Authors: Dr. Hunter D. Biram, Assistant Professor and Extension Agricultural Economist, University of Arkansas, Mr. Enil Serrano Puerto, Ph.D. Student, University of Kentucky, Dr. Grant Gardner, Assistant Extension Professor, University of Kentucky



The Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) has been a standard in farm risk management with nearly 500 million acres insured across row crops, forages, and specialty crops, resulting in up to $192 billion in insured liability in 2024, or 78% of the total value of U.S. crops (USDA-RMA and USDA-ERS, 2026). Despite its popularity as a risk management tool, the question of the best coverage level remains each year. Because premium rates are capped at annual increases of 20%, base premiums tend to change very little from year to year. However, the expected insurance price used to calculate coverage is influenced by futures market prices. As a result, insurance costs can fluctuate based on changes in commodity prices and the mix of crop acres planted by producers. This often leaves farmers with the question of how much insurance to buy or whether to renew with the same coverage from the year before. In response, a large suite of tools has been developed by university extension services. A total of 13 decision aids have been developed by universities from across the U.S., with 9 focusing on farm programs (i.e., Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage) administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), and 4 focusing on federal crop insurance programs administered by the Risk Management Agency (RMA) (Serrano, Gardner, and Biram, Forthcoming). We add a decision aid to this suite of tools that provides analysis for both FSA farm programs and federal crop insurance programs, the&nbsp;<a href="https://fryar-risk-center.uada.edu/publication-reports/morning-coffee-and-ag-markets-newsletter-week-30/">Crop Insurance Decision-Maker</a>&nbsp;(CIDM). The CIDM is a free, web-based decision aid that provides expected revenue net of production expenses and insurance premiums paid under scenarios with and without crop insurance. After analyzing multiple scenarios, the CIDM highlights the risk management option with the highest expected net return as a potential optimal coverage choice. The tool further provides analysis of farmer risk preferences by including data for farmers who are risk-averse and are concerned about extreme weather and pest pressure lowering expected net returns.



In an article published in the latest edition of the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.asfmra.org/resources/asfmra-journal">Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers (JASMFRA)</a>, Serrano, Gardner, and Biram (2026) provide an explanation for CIDM, how to interpret the results in the decision aid, how the results were generated, and where it fits in the greater suite of farmer decision aids. In most instances, results follow those of Biram et al. (2022), who show that even in the presence of ARC and PLC, the optimal decision in most cases is to choose 80-85% coverage. Biram et al. (2022) show that the base premium rate drives the coverage level, with higher base premiums resulting in increasing cost of insurance, and therefore lower optimal coverage levels.&nbsp;



We suggest here that another driver of optimal coverage is the ratio of the farm-level yield expectation, measured by the Actual Production History, to the county-level yield expectation measured by the county Reference Yield determined by RMA. Using Arkansas and Kentucky as examples, Figures 1 and 2 plot optimal coverage levels for risk-averse farmers across various yield ratio levels based on Serrano, Gardner, and Biram (2026). We first note that in all instances, except for cotton grown in one county in Arkansas, purchasing some level of crop insurance is always preferred to not purchasing any crop insurance at all (see Figures 1-2). We also find that the optimal coverage level is at least 70% or greater when the farm-level yield expectation is at least half that of the county yield expectation for Arkansas (Figure 1) or the farm yield expectation is at least 60% of the county yield expectation in Kentucky.



Since these general results are across multiple combinations of states, counties, and coverages, we direct farmers and other users involved in the crop insurance purchase process to consult the CIDM for optimal coverage in a specific county.



Figure 1. The Relationship Between the Yield Ratio and Optimal Coverage Level in Arkansas



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="468" height="245" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.39.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44813"/></figure>



Figure 2. The Relationship Between the Yield Ratio and Optimal Coverage Level in Kentucky



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="468" height="241" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.39.1-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44814"/></figure>



References



Biram, H. D., Coble, K. H., Harri, A., Park, E., &amp; Tack, J. (2022). <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-agricultural-and-applied-economics/article/mitigating-price-and-yield-risk-using-revenue-protection-and-agriculture-risk-coverage/D48491431BE7AD548817728D0544FC8E">Mitigating price and yield risk using revenue protection and agriculture risk coverage.</a>&nbsp;Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics,&nbsp;54(2), 319-333.



Serrano, E., Gardner, G., &amp; Biram, H.D. (2026). Enhancing Crop Insurance Decisions with Data-Driven Tools. <a href="https://www.asfmra.org/resources/asfmra-journal">Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers.</a>



United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. (Accessed 2026). <a href="https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=4055">Farm income and wealth statistics.</a>



United States Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency. (Accessed 2026). <a href="https://www.rma.usda.gov/about-crop-insurance/frequently-asked-questions/revised-premium-ratings-corn-soybeans">Revised premium ratings for corn and soybeans: Frequently asked questions.</a>

Analyzing the Relationship Between the Yield Ratio and Optimal Crop Insurance Coverage Levels

Authors: Wes Brondos, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, James Mingie, Research Specialist, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Sreedhar Upendram, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics



Drinking water systems across the South face increasing repair, replacement, and upgrade costs. State Revolving Funds (SRFs) are an important source of affordable financing. Under the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides capitalization grants to states, which combine federal and state matching funds to provide loans and other assistance to eligible water systems. Since states have flexibility in setting loan terms, the rate a community pays can vary substantially across state lines.



A comparison of nine Southern states &#8211; Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee &#8211; shows that DWSRF rates differ both in level and structure. Figure 1 summarizes the range between standard and most-discounted published rates. Some states rely mainly on a single benchmark or formula, while others use multiple discount tiers based on household income, fiscal capacity, or other affordability measures. Consequently, a state’s standard rate may not reflect the financing available to a lower-income or financially constrained community.



Figure 2 illustrates the standard DWSRF rates in the nine Southern states. Mississippi has the lowest standard DWSRF rates at 1.95 percent with no discount tiers, followed by North Carolina and Louisiana at 2.00 percent and 2.45 percent, respectively. Alabama’s rate includes an interest rate of 0.10 percent and a yearly fee of 2.65 percent that adds up to a rate of 2.75 percent.



Tennessee’s standard DWSRF rate is the highest of the nine, at 3.66 percent without discounts. The state sets a quarterly base rate and applies discounts based on an Ability-to-Pay Index (ATPI). For July-September 2026, Tennessee’s standard rates range from 3.29 percent for 20-year loans to 3.74 percent for 30-year loans, while qualifying communities receive lower rates. While Tennessee’s loan interest range starts at 1.03 percent for a five-year loan, South Carolina’s interest rates start at 2 percent for a five-year loan. States such as Kentucky and South Carolina also use tiered approaches while states such as Georgia use relatively flat rates or formulas tied to market conditions or local income. Fees, loan terms, principal forgiveness, and assistance for disadvantaged communities can further change borrowing costs. Lower financing costs can reduce debt-service pressure on utilities and lessen the need for customer rate increases.



Communities also have federal financing alternatives. USDA Rural Development’s Water and Waste Disposal program serves eligible rural communities, generally those with populations of 10,000 or fewer, and offers repayment terms of up to 40 years. For July-September 2026, USDA&#8217;s poverty, intermediate, and market rates are 2.875, 3.750, and 4.750 percent. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) assistance is primarily related to grant funding, while HUD&#8217;s Section 108 program allows eligible communities to leverage future CDBG allocations through loan guarantees.



The key takeaway is that there is no single consistent SRF rate across the South. Water systems should compare the rates they are eligible to receive and consider fees, repayment terms, service area limitations and the potential for available subsidies. For policymakers, the comparison highlights a choice of three sources to seek water infrastructure funds and enable water systems to choose between simpler, broadly uniform pricing and targeted discounts that direct assistance toward communities with greater financial need. Based on the information presented, water systems can strategize which funding source to target to get better terms on their loans and avail the maximum discounts to repair, replace and upgrade water systems. As a consequence, the savings can be potentially passed on to consumers with lower rate increases for water infrastructure upgrades.



Figure 1. Published DWSRF standard and discounted rate ranges in nine Southern states, July 2026.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1448" height="1086" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.5-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44807" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.5-1.png 1448w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.5-1-1024x768.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.5-1-768x576.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1448px) 100vw, 1448px" /></figure>



Figure 2. Standard Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Rates across the nine Southern States, July 2026.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1448" height="1086" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.5-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44808" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.5-2.png 1448w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.5-2-1024x768.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.5-2-768x576.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1448px) 100vw, 1448px" /></figure>



Sources: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program overview; state SRF rate sheets and Intended Use Plans from Alabama ADEM, Florida DEP, Georgia GEFA, Kentucky Infrastructure Authority, Louisiana DEQ/DOH, Mississippi Department of Health/MDEQ, North Carolina DEQ, South Carolina Rural Infrastructure Authority, and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation; USDA Rural Development, Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program. Tennessee rates shown are State Fiscal Year 2027 first-quarter rates, updated July 22, 2026; USDA rates are for July-September 2026.



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



Recommended citation format: Brondos, Wes, James Mingies, and Sreedhar Upendram. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/the-headline-rate-does-not-tell-the-whole-story-water-infrastructure-financing-across-selected-southern-states/">The Headline Rate Does Not Tell the Whole Story: Water Infrastructure Financing Across the South</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(38.5). September 18, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/the-headline-rate-does-not-tell-the-whole-story-water-infrastructure-financing-across-selected-southern-states/">Permalink</a>

The Headline Rate Does Not Tell the Whole Story: Water Infrastructure Financing Across Selected Southern States

Authors: Bart L. Fischer, Joe L. Outlaw, Henry L. Bryant, Hank R. Nelson, Natalie G. Stewart, J. Marc Raulston, Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&amp;M University. 



The ARC/PLC election &amp; enrollment for 2026 is now live through December 11. You can access AFPC’s decision tool <a href="https://afpc.tamu.edu/tools">here</a>.



Earlier this week, USDA announced (<a href="https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-events/news/09-15-2026/usda-announces-2026-2027-enrollment-key-price-revenue-safety-net">link</a>) that the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) election and enrollment period for the 2026 crop year will run from September 16 through December 11, 2026. This typically occurs much earlier in the year, but the process for the 2026 crop year was delayed due to the amount of time it has taken USDA to implement the Working Families Tax Cuts Act (i.e., One Big Beautiful Bill) which added up to 30 million acres of additional base acres across the United States. This delay is a substantial benefit for producers, since the 2026 crop either has been or soon will be harvested across the country, and producers will have a much better sense of what yields will be (which has a significant bearing on the performance of ARC in particular). With that said, both ARC and PLC use marketing year average prices from the 12 months following harvest.&nbsp; So, while producers may have a clearer sense of what yields will be, the marketing year average price is far from settled. As a result, when they make their election and enrollment decisions over the next 3 months, they must take that uncertainty into account.



&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Agricultural &amp; Food Policy Center (AFPC) at Texas A&amp;M University has decades of experience in developing decision aids for producers.&nbsp; We have provided an annual decision tool for ARC and PLC since those programs were first created in the 2014 Farm Bill.&nbsp; We have once again updated the decision aid for the changes made in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act.&nbsp; We have also refreshed the tool to make it easier to use. If you’ve used it in the past, your existing data should load once you log in. You can find a link to the tool on our website (<a href="https://afpc.tamu.edu/tools">link</a>). Before using the tool, it would be helpful to make sure you have access to your base acre and program yield data which can be found on the FSA-156EZ form.



&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The following screen captures provide a general walk-through of the decision tool. You will be prompted to log-in primarily so you don’t have to enter data again each time you visit the tool. Once you are on the Tools and Decision Aids landing page, simply click on “2026 FSA ARC/PLC Expected Payments” (circled in red below).



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1570" height="1172" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44795" role="none" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-1-1.png 1570w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-1-1-1024x764.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-1-1-768x573.png 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-1-1-1536x1147.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1570px) 100vw, 1570px" /></figure>



From that point, you can add as many farms (i.e., FSA Farm Serial Numbers, or FSNs) as needed by clicking on the blue “+ Create a Farm” button. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1526" height="1192" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44796" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-2.png 1526w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-2-1024x800.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-2-767x599.png 767w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1526px) 100vw, 1526px" /></figure>



Once your farms have been added, simply click “+ Add a crop” to add the covered commodities associated with that farm.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1518" height="1178" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44797" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-3.png 1518w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-3-1024x795.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-3-767x595.png 767w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1518px) 100vw, 1518px" /></figure>



Once you’ve added the crops (i.e., covered commodities) on the farm, click “Analyze.”



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1540" height="1166" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44798" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-4.png 1540w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-4-767x581.png 767w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-4-1024x775.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-4-1536x1163.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1540px) 100vw, 1540px" /></figure>



At this point, you will be prompted to add Base Acres for that covered commodity on the farm along with the 2026 PLC Payment Yield, the Historically Irrigated Percentage, and the Expected Price. Because the marketing year average price is far from known at this point, you are welcome to click on “View Suggested Prices” which will provide the most recent forecasted price for the marketing year from USDA.  You are also welcome to run the analysis as many times as you want using your own price estimates. Because this tool evaluates PLC versus ARC County (ARC-CO), if you have a very good sense of what the 2026 actual yield for the county will be, you may wish to override our forecasted yield.  You can do that by clicking on “Advanced Settings” and inputting your own county yield estimate.  Once you are finished, simply click “Calculate” and then scroll down for the results.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1006" height="1522" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-5.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44799" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-5.png 1006w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-5-677x1024.png 677w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-5-767x1161.png 767w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1006px) 100vw, 1006px" /></figure>



Once you’ve clicked “Calculate,” the results will display below. As noted in the following figure, the results will include a table of summary statistics (i.e., mean and median expected payments and chance of payment) along with a chart that shows the likelihood of both ARC and PLC across a range of possible payments. Again, you are welcome to run the tool as many times as you want under as many different assumptions/scenarios as you want.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="978" height="1488" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-6.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44800" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-6.png 978w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-6-673x1024.png 673w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.4-6-768x1168.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 978px) 100vw, 978px" /></figure>



While the decision tool discussed above is for PLC and ARC-CO, we know that some producers will be interested in exploring possible payments under ARC Individual (ARC-IC). We have developed a separate, Excel-based tool that you are welcome to download from the same website (2026 ARC-IC Decision Aid).



Please note that USDA also announced that signup for the 2027 crop year will begin on November 2, 2026, and run through March 15, 2027. We will be providing an updated tool for the 2027 crop year as we get closer to November 2nd.



Our FREE tools are available for producers nationwide. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to reach out at 979-845-5913 or 1(888)890-5663.



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



Recommended citation format: Fischer Bart L., Joe L. Outlaw, Henry L. Bryant, Hank R. Nelson, Natalie Stewart, and J. Marc Raulston. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/making-the-arc-plc-election-for-the-2026-crop-year/">Making the ARC/PLC Election for the 2026 Crop Year.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(38.4). September 17, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/making-the-arc-plc-election-for-the-2026-crop-year/">Permalink</a>

Making the ARC/PLC Election for the 2026 Crop Year

The USDA released the latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) on September 11, 2026. These are the first updates to last month’s survey-based yield estimates and adjusted area estimates using data from the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) certified acres (Maples, 2026). This month’s WASDE report continues to refine those yield and acreage estimates. Overall, the September report forecasts increased prices for most crops, relative to the August forecast.



There was little change in projected harvested acres, compared to the August report. Sorghum forecast harvested acres decreased by 3.7% compared to the August projection, to 5.2 million acres. This change was driven by 50-thousand-acre declines in planted acres in both Kansas and Texas. Peanuts had a 0.9% decrease in projected harvested acres, due to small declines across a number of states. Corn, cotton, rice, and soybeans all had less than a 0.5% change in predicted harvested acres, relative to the August forecast.



Forecasted yields were down for the most part, relative to August. Upland cotton showed the largest decline at 2.8%, to 766 lb. per acre, which would mark a 9.0% decrease compared to last year. Texas – the largest cotton producing state – is forecasted to have a 15.8%-lower yield than last year, driving the decreased national yield. Drought across the Texas High Plains is the main cause of the lower forecast cotton yield, as 63% of US total cotton acres are in areas of drought. Sorghum yields were predicted to fall by 1.8% to 54.4 bu. per acre, also due to the drought across the Southern Plains. If realized, this would mark a 25.1% decrease in yield compared to 2025. Peanut yields are forecast 1.9% lower than August, due to decreases across most of the peanut-producing states. This is prior to any impacts that may occur from the closing of the Delta Peanut facility in Arkansas (Reneau, 2026). Lastly, corn yields are forecast down 1.2% nationwide, while rice and soybeans are up 0.6% and 0.2%, respectively.



These updated yield and acreage levels have led to decreased production estimates for most crops. Cotton and sorghum had the largest drop in production compared to the August forecast, at 3.0%. Peanuts are projected to have a 2.8% decrease in production, corn a 1.3% decrease, and rice a 0.1% decrease compared to August. In contrast, soybean production is up 0.4%.



Forecasted marketing-year prices increased for all crops except for rice (table 1). Sorghum had the largest rise (7.0%), followed by corn (6.7%), soybeans (5.3%), and upland cotton (4.0%). Despite an increase in estimated soybean production, soybean prices were buoyed by increased expected usage due to higher exports. While this month’s WASDE report provided more information about the size of this year’s crop, these values will continue to be refined throughout the rest of the year in subsequent reports.



Table 1: Past and Projected US Marketing-year Prices by Crop



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table style="border-style:none;border-width:0px"><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Crop</td><td colspan="3">Price</td></tr><tr><td>2025/26E</td><td>2026/27F August</td><td>2026/27F September</td></tr><tr><td>Corn (bu.)</td><td>$4.15</td><td>$4.50</td><td>$4.80</td></tr><tr><td>Cotton (cwt.)</td><td>$62.00</td><td>$75.00</td><td>$78.00</td></tr><tr><td>Rice (cwt.)</td><td>$12.40</td><td>$14.90</td><td>$14.90</td></tr><tr><td>Sorghum (bu.)</td><td>$3.70</td><td>$4.30</td><td>$4.60</td></tr><tr><td>Soybeans (bu.)</td><td>$10.50</td><td>$11.40</td><td>$12.00</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: USDA. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. September 11, 2026.</figcaption></figure>



References



Maples, William E. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/08/18/august-wasde-brings-new-acreage-and-yield-estimates/">August WASDE Brings New Acreage and Yield Estimates.</a>” Southern Ag Today 6(34.3). August 19, 2026.



Reneau, A. “Arkansas Peanut Growers Face Uncertainty after Delta Peanut Loses Federal Warehouse Bond.” K8News. Available at: <a href="https://www.kait8.com/2026/09/12/arkansas-peanut-growers-face-uncertainty-after-delta-peanut-loses-federal-warehouse-bond/">https://www.kait8.com/2026/09/12/arkansas-peanut-growers-face-uncertainty-after-delta-peanut-loses-federal-warehouse-bond/</a>



USDA. US Agricultural Commodities in Drought. September 8, 2026. Available at: <a href="https://agindrought.unl.edu/Maps.aspx?1">https://agindrought.unl.edu/Maps.aspx?1</a>



USDA-NASS. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. September 11, 2026. Available at: <a href="https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/release-files/796054/wasde0926.pdf">https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/release-files/796054/wasde0926.pdf</a>



USDA-NASS. Crop Production. September 11, 2026. Available at: <a href="https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/release-files/796056/crop0926.pdf">https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/release-files/796056/crop0926.pdf</a> &nbsp;



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



Recommended citation format: Sawadgo, Wendiam. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/september-wasde-forecasts-lower-production-higher-prices-for-most-crops/">September WASDE Forecasts Lower Production, Higher Prices for Most Crops.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(38.3). September 16, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/september-wasde-forecasts-lower-production-higher-prices-for-most-crops/">Permalink</a>

September WASDE Forecasts Lower Production, Higher Prices for Most Crops

Authors: Sanchez Philocles, Manuel Garcia, Texas A&amp;M AgriLife Extension Service- Department of Agricultural Economics and Samuel Zapata, Texas A&amp;M University- Department of Agricultural Economics



Certified halal represents a premium-generating attribute in meat production, comparable in commercial terms to organic, grass-fed, antibiotic-free (ABF), or kosher designations (USDA AMS, 2025). Halal certification requires that animals be processed, handled, and stored in accordance with Islamic dietary laws and traditions. This market niche is of particular interest given the significant expansion of halal food markets in the United States (US). To illustrate, Al-Mahmood (2020) showed that the number of halal food markets in the US went from 200 stores in 1998 to 2,100 in 2018, with 85% of those stores selling halal meat. Furthermore, <a>Green and Gammon (2016)</a> have found that halal food is important not only to the US Muslim Population but also to young non-Muslim Americans, many of whom have embraced halal food believing it to be a healthier dietary alternative. This trend creates growth opportunities for livestock operations, slaughter facilities, restaurants, and foodservice providers, in a market expected to reach $20 billion in annual sales (Halawa, 2018).



In this article, we compare retail prices for conventional and halal-certified beef, lamb, goat, and chicken. Data for this analysis comes from the 2025 weekly grocery store feature activity reports published by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). For example, in 2025, conventional ground beef was sold for an average of $5.65/lb., compared with $8.76/lb. for ABF, $8.19/lb. for USDA organic, $8.08/lb. for grass-fed, and $7.09/lb. for halal (Table 1). Similar price premium patterns were observed across other cuts and meat types.



To highlight price differences, Figure 1 presents the percentage premiums across the four main protein categories: beef, lamb, goat, and chicken. Among halal beef products, ribs were sold at a premium of 60% relative to conventional alternatives. Loin cuts commanded the highest premium (127%), while ground beef exhibited the lowest premium (25%). Halal goat products also showed substantial premiums; in particular, goat stew meat was sold at a premium of 147% in 2025. This result has important implications for US goat producers and livestock processors because most of the halal goat consumed in the US is imported from Australia. Therefore, industry stakeholders can develop targeted strategies to capture a market segment with untapped potential.



Halal chicken exhibited the highest average premium across all three cuts included in the analysis. Boneless chicken breasts, drumsticks, and thighs were sold at premiums of 181%, 125%, and 74%, respectively. Despite the high premiums on halal chicken, beef, and goat, higher prices do not automatically translate into higher profits. Premiums should be considered in conjunction with sales volumes, market demand, certification costs, production adjustments, and marketing requirements needed to serve halal consumers.



Finally, halal lamb products showed the smallest and most variable premium levels across four major cuts. Lamb legs were sold at a premium of 10%, while loin and ribs cuts commanded premiums of 50% and 63%, respectively. On the other hand, ground lamb was sold at a discount of 15% compared to conventional.



These findings highlight halal certification as a value-added strategy for US livestock producers and processors, particularly those involved in goat and chicken production, as these categories exhibited some of the highest premiums. However, the potential for higher returns must be weighed against the additional costs and production adjustments required to meet halal certification and market requirements. The premiums reported here should be treated as inputs to that evaluation, rather than a forecast of profitability.



Table 1. Average retail price by product and certification attribute in 2025.



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Commodity</td><td rowspan="2">Section/type</td><td colspan="7">Avg. retail price ($/lb.)</td></tr><tr><td>Conventional</td><td>Grass Fed</td><td>Antibiotic Free</td><td>Kosher</td><td>USDA Organic</td><td>Free Range</td><td>Halal</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Beef</td><td>Ground</td><td>5.65</td><td>8.08</td><td>8.76</td><td>6.24</td><td>8.19</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>7.09</td></tr><tr><td>Loin</td><td>10.59</td><td>22.67</td><td>21.59</td><td>15.31</td><td>23.05</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>23.99</td></tr><tr><td>Rib</td><td>9.76</td><td>19.92</td><td>16.40</td><td>11.49</td><td>19.45</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>15.64</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Lamb</td><td>Ground</td><td>8.77</td><td>9.10</td><td>9.39</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>7.42</td></tr><tr><td>Leg</td><td>7.74</td><td>7.86</td><td>8.24</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>8.52</td></tr><tr><td>Loin</td><td>10.39</td><td>12.03</td><td>10.21</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>15.56</td></tr><tr><td>Rib</td><td>16.06</td><td>18.08</td><td>19.51</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>26.21</td></tr><tr><td>Goat</td><td>Other: Stew meat</td><td>5.06</td><td>10.99</td><td>10.99</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>12.49</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Chicken</td><td>Breast, boneless/skinless</td><td>3.03</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>4.63</td><td>7.98</td><td>8.02</td><td>6.39</td><td>8.51</td></tr><tr><td>Drumsticks</td><td>1.26</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>1.91</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>3.51</td><td>2.86</td><td>2.84</td></tr><tr><td>Thighs</td><td>1.63</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>2.19</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>5.57</td><td>3.36</td><td>2.84</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Note: All beef cuts included in the analysis were classified as ungraded. Source: USDA AMS 2025</figcaption></figure>



Figure 1. Retail price premiums (%) for halal meat cuts relative to conventional alternatives in 2025



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1307" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.2-2-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44782" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.2-2-scaled.png 2560w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.2-2-1024x523.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.2-2-2048x1046.png 2048w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.2-2-768x392.png 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.2-2-1536x784.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA AMS 2025</figcaption></figure>



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



References:



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>Al-Mahmood, O. A., Jiang, X., Bridges, W. C., &amp; Fraser, A. M. (2024). A Longitudinal Study: Microbiological Quality of Raw Beef from Halal and Non-Halal Meat Markets in the United States.&nbsp;Applied Microbiology,&nbsp;4(3), 1193-1202.</li>



<li>Green, J., &amp; Gammon, C. (2016). How halal food became a $20 billion hit in America.&nbsp;Bloomberg, available at: www. bloomberg. com/news/articles/2016-09-14/america-loves-muslim-food-so-much-for-a-clash-of-civilizations (accessed 25 October 2016).</li>



<li>Halawa, A. (2018). Acculturation of Halal Food to the American Food Culture Through Immigration and Globalization: A Literature Review. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies 5(2):53–63. <a href="https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/89">https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/89</a></li>



<li>U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Service (2025). Grocery Store Feature Reports, available at: <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news/grocerystore">https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news/grocerystore</a></li>



<li>U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2025). Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System. <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system</a></li>
</ol>



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



Recommended citation format: Philocles, Sanchez, Manuel Garcia, and Samuel Zapata. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/market-opportunities-for-certified-halal-meat-in-the-united-states/">Market Opportunities for Certified Halal Meat in the United States.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(38.2). September 15, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/market-opportunities-for-certified-halal-meat-in-the-united-states/">Permalink</a>

 Market Opportunities for Certified Halal Meat in the United States

Authors: Kelli Russell, Jean Ribert Francois, Madison Harris, and Mykel Taylor, Auburn University-Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology



Depending on their vantage point, people define “good farming” in a myriad of ways,&nbsp; from profitability and production yields to conservation and innovation. To better understand how Southern producers think about good farming, we surveyed farmers across Alabama about their perspectives on what it means to be a good farmer. Using data from the 2025 Alabama Farm Poll pilot, which included 321 Alabama growers, we show how producers rate aspects of being a “good farmer” across four categories: production and profitability, soil and environmental stewardship, technology and management, and community and long-term responsibility. The Alabama Farm Poll is a biennial producer survey conducted by Auburn University.



Survey respondents rated the importance of various practices and activities using a five-point scale ranging from “very important” to “not important at all” regarding being a good farmer. Figure 1 highlights the results from the survey. Notably, no producers viewed the protection of streams as “not important at all,” meaning that all producers viewed this practice at least slightly important to being a good farmer. Reducing soil erosion had the highest percentage of respondents (28%) rating it as “very important” to being a good farmer. Overall, more than 80% of all producers who responded to the survey rated reducing soil erosion as either very important or important.



Figure 1. Alabama farmers’ ratings of the importance of practices and activities to being a “good farmer.” Survey statements are shortened for presentation.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1430" height="660" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44754" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.1-1.png 1430w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.1-1-1024x473.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/6.38.1-1-767x354.png 767w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1430px) 100vw, 1430px" /></figure>



In contrast, producers placed relatively little emphasis on using modern equipment as a defining characteristic of good farming. Only 3% of producers surveyed rated it as “very important” and 13% rated it as “important.” This finding is notable, as many precision agriculture technologies aimed at supporting soil and environmental stewardship (practices that producers rated as important) require modern equipment. Future research in the Southern region should explore how producers consider equipment investments in relation to conservation decisions.



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



Recommended citation format: Russell, Kelli, Jean Ribert Francois, Madison Harris, and Mykel Taylor. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/can-cooperatives-help-reverse-the-decline-in-rural-grocery-stores/">Defining a Good Farmer.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(38.1). September 14, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/09/08/can-cooperatives-help-reverse-the-decline-in-rural-grocery-stores/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities