OTT dicamba has returned.



On February 6, 2026, the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-implements-strongest-protections-agency-history-over-top-dicamba-use-cotton-and">EPA approved labels</a> for over-the-top (OTT) dicamba herbicides to be used with dicamba-tolerant cotton and soybean varieties.  These labels pave the way for OTT dicamba to be used for the first time since the District Court of Arizona issued an order to vacate the EPA’s labels in February 2024.  



New Labels



In addition to retaining legacy restrictions from the older OTT dicamba labels, the EPA added four new restrictions in the latest 2026 labels.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The first restriction pertains to the maximum application rate, which has been cut in half.&nbsp;&nbsp;Under the new labels, a maximum of two applications of 0.5 lbs. of dicamba can be made annually.&nbsp;&nbsp;The purpose of this restriction is to reduce total dicamba in the environment and minimize potential exposure to endangered species.



The second restriction requires applicators to add 40 ounces/acre of approved volatility Reduction Agents (VRA) to every application.&nbsp;&nbsp;This amount is double that from prior labels.



The third restriction involves mandatory conservation practices, a relatively new concept that arose from the EPA’s incorporation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) into the pesticide regulatory structure created under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).&nbsp;&nbsp;Under this restriction, growers must achieve 3 runoff/erosion mitigation points at a minimum, and 6 points in certain Pesticide Use Limitation Areas (PULAs) where especially vulnerable species maintain habitat.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The fourth restriction creates temperature-based limits on applications, as opposed to the previously used date-based restrictions.&nbsp;&nbsp;Specifically, an applicator may apply OTT dicamba to no more than 50% of their untreated DT cotton and soybean acres in a given county on days when the forecasted temperature is between 85°F and 95°F, either on the day of application or the following day. If the forecasted temperature reaches or exceeds 95°F on the day of application or the following day, OTT dicamba applications are prohibited.



New Lawsuit



As expected, the EPA’s decision to register OTT dicamba has created some controversy.&nbsp;&nbsp;The National Family Farm Coalition, the same organization that previously sued the EPA to de-register dicamba in 2020 and again in 2024, has&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2026/02/20/groups-petition-federal-court-vacate">filed a lawsuit</a>&nbsp;against the EPA to remove OTT dicamba from the market once again.&nbsp;&nbsp;In this lawsuit, the National Family Farm Coalition alleges that the EPA violated its duties under FIFRA and the ESA by re-registering OTT dicamba.&nbsp;&nbsp;Of note, these claims are very similar to the claims successfully made in 2020 and 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;



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



Brown, Nicholas. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/ott-dicamba-returns-prompting-lawsuits/">OTT Dicamba Returns, Prompting Lawsuits</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(11.5). March 13, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/ott-dicamba-returns-prompting-lawsuits/">Permalink</a>

OTT Dicamba Returns, Prompting Lawsuits

Now that the December 2025 trade data have been released, we can look back over the past fifteen years to evaluate how U.S. agricultural exports have evolved across major markets and how shifting global dynamics, especially the dramatic rise and subsequent decline of exports to China, have shaped overall performance. U.S. agricultural exports from 2010 through 2025 reveals a story of both stability and notable volatility. Total agricultural exports rose from $119 billion in 2010 to a high of $196 billion in 2022, before settling at $171 billion in 2025. Exports in 2025 were more than $5.0 billion lower than the previous year, driven primarily by reduced soybean shipments, along with declines in coarse grains, beef, wine, and rice. Much of the variation in U.S. agricultural trade can be traced to the dramatic rise and fall of U.S. exports to China, a market that transformed from the leading U.S. destination to a source of sharp decline. Indeed, the widening U.S. agricultural trade deficit, which grew from –$37.6 billion in 2024 to –$41.7 billion in 2025, stems largely from the steep collapse in exports to China (USDA, 2026).&nbsp;



Figure 1 shows U.S. agricultural exports to the major destinations—China, Mexico, Canada, the European Union, and Japan. With the exception of China, most major U.S. export markets exhibit steady or gradually increasing demand, even during periods of heightened trade tensions and uncertainty. However, it’s hard to ignore the extremely volatile path of U.S. agricultural exports to China. Beginning at $18 billion in 2010, exports to China climbed substantially, peaking at $38 billion in 2022, primarily due to rising exports from the Phase One Trade Agreement and relatively high commodity prices. However, exports to China have significantly declined since, falling to just $8 billion in 2025, representing a loss of $30 billion in only three years. No other major market exhibits such a rollercoaster pattern. This deterioration also helps explain why total U.S. exports fell from $196 billion in 2022 to $171 billion in 2025, despite persistent exports elsewhere.



In contrast, exports to nearly every other major destination remained stable or even trended upward. Mexico increased from $15 billion in 2010 to $31 billion in 2025. Canada remained consistently strong, rising from $18 billion to $28 billion over the same period. The EU and Japan both show moderate, incremental increases, with none experiencing sharp swings comparable to China. Overall, recent trends illustrate two simultaneous dynamics: the inherent volatility of U.S. agricultural trade with China and the remarkable stability of U.S. exports to virtually every other major market. While the collapse in Chinese demand resulted in a noticeable drop in total exports after 2022, the resilience of other destinations helped buffer the decline. These trends highlight both the opportunities and the vulnerabilities that come with relying heavily on a single, now‑unpredictable trading partner.



Figure 1.&nbsp;U.S. Agricultural Exports to the Top Destination Markets: 2010–2025



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1320" height="880" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.4.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43579" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.4.jpg 1320w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.4-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.4-768x512.jpg 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1320px) 100vw, 1320px" /></figure>



Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS) (USDA, 2026)



Reference



U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2026).&nbsp;Global Agricultural Trade System. Foreign Agricultural Service.&nbsp;<a href="https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx">https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx</a>



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



Muhammad, Andrew. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/u-s-agricultural-export-trends-stability-growth-and-a-chinadriven-rollercoaster/">U.S. Agricultural Export Trends: Stability, Growth, and a China‑Driven Rollercoaster.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(11.4). March 12, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/u-s-agricultural-export-trends-stability-growth-and-a-chinadriven-rollercoaster/">Permalink</a>

U.S. Agricultural Export Trends: Stability, Growth, and a China‑Driven Rollercoaster

The March edition of the&nbsp;World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates&nbsp;(WASDE) from USDA is not known for generating market fireworks. For the U.S., most information regarding supply&#8211;the size of the previous summer and fall crops&#8211;are pretty well settled. Additional insight into questions of grain consumption, particularly feed use, is still ahead of us, coming in the&nbsp;Grain Stocks&nbsp;report at the end of March. We are in the midst of key production cycles in South America: first crop harvest and second crop plantings. Changes to production estimates in that key agricultural region can move markets.&nbsp;&nbsp;



This month’s report did not vary from the mold. The production estimates of U.S. corn, soybeans, and wheat were unchanged from the February WASDE, as shown in Table 1. All three crop saw record high yields in the U.S. in 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;



There were no changes to the use estimates for corn, leaving ending stocks unchanged at 2.2 billion bushels. Days of use on hand at the end of the marketing year for corn is estimated at a 49.7 day supply. That is up significantly from the 37.4-day carryover at the end of the 2024/25 marketing year.&nbsp;



The U.S. soybean supply was up 5 million bushels this month on an increase in imports.&nbsp;&nbsp;Soybean crush increased 5 million bushels as well, leaving ending stocks and carryover to use unchanged at 350 million bushels and 30 days of use on hand, respectively.&nbsp;



No changes to U.S. wheat supply and use this month. USDA did raise the season average farm price estimate by five cents to $4.95 per bushel, the report noting expectations of higher prices for the remainder of the marketing year.&nbsp;



Changes to world ending stocks for grains and soybeans were mixed this month (see Table 2). World corn ending stocks increased on higher production and lower use. Soybean ending stocks were down with a lower supply estimate exceeding the lower use number.&nbsp;&nbsp;Wheat ending stocks were down with increased use outpacing the supply increase.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Up next are two important reports on March 31:&nbsp;Grain Stocks&nbsp;and&nbsp;Prospective Plantings. As mentioned above, quarterly grain stock inventory numbers verify and validate use estimates in the previous quarter, especially feed. With USDA surveying farmers in late-February and the first three weeks of March, there is still time for the impact of the war in the Middle East to influence planting intentions. Fertilizer prices and availability are suddenly in question, but commodity prices are higher too. Stay tuned.&nbsp;



Table 1. U.S. Supply and Demand



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>March WASDE 2025/2026&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Corn</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Soybeans</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Wheat</td></tr><tr><td>Planted Acreage (Mil. Acs.) Harvested Acreage (Mil. Acs.) Yield (Bushels)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">98.8(+0) 91.3(+0) 186.5*(+0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">81.2(+0) 80.4(+0) 53.0*(+0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">45.3 (+0) 37.2(+0) 53.3*(+0)</td></tr><tr><td>Supply</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="3">&#8211; &#8211; &#8211; Million Bushels &#8211; &#8211; &#8211;</td></tr><tr><td>   Beginning Stocks Production   Imports</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,551(+0) 17,021*(+0) 25(+0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">325(+0) 4,262(+0) 25(+5)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">855(+0) 1,985(+0) 120(+0)</td></tr><tr><td>Total Supply</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">18,597*(+0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">4,612(+5)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,959(+0)</td></tr><tr><td>Disappearance</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> Domestic Use    Exports</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">13,170*(+0) 3,300*(+0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,687*(+5) 1,575(+0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,128(+0) 900(+0)</td></tr><tr><td>Total Use</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">16,470*(+0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">4,262(+5)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,028(+0)</td></tr><tr><td>Ending Stocks</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,227(+0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">350(+0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">931(+0)</td></tr><tr><td>Carryover/Use (days on hand)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">49.7(+0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">30.0(+0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">167.6(+0)</td></tr><tr><td>Average Farm Price ($/Bu.)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">4.10(+0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">10.20(+0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">4.95(+0.05)</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">*record high Values in parentheses represent change from prior month. Source: USDA, OCE, World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, March 2026</figcaption></figure>



Table 2. World Supply and Demand



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">March WASDE 2025/2026&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Corn</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Soybeans</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Wheat</td></tr><tr><td>Supply</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="3">&#8211; &#8211; &#8211; Million Metric Tons &#8211; &#8211; &#8211;</td></tr><tr><td>   Beginning Stocks    Production</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">295.82(+1.47) 1,297.44*(+1.53)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">123.84(+0.18) 427.18(-1.00)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">259.63(-0.14) 842.12*(+0.32)</td></tr><tr><td>Total Supply</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,593.26*(+3.00)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">551.02*(-0.82)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,101.75*(+0.18)</td></tr><tr><td>Total Use</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,300.51*(-0.78)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">424.16*(-0.58)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">824.80*(+0.74)</td></tr><tr><td>Ending Stocks</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">292.75(+3.77)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">125.31*(-0.20)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">276.96(-0.55)</td></tr><tr><td>Carryover/Use (days on hand)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">82.2(+1.1)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">107.8(-0.0)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">122.6(-0.4)</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">*record high Values in parentheses represent change from prior month. Source: USDA, OCE, World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, March 2026</figcaption></figure>



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



Welch, Mark. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/march-wasde-recap/">March WASDE Recap</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(11.3). March 11, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/march-wasde-recap/">Permalink</a>

March WASDE Recap  

Authors: David Anderson and Josh Maples 



Cow prices normally increase seasonally until about June each year.&nbsp;&nbsp;2026 prices have had little seasonal increase, but they remain in record high territory.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Auction prices in the Southern Plains for 85-90 percent lean cows have increased by about $3 per cwt to $167 per cwt since the beginning of January.&nbsp;&nbsp;National average cutter quality cows have increased about $13 per cwt since the first of the year.&nbsp;&nbsp;Likewise, the cow beef cutout has steadily increased by $19 per cwt to $331 per cwt in early March.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Across the South, cull cows at auctions have trended higher this year.&nbsp;&nbsp;Since the first of the year, Mississippi breaker quality cow auction prices have been as high as $175, and started early March at $162 per cwt.&nbsp;&nbsp;Kentucky culls of the same quality began in March at $164.&nbsp;&nbsp;Breaker cows at Georgia auctions have been even higher, beginning in March at $174 per cwt.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Yield grade 1 cull bulls broke the $200 per cwt barrier during February in Mississippi and Georgia auctions.&nbsp;&nbsp;Those prices are about $30 per cwt higher than this time last year.&nbsp;&nbsp;Bull prices have increased a little more than cow prices this Spring.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Tighter supplies are boosting prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;Beef cow slaughter is down more than 20 percent from last year so far in 2026.&nbsp;Only 34,200 head were slaughtered during the last week of January, making it the smallest non-holiday week slaughter in years.&nbsp;&nbsp;Dairy cow slaughter is running 7.3 percent higher than last year.&nbsp;&nbsp;The largest dairy cow herd since the early 1990s and sharply lower milk prices will keep dairy cow slaughter ahead of 2025’s pace in the coming weeks.&nbsp;&nbsp;The high price of calves, especially beefXdairy crossbred calves, has helped to boost dairy cow inventory as producers are seeing larger returns from the calves to help offset lower milk prices.&nbsp;



Short supplies of fed cattle are reducing overall beef production, which is helping to keep non-fed beef prices high.&nbsp;&nbsp;Record high fed steer dressed weights, over 980 pounds per carcass on average, are boosting supplies of fat.&nbsp;&nbsp;The larger supplies of fat require larger amounts of lean beef to blend to desirable ground beef percentages.&nbsp;&nbsp;That increase in processor demand for lean beef to mix with ample supplies of fat is also helping to boost cull cow values. Cull prices are seeing a boost from both the supply and demand sides of the equation.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Events of the last week are likely to test the strength of beef demand.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ground beef usually gets a grilling season boost in the Spring and could get an extra boost ahead of this summer’s FIFA World Cup. That demand bump usually leads to higher cull cow prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;So, there is still some room for higher cull cow prices this Spring.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43567" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-1.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-1-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-1-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-1-1536x1152.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43568" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-2.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-2-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-2-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-2-1536x1152.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43569" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-3.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-3-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-3-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/6.11.2-3-1536x1152.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



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



Anderson, David, and Josh Maples. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/cull-cow-prices-high-and-bull-prices-break-200/">Cull Cow Prices High and Bull Prices Break $200.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(11.2). March 10, 2026. <a href="xhttps://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/cull-cow-prices-high-and-bull-prices-break-200/">Permalink</a>

Cull Cow Prices High and Bull Prices Break $200

Authors: Yangxuan Liu, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia; Susmitha Kalli, Graduate Student, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia; Hunter D. Biram, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas



For peanut farmers, understanding how crop insurance projected and harvested prices are determined is essential for purchasing crop insurance with confidence. The projected price determined in early spring guides how much crop insurance coverage a peanut grower can expect. Later in the season, the harvest price determines whether an indemnity payment is triggered if market conditions fall short.&nbsp;



The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Risk Management Agency (RMA) sets the peanut crop insurance projected and harvest prices using the Peanut Formula Price (PFP).&nbsp;Because peanuts do not have an active futures market, their crop insurance projected and harvested prices are based on the futures prices of related commodities of wheat, cotton, soybean oil, and soybean meal. The market behavior of these commodities has historically correlated with peanut prices.



The PFP is calculated from the December futures contracts of these four commodities traded during the peanut crop insurance price discovery period within the insurance year.&nbsp;USDA also establishes a loan rate for in-shell peanuts, which serves as a price floor for both projected and harvest prices used in crop insurance. If the calculated PFP falls below this loan rate, the loan rate becomes the effective minimum, ensuring that coverage does not drop below a guaranteed level, even during a market downturn.&nbsp;



Factors that determine PFP are announced annually by the USDA and vary by production year and by sales closing date. For peanut crop insurance, the sales closing dates include January 31, February 28, and March 15 (<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/02/peanut-crop-insurance-differences-in-sales-closing-dates-and-cancellation-dates-across-regions/">Kalli, Liu &amp; Biram, 2025</a>). For the 2026 crop year, the following links take you to the RMA technical pages with current peanut factor values:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/product-management-bulletin/pm-25-075-2026-crop-year-cy-commodity">January 31, 2026</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/product-management-bulletin/pm-26-002-2026-crop-year-commodity">February 28, 2026</a>, and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/product-management-bulletin/pm-26-007-2026-crop-year-commodity">March 15, 2026</a>.



Based on the peanut factors announced by RMA, the projected prices&nbsp;($ per Pound)&nbsp;for the 2026 peanut crop insurance with different sales closing dates are as follows:



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-medium-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>January 31</td><td>February 28</td><td>March 15</td></tr><tr><td>Runner&nbsp;</td><td>0.2409</td><td>0.2455</td><td>0.2477</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish&nbsp;</td><td>0.3300</td><td>0.3191</td><td>0.3220</td></tr><tr><td>Valencia</td><td>0.2722</td><td>0.2848</td><td>0.2848</td></tr><tr><td>Virginia</td><td>0.2722</td><td>0.2848</td><td>0.2848</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



References:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li class="has-small-font-size">Kalli, Susmitha, Yangxuan Liu, Hunter D. Biram, Fayu Chong. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/02/peanut-crop-insurance-differences-in-sales-closing-dates-and-cancellation-dates-across-regions/">Peanut Crop Insurance: Differences in Sales Closing Dates and Cancellation Dates Across Regions.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;5(50.1). December 8, 2025.&nbsp;</li>



<li class="has-small-font-size">USDA RMA.&nbsp;Commodity Exchange Price Provisions &#8211; Peanuts (21-CEPP-PT). Effective for the 2021 and succeeding crop years. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/commodity-exchange-price-provisions-archive">https://www.rma.usda.gov/commodity-exchange-price-provisions-archive</a></li>



<li class="has-small-font-size">USDA RMA.&nbsp;Peanut Price Methodology. Published November 2014. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/about-rma/publications">https://www.rma.usda.gov/about-rma/publications</a></li>



<li class="has-small-font-size">USDA RMA.PM-26-007: 2026 Crop Year Commodity Exchange Price Provisions – Peanuts Factors: March 15, 2026, Sales Closing Date.&nbsp;Published January 28, 2026. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/product-management-bulletin/pm-26-007-2026-crop-year-commodity">https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/product-management-bulletin/pm-26-007-2026-crop-year-commodity</a></li>



<li class="has-small-font-size">USDA RMA. PM-25-075: 2026 Crop Year (CY) Commodity Exchange Price Provisions (CEPP) – Peanuts Factors: January 31, 2026, Sales Closing Date (SCD).&nbsp;Published December 12, 2025. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/product-management-bulletin/pm-25-075-2026-crop-year-cy-commodity">https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/product-management-bulletin/pm-25-075-2026-crop-year-cy-commodity</a></li>



<li class="has-small-font-size">USDA RMA. PM-26-002: 2026 Crop Year Commodity Exchange Price Provisions – Peanuts Factors: February 28, 2026, Sales Closing Date.&nbsp;Published January 13, 2026. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/product-management-bulletin/pm-26-002-2026-crop-year-commodity">https://www.rma.usda.gov/policy-procedure/bulletins-memos/product-management-bulletin/pm-26-002-2026-crop-year-commodity</a></li>



<li class="has-small-font-size">USDA NASS.&nbsp;Peanut Prices and Stocks Reports. Accessed June 2025. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/">https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/</a></li>



<li class="has-small-font-size">USDA FSA.&nbsp;Peanut Marketing Assistance Loan and LDP Rates. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/price-support/loan-deficiency-payments">https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/price-support/loan-deficiency-payments</a></li>
</ul>



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



Liu, Yangxuan, Susmitha Kalli, and Hunter D. Biram. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/what-determines-peanut-crop-insurance-projected-and-harvested-prices-during-the-price-discovery-period/">What Determines Peanut Crop Insurance Projected and Harvested Prices During the Price Discovery Period?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(11.1). March 9, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/what-determines-peanut-crop-insurance-projected-and-harvested-prices-during-the-price-discovery-period/">Permalink</a>

What Determines Peanut Crop Insurance Projected and Harvested Prices During the Price Discovery Period?

Authors: Jennifer S. Friedel, Esq. and Henry Davenport, LUVA Fellow Virginia Tech, Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economics



Court dockets and regulatory desks are no stranger to pesticide legal challenges. Public concern about health and environmental implications, and what seems like an unceasing cycle of litigation, surrounds their use. At the federal and state levels, executive and legislative officials act to implement substantive changes. Meanwhile, the judiciary wades through new and lingering claims by and against their manufacturers while recent major policy developments may give users and manufacturers an upper hand.



Paraquat: Regulatory Reform on the Horizon&nbsp;



In January, a proposed ban on the manufacture, distribution, use, or sale of paraquat dichloride, the herbicide commonly referred to as paraquat was introduced before Virginia’s General Assembly as HB1375.<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_edn1">[1]</a>&nbsp;On February 11, Virginia’s House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee unanimously voted to continue HB1375 to the 2027 session, effectively killing the bill.&nbsp;



Used on more than 250,000 acres in Virginia alone, paraquat is a rain-fast non-selective contact herbicide that targets cell membranes, stopping photosynthesis and killing vegetation quickly. Outside of agricultural uses, paraquat is commonly used for vegetation management on infrastructure and fencing. The herbicide is particularly effective in combating increasing glyphosate-resistant vegetation.<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_edn2">[2]</a>



Proponents of the bill noted the herbicide’s risk to human health including its potential link to Parkinson’s disease in addition to environmental concerns and the fact that it is currently banned in 70 countries. In 2021, the EPA issued an interim decision on the registration review of paraquat finalizing new, stronger protections intended to reduce exposure.<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_edn3">[3]</a>&nbsp;As part of EPA’s ongoing registration review process for paraquat, it continues to evaluate its volatilization potential and anticipates releasing an updated analysis in addition to possible refinements of EPA’s bystander inhalation exposure analysis but to date, has not identified any clear links from labeled uses of paraquat and adverse health, including Parkinson’s disease and cancer.<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_edn4">[4]</a>



Glyphosate: Federal Favorability and Legal Setbacks



Meanwhile, on the glyphosate forefront, litigation and policy developments are swiftly rolling in. Since acquiring Monsanto in 2018, Bayer has been steeped in litigation over the safety of its flagship glyphosate-based product, Roundup. In February of this year, Bayer reached a $7.25 billion settlement to compensate current and future users who experience adverse effects from Roundup.<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_edn5">[5]</a>&nbsp;The class settlement aims to mitigate current and future Roundup claims alleging non-Hodgkin lymphoma injuries. As of October 2025, almost 200,000 claims have been resolved by Bayer or deemed ineligible.<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_edn6">[6]</a>



In January, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear an appeal from Bayer in&nbsp;Durnell v. Monsanto, a case which will determine whether state-based failure to warn claims are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act’s (FIFRA’s) labeling requirements. In&nbsp;Durnell, plaintiffs allege that Monsanto failed to give appropriate warning of Roundup’s health risks, including its alleged propensity to cause cancer. In response, Bayer argues that the EPA&#8217;s pesticide labeling requirements under FIFRA preempt such state law claims as such warnings are not federally required.<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_edn7">[7]</a>&nbsp;Regardless of the outcome of&nbsp;Durnell, the case is expected to either reinforce or dismantle thousands of pending lawsuits involving state claims related to pesticide and herbicide use. Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court are scheduled for April 27, 2026.&nbsp;



On February 18, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order declaring elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides central to American economic and national security. Elemental phosphorus is both a precursor element to glyphosate herbicides and a critical component of many defense technologies and a key input of weapon-system supply chains. National security concerns regarding these have stepped into the spotlight due to ongoing trade negotiations and instability in the supply chain. The executive order also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to protect domestic glyphosate-based herbicide production, to ensure adequate supply. Domestic production relies on a single U.S. producer of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides which currently does not meet annual demand. The executive order establishes protections for domestic producers aimed at protecting corporate viability of domestic producers.&nbsp;<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_edn8">[8]</a>



While Bayer maintains confidence that the end of litigation over glyphosate’s safety is near, paraquat thus far survives emerging policy challenges.&nbsp;



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



<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_ednref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;H.B. 1375, 164th&nbsp;Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Va. 2026).&nbsp;



<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_ednref2">[2]</a>&nbsp;Owens, Brian.&nbsp;Resistance to glyphosate on the rise among weeds.&nbsp;Chem. Inst. Can. (May 2024),&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cheminst.ca/magazine/article/resistance-to-glyphosate-on-the-rise-among-weeds/">https://www.cheminst.ca/magazine/article/resistance-to-glyphosate-on-the-rise-among-weeds/</a>&nbsp;(accessed February 27, 2026).



<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_ednref3">[3]</a>&nbsp;U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency,&nbsp;Paraquat Dichloride,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/paraquat-dichloride">https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/paraquat-dichloride</a>&nbsp;(accessed February 27, 2026).



<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_ednref4">[4]</a>&nbsp;Id.



<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_ednref5">[5]</a>&nbsp;Bayer AG,&nbsp;Monsanto announces Roundup™ class settlement agreement to resolve current and future claims.&nbsp;Bayer Global,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bayer.com/media/en-us/monsanto-announces-roundup-class-settlement-agreement-to-resolve-current-and-future-claims/">https://www.bayer.com/media/en-us/monsanto-announces-roundup-class-settlement-agreement-to-resolve-current-and-future-claims/</a>&nbsp;(accessed February 27, 2026).



<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_ednref6">[6]</a>&nbsp;Bayer AG,&nbsp;Managing the Roundup™ Litigation, Bayer Global,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bayer.com/en/managing-the-roundup-litigation">https://www.bayer.com/en/managing-the-roundup-litigation</a>&nbsp;(accessed February 27, 2026).



<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_ednref7">[7]</a>&nbsp;Id.



<a href="applewebdata://6C05AF96-2CB0-49BF-96B3-C06570F30E9E#_ednref8">[8]</a>&nbsp;Exec. Order No. 14387, 91 FR 8703 (2026).&nbsp;



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



Friedel, Jennifer S., and Henry Davenport. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/paraquat-and-glyphosate-an-update-and-outlook/">Paraquat and Glyphosate: An Update and Outlook.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(10.5). March 6, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/paraquat-and-glyphosate-an-update-and-outlook/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities