Authors: Joe Outlaw and Bart L. Fischer



Anyone who ever worked out on a treadmill at a gym—or purchased their own for home use—knows just how unpleasant walking or running on a treadmill can be.&nbsp;&nbsp;For most of us, it is the rare combination of boring and monotonous, staring at yourself in a mirror while walking or running in place.&nbsp;



While the agricultural technology treadmill is neither boring nor monotonous for farmers, it’s currently just as unpleasant.&nbsp;&nbsp;In his 1958 book&nbsp;Farm Prices: Myth and Reality, renowned agricultural economist Willard Cochrane first introduced the concept of the &#8220;technology treadmill&#8221; (or agricultural treadmill).&nbsp;&nbsp;According to Cochrane, early adopters of agricultural technology do so to lower production costs and increase profits, only to see widespread adoption of the technology causing an increase in supply that drives down market prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;All remaining farmers are forced to adopt the new technology just to survive, trapping them on a &#8220;treadmill&#8221; where they must continuously adopt the latest technology in hopes of becoming profitable again. The alternative is getting off the treadmill…and going out of business.



One doesn’t have to look very hard to see this playing out in real life. U.S. farmers have continuously adopted new seed, labor-saving, fuel-saving, time-saving, and many other types of technologies in the name of lower costs and higher profits.&nbsp;&nbsp;In the case of seed technology alone, tremendous innovation has increased yields which, in some years, have offset lower prices and provided an opportunity to break-even or better.&nbsp;&nbsp;At the same time, farmers continue to get off the treadmill and the number of farms in this country continues to decline. The main question is this: can this go on forever?



Given the current cost-price squeeze in agriculture—and when weighing the cost of technology against the value of agricultural commodities—the benefits of adopting technology seemingly are not there anymore.  However, technology providers are shielded from this reality as the Federal government provides ad hoc assistance to keep producers from falling off the treadmill.  As Congress works to reauthorize the farm bill, we keep coming back to one solution (albeit not a silver bullet):  continue the shift back to standing farm policy that provides risk management without guaranteeing outcomes.  As farmers face this risk, input suppliers must face it as well and must come to terms with the cost of their products and producer’s ability to pay for them. 



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



Outlaw, Joe, and Bart L. Fischer. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/14/the-ag-technology-treadmill-is-about-as-fun-as-the-one-at-the-gym/">The Ag Technology Treadmill is About as Fun as the One at the Gym</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(20.4). May 14, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/14/the-ag-technology-treadmill-is-about-as-fun-as-the-one-at-the-gym/">Permalink</a>

The Ag Technology Treadmill is About as Fun as the One at the Gym

Authors: Hunter D. Biram and H. Scott Stiles



The USDA’s World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB) released the monthly report of World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) on May 12th. That report contained the first forecasts for the 2026-27 marketing year. The following are some of the highlights of that report.



Soybeans



New crop, 2026 soybean production is forecast at 4.435 billion bushels, reflecting an average yield of 53 bushels and 83.7 million harvested acres. For its initial production estimates, USDA has traditionally used the March&nbsp;Prospective Plantings&nbsp;acreage estimate and the trend-yield assumption used at the February Ag Outlook Forum.&nbsp;&nbsp;Total consumption for the 2026 crop is expected to increase 218 million bushels to 4.49 billion on record crush (2.75 billion bu.) and modest improvement in exports (1.63 billion bu.).&nbsp;&nbsp;This places year-ending stocks at 310 million bushels, down from 340 million in the current year. The marketing year average farm price for the 2026 crop is projected at $11.40 compared to $10.40 in 2025-26.



Corn



The 2026-27 corn crop is projected at 16.0 billion bushels, down 6 percent from last year’s record crop on declines in both acreage and yield. Planted acres of 95.3 million acres are projected to be down 3.5 million. The yield projection of 183.0 bushels per acre is based on a weather adjusted trend assuming normal planting progress and summer growing season weather. Total corn supplies are seen declining 2 percent to 18.1 billion bushels. Total U.S. corn use for 2026/27 is forecast to fall 2 percent relative to a year ago on reductions in domestic use and exports. Food, seed, and industrial use is forecast flat at 6.955 billion bushels. Feed and residual use is projected down 100 million bushels to 6.1 billion bushels on lower production and higher prices. U.S. corn exports for 2026/27 are forecast to decline 150 million bushels from a year ago to 3.15 billion bushels. Driven by lower production, 2026-27 ending stocks are expected to decline 185 million bushels to 1.957 billion. The 2026-27 season-average farm price is projected at $4.40 per bushel, up 25 cents from $4.15 in the current marketing year.



Cotton



The May U.S. cotton 2026-27 projections include a smaller crop, an increase in exports, unchanged mill use and lower ending stocks compared with the 2025-26 season. New crop production is expected to be 13.3 million bales, 600,000 bales less than in 2025-26. Domestic mill use is expected to be flat year-to-year at 1.6 million. Exports are expected to increase 300,000 bales to 12.3 million bales from 12 million in 2025-26.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ending stocks are expected to decrease to 3.9 million bales from 4.4 million in 2025-26. That is the least since 3.15 million in 2023-24 and below the 10-year average of 4.25 million bales. The forecast average price of 73 cents for the 2026-27 marketing year is up considerably compared to 63 cents for the 2025-26 crop.



Long-Grain Rice



U.S. long-grain production is projected at 122.5 million cwt, down 20 percent from last year on reduced acreage. This would be the smallest long-grain crop since 2011.&nbsp;&nbsp;Total supply is forecast at 201.1 million cwt, down nearly 12 percent from last year on lower production. Total use is projected at 173.0 million cwt, down from 188 million in the current year. Total exports are projected at 50 million cwt, down 1.0 million cwt from 2025-26, on continued strong global competition and higher U.S. long-grain prices. Domestic use is forecast at 123 million cwt., down 14 million from 2025-26.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ending stocks are projected at 28.1 million cwt, down 29 percent from last year and the lowest since 2023-24. The 2026-27 season average farm price for long-grain is projected at $12.00 per cwt, up from $10.40 in 2025-26.&nbsp;



There and Back Again



Season-average farm prices (SAFP) for southern crops are projected to increase between 6-16% compared to the 2025/2026 marketing year (Table 1). Notably, corn and soybeans are projected to increase by 6% and 9.6%, respectively, with new crop soybeans projected $1.00 per bushel higher than last marketing year and the highest since 2023/2024 marketing year. Long grain rice and cotton are projected to increase the most at 15.9% and 15.4%, respectively. However, even with year-over-year increases, breakeven yields for the new crop exceed that of the national average projected yield for the 2026/2027 marketing year. National breakeven yields, using the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns">USDA cost of production forecasts</a>, for corn, cotton, and long grain rice are 35%, 53%, and 44% above the current yield expectation while soybeans have a breakeven yield that is 12% above expectation.&nbsp;



Historical price movements over the 1996-2025 period suggest that new crop prices tend to fall 5-10% between the release of the May WASDE report and the end of a typical harvest season with some price declines as low as 15% (Figure 1). We note that while prices do tend to move lower into harvest on average, summer markets are often volatile as traders often respond to weather developments and resulting changes to yield expectations (Gardner and Biram, 2023). Often, new crop contracts establish seasonal highs in late June into July before declining into harvest reflecting a weather risk premium (Biram and Loy, 2024; Bhattarai et al., 2026).It is important that farmers consider leveraging appropriate price risk management tools, such as forward contracts, to lock in some price upside prior to harvest (<a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/2025/06/11/how-can-crop-marketing-and-crop-insurance-go-together/">Biram, McKenzie, and Bhattarai, 2025</a>;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/a-new-year-a-better-marketing-plan-for-the-farm/">Maples, 2026</a>; and&nbsp;<a href="http://price-seasonality-what-the-pattern-shows/">Gardner, 2026</a>).



The complete May 2026 WASDE report can be found at this&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0526.pdf">link</a>.



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6">Table 1. Year-over-year changes in season-average farm prices and associated breakeven yields</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>SAFP (25/26)</td><td>SAFP (26/27)</td><td>%Δ in SAFP</td><td>Breakeven Yield (26/27)</td><td>National Average Yield (26/27)</td></tr><tr><td>Corn</td><td>$4.15/bu</td><td>$4.40/bu</td><td>+6.0%</td><td>247.1 bu/acre</td><td>183 bu/acre</td></tr><tr><td>Cotton</td><td>$0.63/lb</td><td>$0.73/lb</td><td>+15.9%</td><td>1,322.5 lb/acre</td><td>866 bu/acre</td></tr><tr><td>Long Grain Rice*</td><td>$4.69/bu</td><td>$5.41/bu</td><td>+15.4%</td><td>247.1 bu/acre</td><td>171.8 bu/acre</td></tr><tr><td>Soybeans</td><td>$10.40/bu</td><td>$11.40/bu</td><td>+9.6%</td><td>59.5 bu/acre</td><td>53 bu/acre</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">*Note: Projected yield for Long Grain Rice is based on the new crop projected yield for All-Rice. The latest estimated Long Grain Rice yield is 163.5 bushels per acre for the 2025/26 marketing year. The SAFP is converted from cwt to bushel by dividing the price per cwt by 2.22.</figcaption></figure>



Figure 1. Change in Harvest Month Futures Price Relative to Date of May WASDE (1996-2025)



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="936" height="486" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.20.3-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43947" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.20.3-1.png 936w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.20.3-1-768x399.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 936px) 100vw, 936px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Barchart.com (2026)</figcaption></figure>



References



Bhattarai, Chandan, Andrew McKenzie, Hunter Biram, Jesse Tack, and Alvaro Durand‐Morat. &#8220;<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jaa2.70040">Risk return of forward contracting corn with crop insurance.</a>&#8221; Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (2026).



Biram, Hunter, and Ryan Loy. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/05/012/may-wasde-projects-higher-supplies-and-lower-prices-again-in-2024/">May WASDE Projects Higher Supplies and Lower Prices Again in 2024.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;4(20.1). May 13, 2024.&nbsp;<a href="http://may-wasde-projects-higher-supplies-and-lower-prices-again-in-2024/">Permalink</a>



Biram, Hunter, Andrew M. McKenzie, and Chanda Bhattrai. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/05/21/how-can-crop-marketing-and-crop-insurance-go-together/">How can crop marketing and crop insurance go together?</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;5(24.3). June 11, 2025.&nbsp;<a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/2025/06/11/how-can-crop-marketing-and-crop-insurance-go-together/">Permalink</a>



Gardner, Grant. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/01/22/price-seasonality-what-the-pattern-shows/">Price Seasonality: What the Pattern Shows.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;6(6.3). February 4, 2026.&nbsp;<a href="http://price-seasonality-what-the-pattern-shows/">Permalink</a>



Gardner, Grant, and Hunter Biram. “USDA Acreage Report Results: Price and Crop Insurance Impacts.” Southern Ag Today. July 3, 2023.&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2023/07/03/usda-acreage-report-results-price-and-crop-insurance-impacts/">Permalink</a>



Maples, Will. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/a-new-year-a-better-marketing-plan-for-the-farm/">A New Year, A Better Marketing Plan for the Farm.</a>”Southern Ag Today 6(2.3). January 7, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/29/a-new-year-a-better-marketing-plan-for-the-farm/">Permalink</a>



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



Biram, Hunter, and H. Scott Stiles. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/13/may-2026-wasde-highlights-for-u-s-supply-and-demand-and-implications-for-price-risk-management/">May 2026 WASDE Highlights for U.S. Supply and Demand and Implications for Price Risk Management.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(20.3). May 13, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/13/may-2026-wasde-highlights-for-u-s-supply-and-demand-and-implications-for-price-risk-management/">Permalink</a>

May 2026 WASDE Highlights for U.S. Supply and Demand and Implications for Price Risk Management

Authors: Josh Maples and David Anderson



Through the first quarter of 2026, the U.S. imported 1.7 billion pounds of beef, which is up more than 15 percent from the same period last year. Beef exports fell nearly 18 percent to 586 million pounds. Both trends reflect the tight U.S. cattle herd and high domestic beef prices.



South Korea and Japan together accounted for nearly half of all U.S. beef exports but have both declined, down 7 percent and 17 percent, respectively. Mexico and Canada, the third and fourth largest destinations, each declined around 8 percent, while Taiwan was the lone increase among major markets, up nearly 8 percent. Exports to China during the first three months of 2026 totaled only 5.3 million pounds, down 95 percent from a year ago and a dramatic reversal from recent years when China was among the top U.S. beef markets.



On the import side, the U.S. imported 1.7 billion pounds through the first quarter, up 15.3 percent year over year. Brazil leads all import sources with 394 million pounds, up 8 percent.&nbsp;&nbsp;The majority of those shipments entered at the higher out-of-quota tariff rate of 26.4 percent after the “Other Countries” annual quota was filled within the first week of 2026. Australia posted a 12 percent gain to 334 million pounds. The largest gain among major suppliers came from Mexico, up 23 percent to 197 million pounds. It’s likely that some increase in beef imports from Mexico are due to the border closure to feeder cattle, leading to increased beef production in Mexico, boosting their exportable supplies. Argentina ranked sixth among suppliers at 3.6 percent of total imports despite shipments nearly doubling year over year.



USDA currently projects 2026 will set another annual import record. Tight domestic cattle supplies and strong beef demand are expected to keep imports elevated and exports under pressure well into 2026. The May 11thannouncement of suspension of the tariff rate quotas for beef, effectively reducing import tariff levels, could lead to even higher beef import totals. It’s worth remembering that the majority of beef imports are lean beef trimmings for ground beef so any potential impacts of more imports due to TRQ related tariffs would fall on trimmings and cull cow markets. But, even then, price impacts are expected to be limited.&nbsp;&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="408" height="271" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.20.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43934"/></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="408" height="276" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.20.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43935"/></figure>



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



Maples, Josh, and David Anderson. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/u-s-beef-imports-hit-record-pace-as-exports-drop/">U.S. Beef Imports Hit Record Pace as Exports Drop.&#8221;</a> Southern Ag Today 6(20.2). May 12, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/u-s-beef-imports-hit-record-pace-as-exports-drop/">Permalink</a>

U.S. Beef Imports Hit Record Pace as Exports Drop

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has created volatility in fertilizer prices. While the duration of the conflict is hard to predict, the prolonged rise in energy prices (crude oil and natural gas) can have an impact on the price that U.S. agriculture producers pay for fertilizer. In turn, this can impact farm profitability at a time when margins are razor thin.&nbsp;



The Fertilizer Institute noted that 65% of overall U.S. agricultural nitrogen (N), phosphate (P), and potassium (K) needs are sourced by domestic production. However, the remaining 35% is supplemented by imports. Measured as the percent of imports relative to consumption, the U.S. imports 6% of its N needs- mainly from Trinidad and Tobago and Canada; 13% of its P needs from Peru and Morocco; and 94% of its K needs from Canada, Russia, Belarus, and Israel (Monaco, Schnitkey, and Paulson, 2025). Therefore, exposure to the global fertilizer market can lead to significant price volatility when geopolitical conflicts arise.



By examining fertilizer and fuel costs associated with corn, cotton, rice, and soybean production in Louisiana, a comparison is made between early January and mid-March prices. The early-January fertilizer and farm diesel expenditures were revisited by using the March 13, 2026, USDA AMS Alabama Production Cost Report’s diesel price and average bids for urea, DAP, and potash fertilizers. The price increase varies across nutrients, with N (urea) increasing by 27%, followed by K (potash) at 10%. Interestingly, DAP (P) declined but did show a relatively large price range ($756 to $1,075 per ton) in the weekly USDA report. Fuel prices increased from $2.85 to $4.04 per gallon, a $1.19 (42%) increase. 



Table 1. Fertilizer input unit prices ($ per pound of active ingredient), January and March estimates.



<figure class="wp-block-table has-medium-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Fertilizer</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">January</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">March</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Change</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Change</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">N</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$0.60</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$0.76</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$0.16</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">27%</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">P</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$1.03</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$0.99</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-$0.04</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-4%</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">K</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$0.40</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$0.44</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$0.04</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">10%</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



The level of fertilizer and fuel needs varies by crop nutrient requirements and irrigation method/frequency. For Louisiana crops, per-acre N needs are the highest in corn (210 pounds) and hybrid rice (150 pounds), while cotton requires 90 pounds and soybeans require none. P and K needs are relatively consistent among the selected crops at 60 and 40 pounds per acre. The suggested fertilizer rates for poly-pipe and flood irrigation applications were obtained from the LSU AgCenter. Tables 2-5 provide a January and March comparison of production expenditures for these energy-related inputs on a dollar per acre basis.&nbsp;



Table 2. Corn, cotton, rice, soybean fertilizer and fuel expenditures per acre, January and March estimates for Louisiana production.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="6">Corn&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Early-January&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">Mid-March</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Item</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Cost</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Item</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Cost</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Change ($)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Change (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Fertilizer</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$180.90</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Fertilizer</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$214.96</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$34.06</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">19%</td></tr><tr><td>Fuel&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$49.49</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Fuel&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$70.16</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$20.67</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">42%</td></tr><tr><td>Total&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$230.39</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Total&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$285.12</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$54.73</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Cotton</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Early-January&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">Mid-March</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Item</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Cost</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Item</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Cost</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Change ($)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Change (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Fertilizer</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$139.80</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Fertilizer</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$153.82</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$14.02</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">10%</td></tr><tr><td>Fuel&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$65.43</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Fuel&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$92.75</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$27.32</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">42%</td></tr><tr><td>Total&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$205.23</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Total&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$246.57</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$41.34</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Rice</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Early-January&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">Mid-March</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Item</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Cost</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Item</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Cost</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Change ($)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Change (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Fertilizer</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$155.20</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Fertilizer</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$179.45</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$24.25</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">16%</td></tr><tr><td>Fuel&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$128.09</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Fuel&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$181.57</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$53.48</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">42%</td></tr><tr><td>Total&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$283.29</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Total&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$361.02</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$77.73</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td colspan="6">Soybeans</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Early-January&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">Mid-March</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Item</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Cost</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Item</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Cost</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Change ($)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Change (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Fertilizer</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$71.50</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Fertilizer</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$71.44</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-$0.06</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">0%</td></tr><tr><td>Fuel&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$33.04</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Fuel&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$46.83</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$13.79</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">42%</td></tr><tr><td>Total&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$104.54</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Total&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$118.27</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$13.73</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



For example, Louisiana corn fertility cost increased by $34 while diesel fuel for tractors, implements, and irrigation pumps increased by $21 per acre. In total, corn’s energy-related input costs increased by almost $55 per acre. Cotton’s energy-related input costs increased by $41 per acre. From Table 4, the energy-related input costs for rice increased by $78 per acre due to the paddy flood irrigation practice. Since soybeans received no N, the cost increase was the lowest at $14 per acre.&nbsp;



As economic conditions in the farm economy remain a concern for producers, restrictions on cash flows have acted to reduce the amount of inputs producers may pre-book earlier in the year when fertilizer and fuel prices were lower. This is an example of how geopolitical unrest and market distributions can affect local farming profitability.&nbsp;



Translating this production cost increase as a function of increased yield, a producer would have to yield an additional 11 bushels of corn per acre (at a price of $5.00); 111 pounds of cotton lint ($0.70 price); 6.4 hundredweights of rice ($12.20 price); and 7 bushels of soybeans ($11.80 price). As Louisiana benefited from favorable production conditions in 2025, further increases in yield per acre would likely exceed state records. While this information is specific to Louisiana, the application of partial enterprise budgeting can be applied to other states. This economic analysis understates the fact that, given the current farm economic conditions, generating additional per-acre production to compensate for increasing production costs is difficult even with a moderate improvement in commodity prices.&nbsp;



References



Deliberto, M. and B. Hilbun. “Projected Costs and Returns for Corn in Louisiana.” LSU AgCenter, January 2026.



Deliberto, M. and B. Hilbun. “Projected Costs and Returns for Cotton in Louisiana”. LSU AgCenter, January 2026.



Deliberto, M. and B. Hilbun. “Projected Costs and Returns for Rice in Louisiana.” LSU AgCenter, January 2026.



Deliberto, M. and B. Hilbun. “Projected Costs and Returns for Soybeans in Louisiana.” LSU AgCenter, January 2026.



Monaco, H., G. Schnitkey, and N. Paulson. &#8220;U.S. Fertilizer Industry in Global Markets: Structure and Supply Risks.&#8221; farmdoc daily (15):137, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, July 29, 2025.&nbsp;<a href="https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2025/07/us-fertilizer-industry-in-global-markets-structure-and-supply-risks.html">https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2025/07/us-fertilizer-industry-in-global-markets-structure-and-supply-risks.html</a>



The Fertilizer Institute. ““Pressure Cooker: Competition in the Seed &amp; Fertilizer Industries.” Written remarks of Mr. Corey Rosenbusch, President and CEO of The Fertilizer Institute, before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. October 28, 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/57806f69-9cd2-0a74-ac7a-d2b236ce9e3b/2025-10-28_Testimony_Rosenbusch.pdf">https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/57806f69-9cd2-0a74-ac7a-d2b236ce9e3b/2025-10-28_Testimony_Rosenbusch.pdf</a>



USDA, AMS. “Alabama Production Cost Report”. March 13, 2026.



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



Deliberto, Michael. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/04/initial-response-of-fertilizer-and-fuel-price-spikes-on-farm-costs-and-returns/">Initial Response of Fertilizer and Fuel Price Spikes on Farm Costs and Returns.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(20.1). May 11, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/04/initial-response-of-fertilizer-and-fuel-price-spikes-on-farm-costs-and-returns/">Permalink</a>

Initial Response of Fertilizer and Fuel Price Spikes on Farm Costs and Returns 

Cooperative Involvement in Rural Food Systems



Rural food systems<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftn1">[1]</a>, including the local foods movement, have been a popular topic over the last twenty years and gained even more popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic.&nbsp;&nbsp;Did this movement also encourage more cooperatives?&nbsp;&nbsp;To hone in on this, a survey of twenty-two CooperationWorks!<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftn2">[2]</a>&nbsp;members was performed in 2025, representing every state except for Nevada, Arizona, and Utah.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Cooperative Involvement in Rural Food Systems by Purpose and Activity



Survey results hint at the prevalence of cooperatives in rural food systems and the purposes and activities they represent<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftn3">[3]</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;Figure 1 shows that cooperatives are mentioned more often in relation to local, specialty, and niche-based foods. In contrast, other organizations, such as non-profit organizations and NGOs, are more often mentioned in relation to efforts to address nutrition and food insecurity. Figure 2 shows the mentions of cooperative involvement by specific rural food system activities. Food production and distribution are the most frequently mentioned activities, followed by rural grocery stores, food processing, and multi-stakeholder firms<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftn4">[4]</a>.



The Importance of Cooperatives in Rural Food Systems



While this survey does not measure the magnitude of cooperative involvement in rural food systems, it suggests that cooperatives are an important ingredient. Open-ended survey responses suggest that cooperatives involved in rural food systems tend to be newer and smaller, unlike older and larger “legacy” commodity cooperatives.&nbsp;&nbsp;This makes sense, as many aspects of rural food systems, such as local food systems, are also small and new, accounting for about 3.2% of our nation’s food supply (USDA NASS, 2024).



Figure 1: Cooperatives Mentioned in Rural Food Systems by Purpose



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="603" height="365" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.5-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43898"/></figure>



Figure 2: Cooperatives Mentioned in Rural Food Systems by Activity



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="600" height="363" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.5-2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43899"/></figure>



The Cooperative Advantage



Many survey respondents expressed concerns about the continued availability of grant funding for rural food system efforts, as some have vanished amid shifting priorities away from COVID-era initiatives (e.g., LFPA grants). Cooperatives may have an advantage here, as cooperative members contribute equity to their organizations, potentially insulating them from changes in public funding priorities.&nbsp;



If you are part of a cooperative, stay engaged by attending meetings, voting in elections, and serving on the board.&nbsp;&nbsp;If you are looking to start a cooperative,&nbsp;<a href="https://cooperationworks.coop/">CooperationWorks!</a>&nbsp;and many&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/land-grant-university-website-directory">land-grant universities</a>&nbsp;have extension personnel and cooperative specialists available to assist.



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



<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;Rural food systems are largely synonymous with local and regional food systems: networks connecting food production, processing, distribution, and consumption within a specific region.&nbsp;&nbsp;



<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftnref2">[2]</a>&nbsp;CooperationWorks! is a national network of cooperative development organizations in the US.&nbsp;<a href="https://cooperationworks.coop/">https://cooperationworks.coop/</a>



<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftnref3">[3]</a>&nbsp;The survey questions record the number of responses that mention cooperatives being involved in these activities and purposes.&nbsp;&nbsp;These percentages should not be considered the number or percentage of cooperatives involved in these activities or with these purposes. This survey is simply a barometer of whether cooperatives are involved in rural food systems.&nbsp;



<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftnref4">[4]</a>&nbsp;Multi-stakeholder firms are those with multiple membership types (e.g., producers and consumers), voting and investment options.&nbsp;&nbsp;Some states allow cooperatives to have these features, and some do not.&nbsp;



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



Richards, Steven. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/04/cooperative-involvement-in-rural-food-systems/">Cooperative Involvement in Rural Food Systems.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(19.5). May 8, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/04/cooperative-involvement-in-rural-food-systems/">Permalink</a>

Cooperative Involvement in Rural Food Systems

Authors: Luis Ribera and Landyn K. Young



The U.S. is highly competitive in agricultural production and the largest agricultural exporter in the world. In 2024, these exports were estimated to total $181.3 billion. Given that the world population is expected to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050, the U.S. is well positioned to be the source of agricultural products to feed the growing population.&nbsp;&nbsp;Moreover, global GDP is expected to grow between 2 and 4 percent through 2050. This means that not only will there be more people to feed, but also those people will have more purchasing power.



Of the top eight U.S. agricultural export commodities, the U.S. ranks first in global exports of corn and pork, and second in soybeans, cotton, and poultry (Table 1).&nbsp;&nbsp;Meanwhile, Brazil, another powerhouse in agricultural production with $144.4 billion in agricultural exports in 2024, ranks first in global exports of soybeans, beef and veal, cotton and chicken, and second in corn and soybean meal.&nbsp;&nbsp;Brazil’s ability to double crop, produce two crops in the same season, and its potential to double or even triple its cropland puts it in a very advantageous position to continue to increase its global food market share. On the other hand, U.S. productivity and agricultural infrastructure, i.e., roads, rail, waterways, and ports, help in remaining competitive globally.



One area that erodes U.S. competitiveness is the increase in government regulations.&nbsp;&nbsp;To illustrate, Figure 1 shows the total number of pages published in the Code of Federal Regulations, increasing from around 15,000 in 1950 to around 190,000.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If the cost of U.S. regulations were a country, it would be the fourth richest country in the world, just behind the U.S., China, and Japan. Moreover, a study by the National Association of Home Builders stated that 23.8 percent of the cost of a new single-family home, or an average of $93,870, is due to government regulations.&nbsp;&nbsp;Finally, regulatory costs, also known as societal hidden taxes, are equivalent to $14,684 or 22 percent of the 2020 annual household expense budget; more than any other expenses except housing, which is $22,624 (Figure 2).



Regulatory costs are an added source of concern to&nbsp;agricultural production as well.&nbsp;A study by Hamilton and McCullough (2025) showed that while production costs for a lettuce farmer in Salinas Valley, California, have increased significantly over the years, regulatory costs have increased exponentially from 2006 to 2024 (Table 2). In 2006, the cooperating lettuce grower reported regulatory costs totaling $109.15 per acre, increasing to $977.30 per acre in 2017, and growing to $1,600.12 per acre in 2024, which is a 63.7 percent increase from 2017 and a 1,366 percent increase since 2006. Regulatory costs comprised just 1.24 percent of production costs in 2006, then rose to 8.9 percent in 2017 and 12.6 percent of production costs in 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;Agriculture is a hard business to be in; producers deal with constant price volatility, increasing input costs, pests, and weather, among many other challenges outside of their control.&nbsp;&nbsp;On top of that are increasing regulatory costs, which add yet another barrier to remaining competitive in the global arena with countries that do not have such a burden.&nbsp;



Table 1. Ranking of Agricultural Exports for Selected Commodities, 2025



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><tbody><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">United States</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Brazil</td></tr><tr><td>Corn</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2</td></tr><tr><td>Soybean</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1</td></tr><tr><td>Beef-Veal</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1</td></tr><tr><td>Pork</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td>Wheat</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">10</td></tr><tr><td>Soybean Meal</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2</td></tr><tr><td>Cotton</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1</td></tr><tr><td>Poultry</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Production, Supply, Distribution (USDA/FAS)</figcaption></figure>



Figure 1. Total Pages Published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 1950-2023.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="551" height="397" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.4-F1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43906"/></figure>



Figure 2. U.S. Household Expense Budget of $66,928 Compared to Regulatory Costs



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="778" height="582" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.4-F2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43907" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.4-F2.jpg 778w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.4-F2-768x575.jpg 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 778px) 100vw, 778px" /></figure>



Table 2. Regulatory Costs for Salinas Valley Lettuce Grower, 2006, 2017, and 2024.



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>Regulatory Category</td><td>2006</td><td>2017</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td colspan="3">Cost per acre</td></tr><tr><td>Education/Training for Regulatory Compliance</td><td>$1.27</td><td>$26.31</td><td>$25.60</td></tr><tr><td>Air Quality Requirements&nbsp;</td><td>$0.00</td><td>$5.31</td><td>$8.29</td></tr><tr><td>Water Quality/Quality Requirements&nbsp;</td><td>$4.30</td><td>$18.57</td><td>$29.72</td></tr><tr><td>Department of Pesticide Regulation</td><td>$22.98</td><td>$35.55</td><td>$47.59</td></tr><tr><td>Food Safety – LGMA Assessments</td><td>$0.64</td><td>$181.48</td><td>$244.15</td></tr><tr><td>Food Safety – PR Assessments</td><td>$19.66</td><td>$14.88</td><td>$13.18</td></tr><tr><td>Labor Health &amp; Safety Requirements</td><td>$0.00</td><td>$28.72</td><td>$43.71</td></tr><tr><td>Worker’s Compensation</td><td>$58.94</td><td>$336.23</td><td>$428.40</td></tr><tr><td>ACA Requirements</td><td>$0.00</td><td>$141.19</td><td>$334.47</td></tr><tr><td>Labor Wage Requirements</td><td>$1.36</td><td>$189.10</td><td>$425.00</td></tr><tr><td>Totals (per acre)</td><td>$109.16</td><td>$977.34</td><td>$1,600.12</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Hamilton &amp; McCullough, 2025</figcaption></figure>



References



Adcock Flynn,&nbsp;Luis A. Ribera, Yuri Calil, and Constanza Valdes.&nbsp;&nbsp;“Brazil at 2040: Customer and Competitor.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Center for North American Studies, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&amp;M University.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CNAS Report 2018-02.&nbsp;&nbsp;October 2018.



Coffey, Bentley, Patrick A. McLaughlin, and Pietro Peretto.&nbsp;&nbsp;“The Cumulative Cost of Regulations.”&nbsp;&nbsp;April 2016



Crews Jr., Clyde Wayne.&nbsp;&nbsp;2026. “Ten Thousand Commandments, 2026: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State.”&nbsp;&nbsp;30th&nbsp;Anniversary Competitive Enterprise Institute Edition.



Calil, Yuri and Luis A. Ribera.&nbsp;&nbsp;2019. “Brazil’s Agricultural Production and Its Potential as Global Food Supplier.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Choices Magazine.&nbsp;&nbsp;Quarter 3.



Hamilton, Lynn and Michael McCullough. “A Decade of Change: A Case Study of Regulatory Compliance Costs in the Produce Industry.” Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. January 2025.



IMF World Economic Outlook (WEO). October 2015.



World Bank. “Global Economic Prospects.” January 2026.



World Trade Organization. “World Trade in Agriculture.” January 22, 2026.



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



Ribera, Luis, and Landyn K. Young. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/04/u-s-agricultural-competitiveness-and-regulation-costs/">&#8220;U.S. Agricultural Competitiveness and Regulation Costs.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(19.4). May 7, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/04/u-s-agricultural-competitiveness-and-regulation-costs/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities