Cattle prices have been supported by supply and demand fundamentals but,&nbsp;they’ve had to navigate several disruptive events, including the announcement by Tyson Foods of the closure of their Lexington, Nebraska packing plant, another Texas beef plant shifting to a single full-capacity shift, rising detections of New World Screwworm in Mexico (NWS), and political comments about boosting beef imports. Fundamental factors and disruptions carry important implications for regional cattle prices.



The closure of the Lexington, Nebraska, beef plant and reduced shifts in Texas represent a decline in demand for fed cattle in those regions and, all else equal, place downward pressure on prices. These changes in processing capacity also negatively affect feeder cattle prices, though that impact is lagged. The first graph shows the relationship between Nebraska and Texas fed steers sold live FOB. The spread (green line) is calculated as the Nebraska steer price minus the Texas steer price. A narrowing of the spread reflects stronger prices in Texas, while a widening of the spread reflects stronger prices in Nebraska.



Leading up to the plant closure announcement, we observe a sharp narrowing of the spread, indicating stronger prices in Texas relative to Nebraska that appears to extend beyond typical seasonal patterns. Historically, seasonality in the spread reflects relatively stronger Nebraska prices during the summer months, with prices more closely aligned in the fall and winter. It is important to note that this period was already characterized by extreme market volatility related to trade policy proposals and retail beef prices. It is difficult to disentangle the effects of beef plant closures from other sources of bearish market news. The key point is that a lot has occurred over a short period, all of which has implications for regional fed cattle markets.



More recent news related to New World Screwworm (NWS) has implications going back to fall 2024. Border closures restrict feeder cattle imports, tightening cattle supplies and supporting prices in Texas, while speculation about reopening the border would have the opposite effect and place downward pressure on prices.



The second graph shows the monthly relationship between 700–800 lb. feeder steer prices in Texas and Nebraska. Monthly prices are used because weekly prices tend to be noisier. The spread is calculated as the Nebraska steer price minus the Texas steer price. As feeder cattle prices have trended higher overall, the magnitude of relative price movements between the two regions has also increased.



Comparing the Nebraska–Texas feeder steer price relationship (third graph) highlights a counter-seasonal pattern that has emerged in recent years. Feeder steer prices in Nebraska have been relatively stronger during the fall over the past two years compared to the previous five-year average. At the same time, the typical seasonal peak in the price spread during the summer of 2025 appears muted relative to both 2024 and the five-year average, which could be related to feeder cattle trade restrictions.



Taken together, recent movements in regional price spreads across feeder and fed cattle markets point to changes in how prices are adjusting across locations and stages of production. These observations are based on visual inspection of price relationships rather than formal analysis, and several factors could be contributing to the patterns shown. In feeder cattle markets, shifts away from typical seasonal patterns coincide with periods of trade-related uncertainty and tighter supplies, while fed cattle markets have also exhibited notable regional price movements coinciding with broader market volatility.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="452" height="317" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.8.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43455"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA-AMS; LMIC</figcaption></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="451" height="388" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.8.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43456"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA-AMS; LMIC</figcaption></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="468" height="357" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.8.2-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43457"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA-AMS; LMIC</figcaption></figure>



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



Mitchell, James. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/regional-cattle-price-spreads-and-patterns/">Regional Cattle Price Spreads and Patterns.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(8.2). February 17, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/regional-cattle-price-spreads-and-patterns/">Permalink</a>

Regional Cattle Price Spreads and Patterns 

As the adage goes, “a dollar saved is a dollar earned”. Perhaps even more so if the dollar is saved from paying taxes and can go towards funding retirement. Many farmers may imagine a scenario where they keep working until their dying breath, and while that might be possible, it is prudent to have other income and a backup plan if needed. Additionally, there can be tax advantages to contributing to a retirement plan now, regardless of whether the income is needed in the future.



Many farmers fall under the sole proprietor / self-employed category, so that will be the predominant situation we’ll examine. It could be that the farmer, their spouse, or both are also working off-the-farm and contribute to their employer’s retirement plan. That can certainly be beneficial (especially if the employer matches contributions), but in some cases, it may alter the tax impacts of a self-employed retirement plan. Each farm’s situation will be a bit different, so be aware that this is not financial or tax advice but general education.&nbsp;



A&nbsp;traditional IRA&nbsp;allows taxpayers, such as self-employed individuals, to contribute up to an annual set amount. The limits are published each year by the federal government. For the 2025 tax year, the annual limit is $7,000 ($8,000 for age 50+), and in 2026 it increases to $7,500 ($8,600 for age 50+). Not only is the amount invested and allowed to grow tax-free until withdrawal from the account (when the withdrawal is taxed as income), but it can also provide a current-year tax deduction when the contribution is made. Another significant feature of these accounts is that contributions can be made up until the tax filing deadline of the next year. For example, a contribution can be made up until April 15 of this year, and it will count as a contribution for the 2025 tax year. Practically speaking, this means that a “pro-forma” or hypothetical tax return could be prepared to estimate current taxes and see how various IRA contribution amounts affect the taxes owed. You will need to specify to your IRA plan administrators the year to which the contribution should apply.



Traditional IRA contributions are deducted on line 20 of the Schedule 1 (Form 1040) and can reduce Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) (line 11a Form 1040) on the tax return. Both spouses can contribute to their own traditional IRA for a potential deduction of up to $14,000. Again, the deduction amount can be impacted by whether either spouse is covered by a work retirement plan and the couple’s overall income, but it can provide a significant deduction if allowed to take the full amount. If the taxpayer or preparer is using tax software to run scenarios, it can make comparisons fairly straightforward. If software is not available, an IRA Deduction Worksheet is included with the Form 1040 instructions that can be a manual way to calculate the traditional IRA deduction.



Many questions come up about&nbsp;Roth IRA&nbsp;accounts. They are also a helpful planning tool but are a bit reversed from traditional accounts. Roth accounts do not provide a current-year tax deduction, but when contributions and earnings are withdrawn later, they are not subject to income tax. It is important to note that the annual contribution limits are considered combined for both the&nbsp;traditional&nbsp;and&nbsp;Roth IRAs.&nbsp;For instance, a $3,500 contribution could be made to a Roth and a $3,500 contribution made to a traditional, as long as the combined total does not exceed the $7,000 limit per individual. Other plans exist, such as&nbsp;SEP, SIMPLE,&nbsp;and&nbsp;401(k)&nbsp;retirement plans that are similar in nature, with some differing features and stipulations. As always, consult your accountant and/or tax professional for specific guidance on these and other tax/retirement planning tools. For further reading visit&nbsp;<a href="https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-publication-590-a">IRS Publication 590-A</a>&nbsp;and the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people">IRS website on retirement plans</a>.&nbsp;



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



Burkett, Kevin. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/a-dollar-saved-is-a-dollar-earned/">A Dollar Saved is a Dollar Earned.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(8.1). February 16, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/a-dollar-saved-is-a-dollar-earned/">Permalink</a>

A Dollar Saved is a Dollar Earned

In January 2026, the Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council (TACC) held their annual Farm Store Summit. The Summit is a gathering of farm store managers which allows for the sharing of ideas, success stories, and strategies in response to their greatest challenges. As participants discussed the challenges facing their farm store operations, three themes stood out.&nbsp;



I.&nbsp;&nbsp;Increasing Competition



Consolidation in supply markets, especially for fertilizer, chemical, and seed, is having a negative impact on form store profitability. Agricultural industries are populated by some very large suppliers who may also be competitors in the retail space. That’s a difficult situation for a local cooperative farm store. Increasing urbanization adds to the challenge with a change in the surrounding customer base. As agriculture loses acres to homes and other industries, cooperatives are challenged to adapt to an urban consumer to help maintain sales volume. They strive to tell these customers that they are welcome at the co-op. These changes also bring increased competition from urban-focused retailers like Walmart, Home Depot, and Tractor Supply Co.&nbsp;&nbsp;Although cooperatives feel they might have an advantage in expertise, their competitors are marketing and distribution powerhouses.&nbsp;



II.&nbsp;&nbsp;Finding Good Employees



Several times during the summit a manager praised the value of a good employee. In a retail business, employees can make all the difference. They are the first to greet customers and the last to ensure that all expectations were met. Employees that are friendly and engaging with customers generate increased sales. Likewise, poor employees can leave customers feeling dissatisfied and inclined to take their business elsewhere. Even when everything else in the cooperative is executed perfectly, negative behavior and attitudes of employees will be felt in sales. As one manager put it, “culture can edge out competency”. Cooperative farm store managers are replacing the negative energy of poor employees with the profitability that comes with employees that value and understand excellent customer service.&nbsp;



III.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Attitude of the Board



Perhaps the greatest challenge to the cooperative farm store comes from within the board room. Many managers expressed concern over the attitude of board members toward retail operations. Board members sometimes see their farm store as a needed service rather than a profit center for the cooperative. They are willing to take losses on an activity that represents a convenience or perceived security, especially when the cooperative has another primary activity, such as a grain elevator. However, a profitable farm store represents added resilience to overall cooperative operations. Additionally, board members may focus on the convenience aspects of carrying certain inventory and neglect the profit considerations of inventory turnover. A tractor part may seem invaluable for an occasional emergency, but inventory that sits on the shelf for ten years has already lost money. Retail space and the money used to stock the shelves are investments.&nbsp;



Successful farm stores are valuable to their members and communities. Not only do they provide needed products and services, but they also generate profits from other parts of the supply chain. Their success depends on adapting to competition, excellent customer service, and direction from a board that is focused on profit and financial stability.&nbsp;



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



Park, John. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/challenges-for-the-cooperative-farm-store-in-2026s/">Challenges for the Cooperative Farm Store in 2026.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(7.5). February 13, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/challenges-for-the-cooperative-farm-store-in-2026s/">Permalink</a>

Challenges for the Cooperative Farm Store in 2026

Authors : Jiyeon Kim, Junior&nbsp;Research Economist- Agricultural Risk Policy Center, North Dakota State University



Andrew Muhammad, Ph.D. Professor and Blasingame Chair of Excellence, University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture- Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics



In 2025, the President imposed a series of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), reshaping U.S. trade policy. These measures, ranging from fentanyl‑related tariffs in February to broad reciprocal tariffs implemented in April, generated an estimated $130 billion in revenue by early December with implications for multiple sectors, including agriculture. Agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, and farm machinery were subject to these duties, resulting in roughly $1.1 billion in tariff collections between February and November. Although representing small shares of total farm input spending, these tariffs contribute to rising production costs throughout the supply chain (Arita et al., 2026). We provide a brief discussion of these tariffs in this article; a more detailed analysis is presented in&nbsp;IEEPA Fertilizer Tariffs: Revenue, Relief, and Pass‐Through&nbsp;at the following link:&nbsp;<a href="https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/387621?v=pdf">https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/387621?v=pdf</a>.



IEEPA tariffs have been imposed on several agricultural inputs including fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, and farm machinery, against a backdrop of already volatile input prices and low commodity prices. Based on import data from the U.S. International Trade Commission and tariff rates specified in executive orders, IEEPA tariff revenue collected on agricultural input imports is estimated at roughly $1.1 billion between February and November 2025 (see Figure 1). To provide some context, USDA projects that U.S. farmers will spend about $27.2 billion on seed, $20.6 billion on pesticides, and $33.5 billion on fertilizers in 2025 (Arita et al., 2026). The tariff revenue collected on these products accounts for approximately 0.2% of seed spending, 1.5% of pesticide costs, and 0.4% of fertilizer costs. Although these shares appear relatively small, they do not fully capture the broader cost pressures facing producers. The tariffs on materials such as steel, aluminum, and machinery components may raise additional costs for U.S producers across the supply chain.&nbsp;



Figure 2 shows the estimated monthly IEEPA tariff revenue by agricultural input category from January through November 2025. While tariff revenue for most agricultural inputs changed modestly, revenue from imported farm machinery rose sharply following the implementation of the 10% baseline tariff in April. This increase was driven primarily by imports from China and India.



Although tariff revenues on key inputs represent a relatively small share of farm expenditures, they contribute to a broader rise in production costs, particularly when combined with duties on steel, aluminum, and machinery components. Continued monitoring is essential as these policies evolve and their cumulative impacts unfold.



Figure&nbsp;1.&nbsp;Estimated Total IEEPA Tariff Revenue (February-November, 2025)



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="576" height="384" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.4-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43438"/></figure>



Figure&nbsp;2. Estimated Monthly IEEPA Tariff Revenues for Agricultural Inputs in 2025



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="576" height="384" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.4-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43439"/></figure>



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



References



Arita, S., Chakravorty, R., Kim, J., Lwin, W., Steinbach, S., Wang, M., and Zhuang, X. (2026). IEEPA Fertilizer Tariffs: Revenue, Relief, and Pass‐Through. NDSU Agricultural Trade Monitor 2026‐01. Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies, North Dakota State University. January 19, 2026. <a href="https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.387621">https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.387621</a>



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



Kim, Jiyeon, and Andrew Muhammad. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/how-2025-ieepa-tariffs-affected-agricultural-inputs-and-production-costs/">How 2025 IEEPA Tariffs Affected Agricultural Inputs and Production Costs.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(7.4). February 12, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/how-2025-ieepa-tariffs-affected-agricultural-inputs-and-production-costs/">Permalink</a> http

How 2025 IEEPA Tariffs Affected Agricultural Inputs and Production Costs

The USDA released the February World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report yesterday with relatively little fanfare, especially compared to January.&nbsp;&nbsp;Wheat showed a little lower domestic use, resulting in higher ending stocks.&nbsp;&nbsp;Alternatively, corn showed greater exports and a lower ending stock, down to 2.1 billion bushels.&nbsp;&nbsp;Both the wheat and corn price projections remained unchanged at $4.90 per bushel for wheat and $4.10 per bushel for corn.&nbsp;&nbsp;The futures market for wheat and corn was essentially flat in response.



The most active part of a quiet report day was with soybeans.&nbsp;&nbsp;While domestic supply and use projections remained unchanged, production in Brazil was increased 2.0 million tons to 180.0 million tons.&nbsp;&nbsp;This was as a result of both greater reporting area in Brazil and favorable weather conditions, contributing to an increase in global production and ending stocks.&nbsp;&nbsp;However, the nearby futures market for soybeans maintained its upward trajectory, increasing roughly 11-12 cents per bushel, continuing the trend that started February 4 when soybean futures increased over 26 cents on comments by President Trump about China purchasing more soybeans.&nbsp;&nbsp;Regarding China, the WASDE report indicated that, “China is reported to be considering buying more U.S. soybeans, … [but] if China bought more from the United States, global soybean exports will likely be shifted with more U.S. shipments to China and less to other markets.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Thus, no change in global soybean demand was made in this report.



Meanwhile, the balance sheet for cotton remained basically unchanged, with exports reduced 200,000 bales and the marketing year average price decreasing 1 cent to 60 cents per pound.&nbsp;&nbsp;Table 1 details the current balance sheet for the four major crops.&nbsp;&nbsp;Upcoming USDA activity to watch includes the release of the USDA Agricultural Baseline Projections to 2035, the 102nd&nbsp;Agricultural Outlook Forum, and then the March WASDE and Prospective Plantings reports.



Table 1.&nbsp;2025/26 Wheat, Corn, Soybean, and Cotton Supply, Use, Stocks, and Price Estimates, February 2026 WASDE



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Wheat</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Corn</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Soybean</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Cotton</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="4">Production and Supply</td></tr><tr><td>Planted (Million Acres)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">45.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">98.8</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">81.2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">9.28</td></tr><tr><td>Harvested (Million Acres)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">37.2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">91.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">80.4</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">7.80</td></tr><tr><td>Yield (Bushels/Pounds)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">53.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">186.5</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">53.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">856</td></tr><tr><td>Production (Million Bushels/Bales)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1,985</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">17,021</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4,262</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">13.92</td></tr><tr><td>Total Supply (Million Bushels/Bales)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2,959</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">18,597</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4,607</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">17.92</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="4">US Exports and Use</td></tr><tr><td>Exports (Million Bushels/Bales)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">900</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">3,300</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1,575</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">12.00</td></tr><tr><td>Total Use (Million Bushels/Bales)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2,028</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">16,470</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4,257</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">13.60</td></tr><tr><td>Exports % of Total Use</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">44%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">20%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">37%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">88%</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="4">Stocks and Price</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Ending Stocks (Million Bushels/Bales)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">931</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2,127</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">350</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4.4</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Stocks/Use</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">46%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">13%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">8%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">32%</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Avg. Farm Price ($/Bushel or Pound)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$4.90</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$4.10</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$10.20</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$0.60</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



Data Source: USDA February 2026 WASDE



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

February WASDE Report Quiet while Soybean Futures Keep Moving Up

Super Bowl LX is over, and I hope your team won. One team that certainly won was the U.S. poultry industry. The Super Bowl weekend is one of the highest annual periods of demand for chicken wings in the United States. Approximately 6.2 billion broiler chickens are produced annually in the United States, each yielding two full wings. Once disjointed for commercial purposes, the two wings are typically divided into four retail portions, resulting in an estimated 24.8 billion individual wing pieces produced each year.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/americans-to-eat-1-48-billion-chicken-wings-for-super-bowl-lx/">The National Chicken Council</a>&nbsp;projects that Americans will consume approximately 1.48 billion wings during Super Bowl gatherings—an amount equivalent to less than one month of domestic broiler production. Given this surge in consumption, the U.S. poultry industry could reasonably refer to the event as the “Chicken Wing Bowl!”



Chicken wing prices have experienced considerable volatility in recent years. However, early 2025 appears favorable for consumers. Wholesale wing prices opened the year below $1.00 per pound and have risen only modestly to slightly above $1.10 per pound (Fig. 1). This price level represents a 66 percent decline from the historic peak of $3.24 per pound recorded in January 2022. With March Madness—another major period of heightened wing consumption—approaching, current trends suggest positive conditions for consumers and retailers alike.



Despite these trends, chicken wing pricing remains historically unpredictable. As one primary wing consumption event has passed, and the next one draws near, restaurants and other retail food outlets try to capitalize on consumer interest. Market competition, combined with relatively low wholesale costs, should help maintain affordable wing prices at the retail level even beyond this Super Bowl. However, current&nbsp;<a href="https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/release-files/795741/cost0126.txt">cold storage inventories</a>&nbsp;show 1.12 million fewer pounds of wings compared with the same period last year, which could exert upward pressure on prices eventually. But overall wing inventory is more than double the levels observed back in 2021-22 when prices soared. According to a recent USDA retail price report, the average retail price for conventional fresh party wings in the southeastern United States stands at $2.49 per pound, with individually quick-frozen (IQF) wings priced slightly higher at $2.67 per pound. If supplies remain stable, retail prices may continue to reflect current favorable conditions. Meanwhile, U.S. broiler growers remain committed to meeting consumer demand by supplying the market with high-quality chicken wings.



Figure 1. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="780" height="550" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43425" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.2-1.png 780w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.2-1-768x542.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 780px) 100vw, 780px" /></figure>



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



Brothers, Dennis. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/chicken-wing-bowl-2026/">Chicken Wing Bowl, 2026!</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(7.2). February 10, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/chicken-wing-bowl-2026/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities