanged at 49 million metric tons.



One of the big surprises in the June WASDE was the aggressive cut to 2025 long-grain rice production.&nbsp;&nbsp;Not waiting for the June&nbsp;Acreage&nbsp;survey, USDA made note of “the excessive spring precipitation in the Delta” and anticipated this would result in lower rice acreage in the region compared to the March&nbsp;Prospective Plantings. On the long-grain balance sheet, production was lowered by a sizeable 7.5 million cwt. (-4.5%) this month to 159.7 million cwt (see Table 1).&nbsp;&nbsp;Partially offsetting the sharp production cut was a 1 million cwt. increase in imports and a 3 million cwt. reduction in domestic and residual use.&nbsp;&nbsp;The net result was a 3.5 million cwt reduction in 2025/26 ending stocks to 34 million. This is slightly below the 35.3 million ending stocks of 2024/25.&nbsp;&nbsp;The projected 2025/26 long-grain season-average farm price was increased by $0.50 per cwt to $12.50 or $5.63 per bushel.



In another surprise move, USDA wasted no time lowering their expectations for the 2025/26 U.S. cotton crop.&nbsp;&nbsp;Pointing to the excessive rain and planting delays in the Delta, harvested acreage was lowered 2 percent this month to 8.19 million acres (see Table 2). The national average yield for 2025/26 was reduced more than 1 percent from last month to 820 pounds per acre, also because of the conditions in the Delta. As a result, the production forecast was reduced 500,000 bales to 14.0 million, below the 14.4 million bales produced in 2024/25 and the second smallest crop in the past decade. Beginning stocks for 2025/26 were reduced 400,000 bales following a corresponding increase in projected exports for 2024/25. The net result being a 900,000 bale reduction in 2025/26 ending stocks to 4.3 million bales, very close to the 4.4 million bale 2024/25 carry-over. The projected season-average price for 2025/26 was unchanged this month at 62 cents per pound.



As a reminder, USDA will release its&nbsp;Acreage&nbsp;report on June 30. It will provide survey-based indications of planted and harvested area.&nbsp;&nbsp;The acreage findings of the survey will be used in the July 11th&nbsp;WASDE. A link to the June 2025 WASDE report may be found&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0625.pdf">here</a>.



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left" colspan="5">Table 1. U.S. Long-Grain Rice Supply and Demand</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left" colspan="2"></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">2025/26</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" rowspan="2">Monthly Change&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">unit: million cwt.</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2024/25</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">May</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">June</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left" colspan="5"></td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Beginning Stocks</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">19.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">35.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">35.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">0.0&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Production</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">172</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">167.2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">159.7</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">(7.5)</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Imports</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">42</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">43.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">44.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1.0&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Total Supply</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">233.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">245.5</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">239.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">(6.5)</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Domestic Use</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">133</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">140.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">137.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">(3.0)</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Exports</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">65</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">68.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">68.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">0.0&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Total Use</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">198</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">208.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">205.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">(3.0)</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Carry-Over</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">35.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">37.5</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">34.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">(3.5)</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">stocks-use %</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">17.8%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">18.0%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">16.6%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left" colspan="5"></td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Avg. Producer Price ($/cwt.)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14.20</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12.00</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12.50</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.50</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Avg. Producer Price ($/bu.)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6.39</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5.40</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;5.63</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.23</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">PLC Reference Price ($/bu.)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6.30</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6.30</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;6.30</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&#8211;</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-left" data-align="left">Proj. PLC Payment Rate ($/bu.)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&#8211;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.90</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.68</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$ (0.23)</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA&nbsp;World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, June 2025</figcaption></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="5">Table 2. U.S. Cotton Supply and Demand</td></tr><tr><td></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">2025/26</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" rowspan="2">Monthly Change</td></tr><tr><td>unit: million 480# bales</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2024/25</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">May</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">June</td></tr><tr><td></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td></tr><tr><td>Beginning Stocks</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">3.15</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4.80</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4.40</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">(0.400)</td></tr><tr><td>Production</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">14.41</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">14.50</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">14.00</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">(0.500)</td></tr><tr><td>Imports</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">0.01</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">0.01</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">0.01</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">0.000&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Total Supply</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">17.57</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">19.31</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">18.41</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">(0.900)</td></tr><tr><td>Mill Use</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1.70</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1.70</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1.70</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">0.000&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Exports</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">11.50</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">12.50</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">12.50</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">0.000&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Total Use</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">13.20</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">14.20</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">14.20</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">0.000&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Carry-Over</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4.40</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5.20</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4.30</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">(0.900)</td></tr><tr><td>stocks-use %</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">33.3%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">36.6%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">30.3%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td></tr><tr><td></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td></tr><tr><td>Avg. Producer Price ($/lb.)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.63&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.62&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.62&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.000&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"></td></tr><tr><td>Avg. Seed Cotton Price ($/lb.)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;$0.3401&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.3299&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.3279&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$ (0.002)</td></tr><tr><td>PLC Reference Price ($/lb.)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;$0.3670&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.3670&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.3670&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.000&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Proj. PLC Payment Rate ($/lb.)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;$0.0269&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.0371&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.0391&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;0.002&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA&nbsp;World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, June 2025</figcaption></figure>



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



Stiles, Scott, and Hunter Biram. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/june-wasde-delivers-sharp-reduction-in-u-s-rice-and-cotton-crops/">June WASDE Delivers Sharp Reduction in U.S. Rice and Cotton Crops</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(25.3). June 18, 2025. <a href="http://june-wasde-delivers-sharp-reduction-in-u-s-rice-and-cotton-crops">Permalink</a>

June WASDE Delivers Sharp Reduction in U.S. Rice and Cotton Crops

Cattle prices have continued to push higher over the past few months. Auction prices for feeder steers are up 5 to 10 percent since mid-April, depending on location. Live steer prices averaged $238.68 last week – another record and 13 percent above mid-April prices. Prices across feeder cattle and live cattle are 20 to 25 percent above year-ago levels.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="936" height="672" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.25.2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42077" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.25.2.png 936w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.25.2-768x551.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 936px) 100vw, 936px" /></figure>



Beef values are also pushing higher. The Choice boxed beef cutout value was $382.11 per cwt on Monday, June 16. This is a 19 percent increase above year-ago levels. The weekly choice cutout has been increasing each week since mid-April. The continued weekly increases have already pushed past when many would normally expect the seasonal peak to occur ahead of summer grilling season. For reference, the only other time the cutout has been higher than $380 per cwt was a COVID-driven three-week period during May 2020. The chart above shows the cutout value over the past 5 and ½ years. The considerable increases in the loin and brisket are noteworthy.&nbsp;



Looking at the primal level, the increases vary. The rib primal value was $538.29 (up 10 percent from a year ago), chuck value up 21 percent (to $316.32), round value up 20 percent ($311.73), loin value up 19 percent ($541.41), brisket value up 30 percent ($324.36), short plate up 29 percent ($270.75), and flank up 26 percent ($211.57).&nbsp;&nbsp;Each of these changes show how important the markets for individual primal (and cuts) are to the overall carcass and animal value.&nbsp;



Tight supplies of cattle and beef are supporting record high prices. It has been particularly interesting this year to see these continued increases in the cutout value push into June. April and May are the more common months for the choice cutout to peak, although the past few years have differed. In 2024, the choice cutout peaked the first week of July, and in 2023 it peaked in mid-June. 2025 is shaping up to be more similar to the past two years. 



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



Maples, Josh. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/05/21/cattle-and-beef-prices-push-higher/">Cattle and Beef Prices Push Higher</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(25.2). June 17, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42075">Permalink</a>

Cattle and Beef Prices Push Higher

For upland cotton producers, missing critical dates for their federal crop insurance can limit the effectiveness of their risk protection and reduce potential benefits. Our previous article in Southern Ag Today (<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2023/12/20/exploring-diverse-crop-insurance-options-for-cotton-producers/">Chong, Liu, and Biram, 2023</a>) discussed the crop insurance policies available for upland cotton. This article focuses on the essential dates that upland cotton producers must track to effectively manage their coverage and protect their investments.&nbsp;



The U.S. Department of Agriculture Risk Management Agency (USDA RMA) provides key crop insurance dates and definitions for upland cotton.&nbsp;Figure 1 below outlines the timeline related to upland cotton crop insurance. If a listed crop insurance deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, the actual due date shifts to the next business day.&nbsp;



Key crop insurance dates for upland cotton include the Projected Price and Harvest Price Discovery Periods, Sales Closing and Cancellation Dates, Final Planting Date, and the End of the Late Planting Period (See references below for definition and dates from previous SAT articles).&nbsp;



The remaining key crop insurance dates and their definition are discussed below.&nbsp;



Acreage Reporting Date.&nbsp;Producers must annually report the number of acres planted, insurable and uninsurable, to the insurance provider on or before this date or within three days if they abandon their intentions to plant.&nbsp;&nbsp;If crops are planted after the final planting date, producers must report the number of acres planted each day. Additionally, all acres of an insurable crop must be reported. Other required information includes: producer’s share in the crop, acreage location, farming practices used, types or varieties planted, planting dates (if after the final planting date), and any acres unable to be planted. Failure to file the acreage report by the applicable crop acreage reporting date may result in the denial of coverage by the insurance provider. The acreage reporting date for upland cotton is&nbsp;July 15.



Premium Billing date.&nbsp;Although premiums are payable as soon as the crop is planted, producers will not receive a bill until this date. Interest charges begin to accrue on unpaid balances 30 days after the premium billing date at a rate of 1.25% per month. If an indemnity is issued, any outstanding premiums will be deducted from the payment. For upland cotton, the premium billing date is&nbsp;August 15.&nbsp;



Contract Change Date:&nbsp;The RMA may adjust the insurance program from year to year. If any modifications occur, the changes will be available on the RMA website no later than the contract change date.&nbsp;&nbsp;The insurance provider is required to inform the policyholder in writing about updates to the policy, actuarial documents, or Special Provisions of Insurance not later than 30 days prior to the cancellation date. The policyholder has the option to review these updates and choose to maintain coverage for the next crop year, modify the policy by the sales closing date, or cancel the insurance by the cancellation date. For upland cotton, the annual contract change date is&nbsp;November 30.



End of Insurance Date.&nbsp;Following the End of Insurance Date, the farmer no longer has any production or revenue guarantee on the crop. This date is the earliest of the following: the date the crop is harvested, abandoned, or destroyed; the date the final adjustment on losses is made; or a specified calendar date for each crop determined by the RMA. For upland cotton, the end of insurance dates vary by region are (1)&nbsp;September 30&nbsp;in Val Verde, Edwards, Kerr, Kendall, Bexar, Wilson, Karnes, Goliad, Victoria, and Jackson Counties, Texas, and all Texas counties lying south thereof; (2)&nbsp;January 31&nbsp;in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and all other Texas counties; and (3)&nbsp;December 31 in all other states.



Termination Date.&nbsp;If premiums remain unpaid by this date, insurance coverage for the following crop year will be terminated. If a crop insurance policy is going to be terminated, the insurance provider will provide written notice to the producer at least 30 days before the termination date. The termination date varies by region but falls on the same date as the sales closing date and the cancellation date of the next year.&nbsp;



Production Reporting Date.&nbsp;Producers must submit their most recent crop production records by this date to recalculate their Actual Production History (APH) yield. This deadline is typically 45 days after the termination date or sales closing and cancellation dates for the following year.&nbsp;



Final Yield Release Date: For area policies, like STAX and SCO, RMA typically determines final county yields and revenues by mid-July following the crop year. Specifically, for upland cotton, these figures are finalized before&nbsp;August 1.&nbsp;



Indemnity Payment Date:&nbsp;For area policies, like STAX and SCO, any indemnity payments due to policyholders are issued no later than 30 days after the release of the final area yield or revenues.&nbsp;&nbsp;All other indemnities for the underlying cotton policy are paid at least 30 days after the claim has been finalized.By staying informed about key crop insurance deadlines, upland cotton producers can ensure they maximize their risk protection. Tracking these important dates and seeking guidance from crop insurance agents can help safeguard investments and maintain effective coverage.&nbsp;



Figure 1. Key Dates Producers Need to Know for Cotton Crop Insurance Plan



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1219" height="1879" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.25.1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42058" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.25.1.png 1219w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.25.1-664x1024.png 664w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.25.1-768x1184.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.25.1-996x1536.png 996w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1219px) 100vw, 1219px" /></figure>



References:&nbsp;



Chong, Fayu, Yangxuan Liu, and Hunter Biram. “<a href="http://exploring-diverse-crop-insurance-options-for-cotton-producers/">Exploring Diverse Crop Insurance Options for Cotton Producers.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;3(51.3). December 20, 2023.



Liu, Yangxuan, Hunter Biram, and Fayu Chong. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/01/15/cotton-crop-insurance-regional-differences-in-sales-closing-dates-and-cancellation-dates/">Cotton Crop Insurance: Regional Differences in Sales Closing Dates and Cancellation Dates.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;4(3.3). January 17, 2024.&nbsp;



Liu, Yangxuan, Fayu Chong, and Hunter Biram. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/01/24/cotton-crop-insurance-unveiling-regional-differences-in-projected-and-harvest-prices/">Cotton Crop Insurance: Unveiling Regional Differences in Projected and Harvest Prices.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;4(4.3). January 24, 2024.



Liu, Yangxaun, Hunter Biram, and Fayu Chong. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/02/07/cotton-crop-insurance-navigating-planting-dates-deadline-variations-across-regions/">Cotton Crop Insurance: Navigating Planting Dates Deadline Variations Across Regions.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;5(13.1). March 24, 2025.



Alexis Stevens and William Edwards.&nbsp;&nbsp;“Important Crop Insurance Dates.”&nbsp;Ag Decision Maker. Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. File A1-50. January, 2025&nbsp;<a href="https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/html/a1-50.html">https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/html/a1-50.html</a>.&nbsp;



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency. Insurance Cycle. Accessed on May 8, 2025.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/about-crop-insurance/managing-your-farm-risk/insurance-cycle">https://www.rma.usda.gov/about-crop-insurance/managing-your-farm-risk/insurance-cycle</a>



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Summary of Changes for the Cotton Crop Provisions (17-0021), November 2016.&nbsp;<a href="https://legacy.rma.usda.gov/policies/2017/17-0021.pdf">https://legacy.rma.usda.gov/policies/2017/17-0021.pdf</a>



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



Liu, Yangxuan, Fayu Chong, and Hunter Biram. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/05/21/cotton-crop-insurance-key-dates-producers-need-to-know/">Cotton Crop Insurance: Key Dates Producers Need to Know.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(25.1). June 16, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42051">Permalink</a>

Cotton Crop Insurance: Key Dates Producers Need to Know

Disconnected youth, individuals aged 16 to 24 who are not in school or working, have become a growing concern in the U.S. over the past two decades (Crockett &amp; Zhang, 2023). Disconnection from both education and employment can lead to long-term consequences, including delayed life milestones, reduced productivity, and a weakened workforce.



While disconnected youth are shaped by a complex mix of influences, community programs offered by local organizations, including nonprofits, Cooperative Extension Service, workforce development agencies, and youth-serving groups, may provide a promising pathway to engagement. Many of these programs offer mentorship, job training, educational support, leadership development, and connections to local networks that help young people build confidence, develop skills, and find direction for sustained engagement in education or the workforce.&nbsp;



To explore this possibility, a nationwide online survey was conducted from March 7th&nbsp;to 17th, 2025, with 1,031 randomly selected individuals aged 18 to 24 (those under 18 were excluded to avoid the need for parental consent). The survey focused on respondents’ experiences and perspectives regarding participation in community programs that support education and career development, which are areas they are often disconnected from.



Figure 1. A map of the Survey Responses (n = 1,031)



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1633" height="966" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-42060" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-1.jpg 1633w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-1-1024x606.jpg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-1-768x454.jpg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-1-1536x909.jpg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1633px) 100vw, 1633px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Note: The survey employed equal quota sampling to ensure balanced representation from the four regions: West, Midwest, Northeast, and South</figcaption></figure>



First, the survey asked respondents how often they had received support from community programs, including mentorship, job training, youth development, education, or tutoring (Figure 2). Approximately 29.2% reported never receiving such support, while the remaining 70.8% indicated some level of participation. Most respondents said they received support either “sometimes” (32.7%) or “rarely” (25.4%), suggesting limited but notable engagement. A smaller portion reported more frequent involvement, with 10.1% selecting “often” and just 2.6% selecting “very often.”



Figure 2. Frequency of Support Received from Community Programs (Unit: %)



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1663" height="1003" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42062" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-2.png 1663w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-2-1024x618.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-2-768x463.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-2-1536x926.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1663px) 100vw, 1663px" /></figure>



More notably, respondents who participated more frequently in community programs were more likely to perceive them as highly beneficial for their education and career, suggesting a substantial positive impact of such programs (Figure 3). But what exactly are young adults looking for in these programs? When asked to rank six types of community programs based on their perceived impact on education and career outcomes, the majority of respondents chose “Access to job opportunities or career advice” as the most helpful, while “Financial support or assistance” received the lowest ranking (Figure 4).



Figure 3. Perceived Helpfulness Levels by Frequency of Program Participation (Unit: %)



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1746" height="1008" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42063" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-3.png 1746w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-3-1024x591.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-3-768x443.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-3-1536x887.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1746px) 100vw, 1746px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Note: Pearson χ² = 237.90, p = 0.000</figcaption></figure>



Figure 4. Average Importance Ratings of Community Program Benefits by Perceived Impact on Education and Career 



(1 = Least Important; 6 = Most Important)



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2131" height="1132" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42064" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-4.png 2131w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-4-1024x544.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-4-768x408.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-4-1536x816.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-4-2048x1088.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2131px) 100vw, 2131px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Note: Participants ranked six benefits of community programs from most (6) to least (1) important. The Friedman test indicated statistically significant differences in rankings (χ² = 601.45, p &lt; 0.001)</figcaption></figure>



What about accessibility to community programs? The survey asked whether respondents had access to local initiatives such as mentorship, job training, youth development, or tutoring services (Figure 5). Only about 33% reported having “Good” or “Excellent” access, while roughly 27% indicated “No access at all” or “Limited access.” The majority selected “Moderate access,” suggesting that while some programs are available, they may not fully meet participants’ expectations.



Figure 5. Access to Community Programs in Respondents’ Areas (Unit: %)



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2122" height="1012" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-5.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42065" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-5.png 2122w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-5-1024x488.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-5-768x366.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-5-1536x733.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/5.24.5-5-2048x977.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2122px) 100vw, 2122px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Note: 1.  No access at all – There are no community programs available to me. 2.  Limited access – There are a few programs, but they are hard to reach or not useful. 3.  Moderate access – Some programs are available, but they are limited or not always helpful. 4.  Good access – I have access to useful community programs with some limitations. 5.  Excellent access – I have easy access to a variety of helpful community programs.</figcaption></figure>



The findings from this survey highlight both the potential and limitations of current community programs in addressing the needs of disconnected youth in the U.S. Results suggest that these programs can positively influence education and career development outcomes, particularly when young adults receive consistent support and perceive the programs as helpful. However, many respondents reported limited or no access to such programs, revealing gaps in availability and effectiveness. These insights point to a clear opportunity for targeted policy action to expand access, improve program quality, and ensure that support reaches the youth who need it most.



Reference Crockett, A., &amp; Zhang, X. (2023, April 6). Young adults are disconnected from work and&nbsp;



school due to long-term labor force trends.&nbsp;Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dallasfed.org/cd/communities/2023/2303">https://www.dallasfed.org/cd/communities/2023/2303</a>.



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



Seo, Frank. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/05/21/bridging-disconnection-community-program-participation-and-perceived-impact-among-u-s-youth/">Bridging Disconnection: Community Program Participation and Perceived Impact Among U.S. Youth.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(24.5). June 13, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42049">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities