USDA announced last week that AMS will start publishing a new negotiated cash cattle report on October 26 that combines Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kansas, and Colorado. The report uses data packers already submit under Livestock Mandatory Reporting. This doesn’t change how cattle are bought and sold, but it does change how much of the Southern Plains fed cattle cash trade gets publicly reported, and lately that has not been much.



AMS can’t publish a report if it doesn’t meet the 3/70/20 confidentiality rule, which states a mandatory price report is only published if at least three companies regularly contribute data, no one company accounts for more than 70 percent of the volume, and no one company is the only reporter more than 20 percent of the time. Colorado has been in that situation for years, and this year it became a problem for other states. The Texas/Oklahoma/New Mexico weekly negotiated price has been withheld every week since early July, and Kansas has been withheld every week since late August. Kansas had not missed a week since at least 2019. Texas/Oklahoma/New Mexico’s last gap was seven weeks last winter, from early December through mid-January.



Table 1.&nbsp;Weeks the weekly negotiated cash report was withheld, by region and report year



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><thead><tr><td>Withheld weeks</td><td>2021</td><td>2022</td><td>2023</td><td>2024</td><td>2025</td><td>2026</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>TX-OK-NM</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Kansas</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Nebraska</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Iowa-Minnesota</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Colorado</td><td>27</td><td>36</td><td>52</td><td>53</td><td>52</td><td>42</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">2026 through the October 19th report. Source: USDA AMS Livestock Mandatory Reporting.</figcaption></figure>



The part that may surprise some is what this does to the 5-Area fed cattle average price that is widely used. The 5-Area average fed cattle price is not calculated from all five regions, regardless of what gets published. It is calculated from the regions that pass the confidentiality test. Since the August 24th report, the 5-Area head count has been only Nebraska plus Iowa/Minnesota. For two months now, Southern Plains cattle have had no direct weight on the benchmark 5-Area cattle price that anchors many formula trades and settles LRP fed cattle coverage.



In 2026, while the Texas/Oklahoma/New Mexico price was still being published, it averaged 9 cents per cwt above Nebraska and 23 cents above Iowa-Minnesota. But individual weeks ran $3 to $4 apart in either direction. In 5 of 19 weeks the gap was more than $2. Most weeks the gap was small, but some weeks it was not.



There are a few things to watch once the new report starts. The first is if the new five-state average price (Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado) will regularly clear confidentiality every week. Second, will this change allow for trades in these states to be added into the 5-Area price. And third, will AMS be able to backfill and publish some history for the new price series, allowing some comparison of the new series with the 5 market average price.&nbsp;



Figure 1. Average weekly 5-Area negotiated cash head count by month: Nebraska and Iowa-Minnesota vs. Kansas and Texas-Oklahoma-New Mexico, January 2025 through October 19, 2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1601" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.2-1-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45013" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.2-1-scaled.png 2560w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.2-1-1024x640.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.2-1-768x480.png 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.2-1-1536x961.png 1536w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.2-1-2048x1281.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /></figure>



Figure 2. Weekly difference between the Texas-Oklahoma-New Mexico and Nebraska Over 80% Choice live steer prices, 2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1600" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.2-2-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45014" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.2-2-scaled.png 2560w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.2-2-1024x640.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.2-2-768x480.png 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.2-2-1536x960.png 1536w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.2-2-2048x1280.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /></figure>



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



Recommended citation format: Maples, Josh. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/southern-timber-market-update/">A New Cash Cattle Report for the Southern Plains.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(44.2). October 27, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/southern-timber-market-update/">Permalink</a>

A New Cash Cattle Report for the Southern Plains

Stumpage price trends



Across the southern region, stumpage&nbsp;prices for pine and hardwood sawtimber edged up in the third quarter (Q3) of 2026, while pulpwood prices continued to decline (Figure 1). Pine sawtimber averaged just under $24/ton, up 2% quarter-over-quarter but down 5% year-over-year and 14% below its early 2022 peak (TimberMart-South, 2026). Hardwood sawtimber averaged slightly above $31/ton, down 5% year-over-year. The average pine chip-n-saw price declined to $16.50/ton, down 8% year-over-year and 21% below its recent peak in 2022.&nbsp;



Pine pulpwood prices continued to decline for the 7th&nbsp;consecutive quarter, dating back to Q1 2025. The average price was just over $5/ton, down 4% quarter-over-quarter and 16% year-over-year. It was less than half of its recent high in 2022. Hardwood pulpwood remained relatively stable until early 2026, then fell more than 24%, averaging slightly above $6/ton in Q3 2026 and narrowing the price gap between hardwood and pine pulpwood.



Figure 1. South-wide pulpwood stumpage prices, Q3 2016 –Q3 2026.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1402" height="540" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.1-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-45007" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.1-1.jpg 1402w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.1-1-1024x394.jpg 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.1-1-768x296.jpg 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1402px) 100vw, 1402px" /></figure>



Source: TimberMart-South, 2026.



Stumpage prices varied widely across states and subregions. In Q3 2026, pine sawtimber prices ranged from $16-19/ton in eastern Tennessee and Virginia to more than $30/ton in Florida and western North Carolina (Figure 2). Year over year, prices fell most sharply in eastern Tennessee (-23%), northern Arkansas (-18%), northern Mississippi (-15%), North Carolina (-11%), and Virginia (-10%). In contrast, prices increased in northern Georgia (+13%), southeast Texas (+13%), northeastern Florida (+8%), and southern Louisiana (+7%).



Figure 2. Average pine sawtimber and pulpwood stumpage prices by state and subregion, Q3 2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2319" height="1265" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.1-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-45008" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.1-2.png 2319w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.1-2-1024x559.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.1-2-768x419.png 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.1-2-1536x838.png 1536w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.44.1-2-2048x1117.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2319px) 100vw, 2319px" /></figure>



Data source: TimberMart-South (2026)



In Q3 2026, pine pulpwood prices ranged from $2-3/ton in southern Arkansas and Tennessee to $9-11/ton in north-central Florida and eastern North Carolina (Figure 2). Compared with a year earlier, prices fell sharply in South Carolina (-37%), northern Louisiana (-37%), southern Georgia (-36%), southern Arkansas (-32%), and northern Alabama (-28%). Most other regions experienced declines of approximately 10-25%.&nbsp;



Factors behind price trends



Weak pine sawtimber prices reflect a stagnant housing market and an oversupply of sawtimber in some wood baskets. In September 2026, single-family housing starts, a key demand driver for pine sawtimber and structural panels, were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 859,000 units, below the long-term benchmark of 1.1 million units associated with a healthy economy (U.S. Census Bureau, 2026). Housing construction continues to face affordability challenges, high construction and financing costs, labor shortages, and zoning restrictions. The 21st&nbsp;Century ROAD to Housing Act, enacted on July 11, 2026, includes provisions intended to reduce regulatory barriers to housing construction and expand housing supply. However, it remains uncertain how much these policies translate into stronger homebuilding activity, greater lumber demand, and ultimately higher timber demand.&nbsp;



Landowners who have deferred harvesting for several years may need to reassess their expectations and recognize that prices may not return to the levels above $40/ton seen before the 2008-2009 financial crisis. Further delays may allow trees to grow beyond the preferred size specifications of some sawmills, potentially resulting in lower stumpage prices.&nbsp;



The continued decline in pine and hardwood pulpwood prices reflects structural changes in the pulp and paper industry, including shifts in product demand, increased use of recycled fiber, mill modernization, rising wood pulp imports, and relocation to lower-cost regions. These trends have intensified in the past three years, reducing regional pulpwood demand and putting downward pressure on pulpwood stumpage prices. Between 2023 and 2025, more than 10 major pulp facilities in the South closed, eliminating over 25 million tons of annual fiber demand and significantly reshaping regional pulpwood markets (Winn et al., 2026; Forisk, 2026).&nbsp;



Landowners in areas affected by recent mill closures may need to reassess their long-term management strategies in response to reduced pulpwood demand. Potential adjustments may include reducing planting density for reforestation or delaying thinning.&nbsp;



Major takeaways



Southern sawtimber prices remained relatively flat or lower in many wood baskets of the region, while pulpwood prices continued to fall across much of the South. Persistent weakness in housing demand and structural changes in the pulp and paper industry continue to challenge timber markets. Landowners may consider reassessing harvest timing and forest management strategies in light of local stumpage price trends, mill demand, stand conditions, and long-term management objectives.&nbsp;



References



Forisk. 2026. Forisk North American forest industry capacity database. Athens, GA.&nbsp;



TimberMart-South. 2026.&nbsp;Market news quarterly. Athens, GA.



U.S. Census Bureau. 2026. Monthly new residential construction.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/index.html">https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/index.html</a>



Winn, M., J. Gray, and J. Cooper. 2026. Southern pulpwood production, 2024. Asheville, NC.<a href="https://doi.org/10.2737/SRS-RB-250">https://doi.org/10.2737/SRS-RB-250</a>



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



Li, Yanshu. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/southern-timber-market-update/">Southern Timber Market Update</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(44.1). October 26, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/southern-timber-market-update/">Permalink</a>

Southern Timber Market Update

Authors: John Park, Roy B. Davis Professor and Extension Specialist, Texas A&amp;M AgriLife Extension Service and Diane Friend, Associate Professor,Texas A&amp;M University – Kingsville



Election to your local cooperative’s board of directors can feel somewhat overwhelming. The duties of a director seem extensive. The board provides oversight of operations and performance. They guide management on a strategic path that helps the cooperative thrive and fulfill its mission. They establish policies, monitor and evaluate the cooperative, and determine the responsible distribution of net benefits. This requires a board of directors that understands internal operations of the firm as well as the nuances of their industry.



Yet knowledge or skills in these tasks does not differentiate the most effective directors from the rest. Instead, it is their capacity to influence others. As author Ken Blanchard notes, “the key to successful leadership today is influence, not authority.”



You can think of influence as your ability to affect or change someone or something in an indirect, but usually important way. It empowers you to develop the talents of others. Building this capacity within each of us leads to improved working environments, meaning board members will have improved relationships and greater happiness in their roles. It is through properly applied influence that companies and leaders earn the loyalty of those they work with and those they serve. Our research has identified three levels of influence within cooperative boards.



Level 1: Conscious Conduct



Level 1 influence suggests that directors first earn influence through their actions and character. It combines self-awareness, learning, and reflection with purposeful integrity, discipline, ethics, and accountability. Directors who exhibit level 1 influence are informed. They are willing to participate in continual training and education to stay current on cooperative operations and industry trends. They come on time and prepare for board meetings. They are open to change and show great respect when conflicts arise. They are open-minded and honest. Most of all they lead by example. These directors have learned that credibility comes before influence.



Level 2: Connected Interaction



Level 2 influence suggests that directors can build influence by strengthening relationships. It combines empathy, inclusion, and a sense of belonging with meaningful communication, active listening, and conflict management. Directors who exhibit level 2 influence create unity. They seek understanding of the positions of others and make them feel heard. They ask a lot of questions and encourage others to do the same. They are good listeners and will mentor future leaders on the board and among cooperative members. They care about others. They have learned that relationships create influence.



Level 3: Represented Cooperation



Level 3 influence suggests that true influence is not about the individual leader. It is realized through the advancement of the cooperative’s purpose. It combines convictions of stewardship, advocacy, and standing for others with collaboration and envisioning of aligned interests. Directors who exhibit level 3 influence seek value for cooperative members. They readily consider the needs of individual members without neglecting what is best for the cooperative. They support management as the ultimate authority for operations and help separate the individual roles of management and board. They can move directors from a focus on individual interests to cooperative interests. Importantly, a level 3 board speaks with one voice. They have learned that leadership is stewardship.



If you are seeking to develop your capacity for influence in your board service, start by asking three simple questions: Level 1 – Can I be trusted? Level 2 – Can I build productive relationships? Level 3 – Can I help the cooperative succeed collectively?



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



Park, John, and Diane Friend. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/what-the-best-cooperative-directors-do-differently/">What the Best Cooperative Directors Do Differently.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(43.5). October 23, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/what-the-best-cooperative-directors-do-differently/">Permalink</a>

What the Best Cooperative Directors Do Differently

Authors: Luis Ribera and Landyn Young 



Produce imports from Mexico are a major source of economic activity throughout the United States, but are particularly important to Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. Imports of produce from Mexico to the United States during 2025, including fresh, frozen, and processed fruits, vegetables, and nuts, totaled $18.1 billion.  Looking at the five-year average prior to 2025, imports averaged $1.48 billion per month, with January (Figure 1) having the highest monthly value at $1.78 billion and the lowest being August at $952 million. In 2025, imports started much higher, totaling $2.27 billion in January and continuing to stay above average through February, but falling below the remaining months with the exception of July, where $21 million more was imported in 2025 than the 2020-2024 monthly average. Overall, 2025 fresh produce import numbers were $478 million below the 2020-2024 average, which is an average monthly decrease of $39.9 million. In 2026, imports for January started at the lowest point since 2020 at $1.67 billion but grew, totaling over $2 billion for both March and April. Similar to past years, imports decreased in June and have fallen through August, with import values in July and August averaging $885 million, lower than any year since 2020. Overall, through August 2026 numbers are $470 million lower than 2025 and $335 million lower than the 2020-24 average.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="472" height="355" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44996"/></figure>



Just over 98 percent of produce imports entered the United States by land ports between Mexico and Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. When considering only fresh fruits and vegetables, which is 90.5 percent of the total, imports totaled $16.1 billion. These imports were shipped in 595,836 forty-thousand-pound truckloads. About 57 percent of U.S. fresh fruit and vegetable imports from Mexico entered through Texas land ports, arriving in 341,869 truckloads and worth $11.8 billion. The most active single port for fresh produce imports from Mexico in 2025 was Pharr, Texas, with 221,554 truckloads followed by Nogales, Arizona, with 142,578 truckloads. Laredo, Texas (74,319 truckloads) and Otay Mesa, California (71,857 truckloads) rounded out the top four. Monthly imports from 2020-2024 averaged 947 thousand metric tons (TMT) with the largest total being 1.19 million metric tons (MMT) in March and the lowest reaching 655 TMT in September. During 2025, this decreased to 939 TMT of average monthly imports (Figure 2). The only months where imports exceeded the average in 2025 were January and July-September. Meanwhile in 2026, import volume has also dipped below previous year’s average despite seeing March and April total some of the highest monthly imports since 2020. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="469" height="352" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.4-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44998"/></figure>



Any delays, disruptions, or related barriers to entry of fresh produce has the potential to cause ripple effects in the form of economic and employment losses across a wide spectrum of regional economies. For example, trade policy changes may have been a factor related to the lower import value in the latter part of 2025. Similarly, this downward trend in value is also evident in volume as the total import volume of fresh produce through August is 7.87 MMT in 2026, while in 2025 it was 7.97 MMT and from 2020-2024 it was 8 MMT.



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



Recommended citation format: Ribera, Luis, and Landyn Young. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/20/value-and-volume-of-fresh-produce-imports-from-mexico/">Value and Volume of Fresh Produce Imports from Mexico.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(43.4). October 22, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/20/value-and-volume-of-fresh-produce-imports-from-mexico/">Permalink</a>

Value and Volume of Fresh Produce Imports from Mexico

In the October WASDE (USDA-WAOB, 2026), USDA raised soybean yield expectations by 0.3 bushels to a record 53.1 bushels per acre, which lifts production by 27 million bushels to a record 4.56 billion. A bigger crop did not lower USDA’s season-average price projection. USDA also cut beginning stocks by 10 million bushels and raised exports by 10 million, so carryout rose only 5 million bushels to 315 million and the projection held at $12.00 per bushel. Prices have slipped since the report. November soybean futures closed up 4.5 cents at $12.92 on report day, then lower five days in a row, to $12.61 on October 16 (Barchart, 2026).



Figure 1 shows what USDA has usually projected for price at each carryout since 2010 (USDA-WAOB, 2026; BLS, 2026). At 315 million bushels, that is $11.21. This time USDA is projecting $12.00, which is $0.79 higher.



Part of the reason is biofuels. EPA’s final rule in March raised the 2026 and 2027 biomass-based diesel requirements to 67 and 70 percent above 2025 levels (Hubbs, 2026), and USDA now has 17.8 billion pounds of soybean oil going to biofuel, up from 14.8 billion last year. Crush is projected at a record 2.78 billion bushels, up 134 million (USDA-WAOB, 2026).



The other part is exports. USDA projects 1.695 billion bushels, up 180 million from last year, and sales back it up. Total sales, shipped and not yet shipped, were 23.4 million metric tons as of October 8, up 74 percent from a year ago (USDA-FAS, 2026). China holds 11.3 million metric tons of that, nearly half, after buying nothing at this point last year. The trade deal calls for China to buy at least 25 million metric tons a year in 2026, 2027, and 2028 (White House, 2025). Sales are at 51 percent of USDA’s export projection, a normal pace for this time of year (43 to 54 percent of final exports in 2022/23 through 2024/25).



Figure 1 also shows that price reacts more when carryout shrinks than when it grows. Going from 53 to 52 bushels per acre cuts carryout by 86 million bushels and adds $1.25 to the price. Going from 53 to 54 grows it by the same amount and takes off only $0.70. Demand works the same way, since 86 million bushels is about 5 percent of USDA’s export projection.



A gap this size is not proof that USDA is wrong. The shaded band is the range history has covered about 90 percent of the time, $9.25 to $13.20 at 53.1 bushels, and $12.00 is inside it. The chart also holds demand fixed, so real price swings would be smaller than shown.



The $12.00 projection depends on demand staying strong, and prices have already started to slip as the harvest hits full swing in northern states (USDA-NASS, 2026). Producers with unpriced beans may want to spread sales out and watch the weekly export sales reports for any sign that demand is weakening. The November 10th WASDE is the other date to watch. History suggests a smaller yield would add more to price than a bigger one would take off.



Figure 1. Implied 2026/27 season-average soybean price across a range of possible yields, holding the rest of the October WASDE fixed. ES is ending stocks, or carryout, in million bushels. The red point is USDA’s October projection; the shaded band is a 90 percent prediction interval.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1378" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.3soybean_yield_price_chart_exact-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44990" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.3soybean_yield_price_chart_exact-scaled.png 2560w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.3soybean_yield_price_chart_exact-1024x551.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.3soybean_yield_price_chart_exact-767x413.png 767w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.3soybean_yield_price_chart_exact-1536x827.png 1536w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.3soybean_yield_price_chart_exact-2048x1103.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA WASDE archive (ESMIS), BLS CPI-U.</figcaption></figure>



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



References



Barchart. “Soybean Nov ’26 (ZSX26) Price History.” Accessed October 19, 2026. https://www.barchart.com/futures/quotes/ZSX26/price-history/historical



Hubbs, Todd. “Strong RVO’s, Strong Crush: Biofuel Policy Tightens Soybean Oil Balance Sheet.” Southern Ag Today, May 27, 2026. https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/27/strong-rvos-strong-crush-biofuel-policy-tightens-soybean-oil-balance-sheet/



U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).” Accessed October 19, 2026. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS). “Export Sales Reporting.” Week ending October 8, 2026. Accessed October 19, 2026. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/opendatawebV2/



U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). “Crop Progress.” October 13, 2026. https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/crop-progress



U.S. Department of Agriculture, World Agricultural Outlook Board (USDA-WAOB). “World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates.” WASDE-676, October 9, 2026. https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/world-agricultural-supply-and-demand-estimates



White House. “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Strikes Deal on Economic and Trade Relations with China.” November 1, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/11/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-strikes-deal-on-economic-and-trade-relations-with-china/



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



Recommended citation format: Gardner, Grant. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/20/can-soybean-demand-keep-prices-near-12/">Can Soybean Demand Keep Prices Near $12?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(43.3). October 21, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/20/can-soybean-demand-keep-prices-near-12/">Permalink</a>

Can Soybean Demand Keep Prices Near $12?

Authors: Josh Maples and David Anderson



Last Tuesday, Southern Ag Today examined Choice beef cutout and primal cut values, which led to an examination of wholesale boneless beef prices.&nbsp; Boneless beef, in various lean-fat ratios, makes up ground beef supplies.&nbsp; A significant portion of a carcass becomes ground beef, as well as more than half of beef imports are lean beef trimmings to mix with domestic ground beef supplies. The markets for 50 percent lean beef (which is produced domestically from fed cattle), and 90 percent lean beef (which is both produced domestically and imported) are important to analyze to understand the mix driving ground beef supplies.



The price of 50 percent lean beef has declined sharply since mid-year, from about $185 per cwt during May and June to $89 per cwt in mid-October.&nbsp; The price of this beef is 36 percent lower than the same time last year.&nbsp; Heavier dressed weights and more yield grade 4 and 5 cattle have boosted supplies of 50 percent lean beef, offsetting reduced cattle slaughter.&nbsp; Fed steer slaughter in recent weeks has been above a year ago, which may be further increasing supplies.



Some of the 50 percent lean price decline is seasonal and normal for this time of year.&nbsp; However, the magnitude of the decline is larger than normal. It is natural to think that larger imports could be a driver, but the connection with imports is different for the 50 percent lean beef market.&nbsp; &nbsp;Beef imports, which are most similar to domestic 90 percent lean production, normally provide some support for 50 percent lean prices since they allow for more 50 percent lean to be blended for ground beef. However, the 50 percent lean market has declined despite the additional imports under the “affordable beef” TRQ executive order.&nbsp; Available supplies of ground beef relative to current demand could be a factor. While the amount of boneless beef in cold storage is a small amount relative to consumption, the amount of boneless beef in cold storage is up 6 percent compared to last year, while the amount of beef cuts is down 3 percent.



90 percent lean boneless beef wholesale prices have also declined since mid-year, with most of the decline, from $449 to $392 per cwt, happening in the last 6 weeks since the TRQ executive order was announced.&nbsp; Lean beef prices normally decline this time of the year as cow culling picks up and we move into Fall consumer spending patterns.&nbsp; Beef cow culling began to increase, as usual, but then it has declined over the last 2 weeks.&nbsp; If the Fall run of cull beef cows is limited this year, some tighter supplies of lean beef may be felt.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44977" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-1.png 1920w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-1-1024x768.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-1-768x576.png 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-1-1536x1152.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://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44978" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-2.png 1920w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-2-1024x768.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-2-768x576.png 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-2-1536x1152.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



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



Recommended citation format: Maples, Josh, and David Anderson. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/50-lean-falls-out-of-bed/">50 Lean Falls Out of Bed</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(43.2). October 20, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/50-lean-falls-out-of-bed/">permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities