Heritage crops, grown from open-pollinated old cultivars, are more than just food—they embody history, culture, and biodiversity (Bessière, 2023; Britwum &amp; Demont, 2022; Preston et al, 2012;). They can strengthen ecosystem resilience by attracting a wide range of pollinators to the agricultural field (Preston et al., 2012) and offer valuable genetic diversity that plant breeders can use to improve future crops (Wincott, 2018).&nbsp;



In the U.S., over 200 heritage foods have been cataloged by Slow Food USA (Slow Food USA, 2024). Among them, nearly 100 are originated from the Southeastern U.S. Examples include Carolina Gold rice, Sea Island red peas, and Green Glaze collards. Southeastern states such as Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Alabama have long traditions of growing heritage specialty crops, many of which thrive in the warm and humid conditions characteristic of the region.&nbsp;



Despite their cultural and ecological value, heritage crops can be more costly to grow than modern alternatives. Growers may require a price premium for this to be a profitable crop production choice. A recent national consumer survey indicates that over half of U.S. consumers are either unaware or only slightly aware of heritage varieties&nbsp;(Figure 1). Importantly, when we isolate responses from the Southeastern U.S., consumer awareness is similar to the national average, suggesting a critical challenge to preserve heritage crops through market‐based conservation strategies. Americans show a moderate willingness to pay a premium for heritage rice and tomato, while they are less inclined to pay more for heritage apple, cabbage, and squash (Nian et al., 2025). To safeguard these crops, integrated strategies are essential:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Consumer education campaigns should highlight the cultural heritage, nutritional benefits, and environmental contributions of these crops—especially in Southern states where traditional foodways remain strong.</li>



<li>Geographic indication labeling can help Southern growers develop place-based branding (e.g., “Carolina Golden Rice” or “Appalachian Beans”) that commands higher market value.</li>



<li>Public investment in regional seed conservation, grower support networks, and direct-to-consumer marketing can reduce risk and increase profitability for producers willing to diversify with heritage crops.</li>
</ul>



In summary, heritage crops represent a unique opportunity for the Southern U.S. to lead in place-based sustainable agriculture that honors the past while preparing for the future. By bridging the gap between tradition and innovation, we can ensure that heritage crops remain a vibrant part of the U.S. agricultural future.



Figure 1. US consumers’ knowledge of heritage crops



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2071" height="1480" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.5-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42223" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.5-1.png 2071w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.5-1-1024x732.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.5-1-768x549.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.5-1-1536x1098.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.5-1-2048x1464.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2071px) 100vw, 2071px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: Nian et al. (2025)</figcaption></figure>



References



Bessière, J. (2013). ‘Heritagisation’, a challenge for tourism promotion and regional development: an example of food heritage.&nbsp;Journal of Heritage Tourism,&nbsp;8(4), 275-291.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2013.770861">https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2013.770861</a>.



Britwum, K., &amp; Demont, M. (2022).&nbsp;Food security and the cultural heritage missing link. Global Food Security.&nbsp;&nbsp;35, 100660.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100660">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100660</a>.



Nian, Y., Lamie, R.D., Vassalos, M., Tregeagle, D., Boyles, B., &amp; Vossbrinck, D. (2025).&nbsp;A diamond in the rough: Identifying heritage crop niche markets in the U.S. using a discrete choice experiment.&nbsp;Agricultural Economics.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.70043">https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.70043</a>.&nbsp;



Preston, J. M., Maxted, N., Sherman, R., Munro, N., &amp; Ford-Lloyd, B. V. (2012). What&#8217;s in a name: a closer look at heritage variety definition. In&nbsp;Agrobiodiversity conservation: Securing the diversity of crop wild relatives and landraces&nbsp;(pp. 152-160). Wallingford UK: CABI.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938512.0152">https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845938512.0152</a>.&nbsp;



Slow Food USA. (2024). Ark of Taste | Slow Food USA.&nbsp;<a href="https://slowfoodusa.org/ark-of-taste/">https://slowfoodusa.org/ark-of-taste/</a>.



Wincott, A. (2018). Treasure in the vault: The guardianship of ‘heritage’ seeds, fruit and vegetables.&nbsp;International Journal of Cultural Studies,&nbsp;21(6), 627-642.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877917733541">https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877917733541</a>.



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



Nian, Yefan, Daniel Tregeagle, Dave Lamie, and Michael Vassalos. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/preserving-americas-heritage-crops-low-consumer-awareness-makes-market-based-conservation-challenging/">Preserving America’s Heritage Crops: Low Consumer Awareness Makes Market-Based Conservation Challenging</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(28.5). July 11, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42219">Permalink</a>

Preserving America’s Heritage Crops: Low Consumer Awareness Makes Market-Based Conservation Challenging

According to the most recent data on U.S. and China reciprocal tariffs, as reported by the Peterson Institute for International Economics (Bown, 2023), U.S. tariffs on imports from China currently stand at 51.1%, while Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods are at 32.6%. This is an improvement compared to the tariff levels in late April and early May that exceeded 100%. However, these tariffs have had a significant impact on U.S. agricultural exports to China. China is among the top five export destinations for U.S. agricultural exports (Mexico, Canada, China, Japan, and South Korea). China experienced the most significant decrease among the top markets, with exports plummeting by 55.0%, from $11.1 billion in 2024 (YTD: January – May) to just $5.0 billion in 2025 (See Table 1). This sharp drop highlights the impact of geopolitical tensions, tariff disputes, and shifting global supply chains.



This Monday (July 7, 2025), President Trump announced on Truth Social that the U.S. will impose a 25% tariff on imports from Japan and South Korea, effective August 1st&nbsp;(Fortnam, 2025). This move marks a significant shift in trade policy, targeting two major allies and the 4th and 5th largest destination markets for U.S. agricultural exports. While the tariffs are intended to address bilateral trade deficits and protect U.S. industries, this decision is likely to strain diplomatic relations and could have a significant impact on U.S. agricultural exports similar to what we have experienced with China. Unlike China, U.S. agricultural exports to Japan and South Korea showed positive growth in 2025 YTD. Japan’s imports increased by 6.0%, rising from $5.5 billion to $5.8 billion in 2025. South Korea had the highest growth among the top markets, with a 15.8% increase, from $3.8 billion to $4.4 billion in 2025 (See Table 1). This surge reflects South Korea’s expanding market for U.S. agricultural goods, driven by favorable trade agreements and growing consumer demand.&nbsp;



U.S. agricultural exports to Japan and South Korea totaled $11.9 billion and $8.5 billion in 2024, respectively. Japan is a major market for U.S. corn ($2.7 billion), beef products ($1.9 billion), pork products ($1.4 billion), and soybeans ($1.0 billion). South Korea is a significant market for U.S. beef products ($2.2 billion), pork products ($0.7 billion), and corn ($0.7 billion) (USDA, 2025). If President Trump imposes a 25% tariff on imports from Japan and South Korea, U.S. agricultural trade with these countries could face significant challenges. Japan and South Korea are the 3rd and 4th largest markets for U.S. agricultural exports, showing positive growth in recent years. The tariffs could lead to reduced demand for U.S. products, harming American farmers. Additionally, Japan and South Korea might retaliate with their own tariffs on U.S. goods, further exacerbating the situation and disrupting established trade relationships.



Table 1.&nbsp;U.S. Agricultural Exports, Total and Top Destinations: 2024 and 2025 (January – May)



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" rowspan="2">Country</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2024</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Jan – May 2024</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Jan – May 2025</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" rowspan="2">% Change</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="3">$ billion</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">World (total)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$176.4</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$74.2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$72.2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-2.6</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Mexico</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">30.2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">12.5</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">12.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-1.7</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Canada</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">29.5</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">12.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">11.6</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-3.2</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">China</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">24.4</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">11.1</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">-55.0</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Japan</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">11.9</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5.5</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5.8</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">6.0</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">South Korea</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">8.5</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">3.8</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4.4</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">15.8</td></tr><tr><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="5">Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (2025)</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



For more information:



Bown, C.P. (2025).&nbsp;US-China Trade War Tariffs: An Up-to-Date Chart. Peterson Institute for International Economics.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2019/us-china-trade-war-tariffs-date-chart">https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2019/us-china-trade-war-tariffs-date-chart</a>



Fortnam, B. (2025). “Trump tells Japan, Korea he’s imposing 25 percent tariffs as of Aug. 1.”&nbsp;Inside U.S. Trade&nbsp;(July 7, 2025)&nbsp;<a href="https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/trump-tells-japan-korea-he-s-imposing-25-percent-tariffs-aug-1">https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/trump-tells-japan-korea-he-s-imposing-25-percent-tariffs-aug-1</a>&nbsp;(subscription required for access).



U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2025).&nbsp;Global Agricultural Trade System. Foreign Agricultural Service.&nbsp;<a href="https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx">https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx</a>



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



Muhammad, Andrew. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/u-s-agriculture-could-face-new-challenges-with-president-trumps-proposed-tariffs-on-japan-and-south-korea/">U.S. Agriculture Could Face New Challenges with President Trump’s Proposed Tariffs on Japan and South Korea</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(28.4). July 10, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42235">Permalink</a>

U.S. Agriculture Could Face New Challenges with President Trump’s Proposed Tariffs on Japan and South Korea

Exports are an important source of demand for U.S. cotton. From 2015-2024, the U.S. has exported an average of 13.6 million bales per year, 85% of annual cotton production (USDA FAS-PS&amp;D). The monthly variation in U.S. cotton exports is tied to production cycles and global demand.&nbsp;&nbsp;In particular, U.S. export variation is directly tied to the U.S. production cycle, and indirectly to the production cycles of other top producing countries who are also major consumers, e.g., China, India, and Pakistan. Figure 1 shows the 10-year average (2015–2024) monthly percent of total annual U.S. cotton export value by month, along with values reported from January to April 2025. Historically, March through May are peak months for U.S. cotton exports, with March (12.5%), April (11.1%), and May (10.9%) accounting for the highest monthly average percent of total annual export value. This may indicate that the weekly export sales pace during the Spring months may be important positive determinants of March and May ICE cotton futures prices. After May, exports begin to decline, reaching their lowest point in October (4.1%). In the final months of the year, export values increase in November (5.1%) and December (7.4%).



Figure 1.&nbsp;Percent of Total U.S. Cotton Export Value by Month, 10-Year Average (2015-2024) and 2025 Value by Month&nbsp;&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1430" height="873" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42215" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-1-1.png 1430w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-1-1-1024x625.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-1-1-768x469.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1430px) 100vw, 1430px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA FAS) Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS)</figcaption></figure>



U.S. Cotton Exports to China, Canada, and Mexico



U.S. cotton exports to China follow a similar pattern as the global U.S. exports.&nbsp;Export values peak in March (12.1%) and reach a low in October (3.8%; Figure 2). For Canada and Mexico, export sales are more consistent month-to-month (Figure 3). The stable pattern of U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico is likely due to proximity and the U.S. being the main supplier (although Mexican domestic production would be a competitor with U.S. production). U.S. cotton exports to Canada are significantly lower in quantity and value compared to exports to China and Mexico, but are relatively stable across the calendar year, with minimal variation between months. From January to April, monthly export values remain between 7.5% and 7.9%, with a peak in May. Mexico also has consistent import levels across months, with a slight peak at 9.2% in March and September and the lowest percent in December (6.2%).&nbsp;



Figure 2.&nbsp;Percent of U.S. Cotton Export Value by Month to China, 10-Year Average (2015-2024) and 2025 Value by Month&nbsp;&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1430" height="864" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42216" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-2.png 1430w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-2-1024x619.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-2-768x464.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1430px) 100vw, 1430px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA FAS) Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS)</figcaption></figure>



Figure 3. Percent of U.S. Cotton Export Value by Month to Canada and Mexico, 10-Year Average (2015-2024) and 2025 Value by Month  



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2158" height="1237" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42217" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-3.png 2158w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-3-1024x587.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-3-768x440.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-3-1536x880.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.3-3-2048x1174.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2158px) 100vw, 2158px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA FAS) Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS)</figcaption></figure>



U.S. Cotton Exports to the Rest of the World (ROW; World minus China, Canada, and Mexico)



U.S. exports to countries other than Canada, Mexico, and China grouped as the Rest of World (data not shown) follows a similar seasonal pattern as global trends displayed in figure 1. Spring marks the strongest months with March (12.9%), April (11.4%) and May (11.5%) accounting for a large portion of annual export value. However, towards the end of the year there is a significant decrease in September (4.5%), October (3.7%) and November (4.3%).



References



USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA FAS) Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS)



Accessed at:&nbsp;<a href="https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/ExpressQuery1.aspx">https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/ExpressQuery1.aspx</a>



USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA FAS) Production, Supply, and Distribution (PS&amp;D)&nbsp;Accessed at:&nbsp;<a href="https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/advQuery">https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/advQuery</a>

Monthly Variability in U.S. Cotton Exports

We’ve written a lot in&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;over the last couple of months on cattle and beef prices, but some other things are happening in livestock markets.&nbsp;&nbsp;Hog prices have jumped to their highest level in three years, bringing some needed profits to the industry.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Weekly national average barrow and gilt carcass prices, net of premiums and discounts, hit $113.14 per cwt at the end of June.&nbsp;&nbsp;That was the highest price since the beginning of September 2022.&nbsp;&nbsp;The average price a year ago was $88.79 per cwt.&nbsp;&nbsp;Higher hog prices are showing up in higher wholesale pork prices, as well.&nbsp;&nbsp;Wholesale hams, pork bellies, loins, ribs, and trimmings for sausage have all been increasing in price in recent weeks.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Hog and pork prices tend to increase seasonally during the Summer due to reduced production during summer months.&nbsp;&nbsp;Over the last 8 weeks, barrow and gilt slaughter is about 2 percent less than last year.&nbsp;&nbsp;Total pork production is down 0.7 percent over the last 8 weeks compared to last year.&nbsp;&nbsp;To get an idea of the seasonal decline in pork production this year, weekly production averaged 507.5 million pounds in June compared to 555.3 million pounds per week in January.&nbsp;&nbsp;That seasonal decline is not unusual compared to past years.



The price increase, especially when combined with lower feed costs, has brought some much needed profits to the production side of the industry.&nbsp;&nbsp;The industry has been largely treading water over the last year following large financial losses from 2022 into early 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;Small profits have kept the sow herd declining in number, down to 5.979 million sows on June 1, 2025, the fewest since 2016.&nbsp;&nbsp;While the sow herd has been declining, the number of pigs saved per litter has continued to climb, hitting a record 11.7 pigs per litter over the last 6 months.&nbsp;&nbsp;



It appears that higher prices and profits will work their magic to spur a production increase in 2026.&nbsp;&nbsp;Hog producers reported in the USDA’s June Hogs and Pigs report to increase their intended number of sows farrowing in the last quarter of 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;Increased sows farrowing combined with more pigs per litter should boost production in the first half of 2026.&nbsp;&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-1.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-42229" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-1.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-1-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-1-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-1-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-2.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-42230" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-2.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-2-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-2-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-2-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-3.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-42231" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-3.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-3-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-3-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-3-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-4.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-42232" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-4.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-4-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-4-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.2-4-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



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



Anderson, David. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/hog-prices-hit-3-year-highs/">Hog Prices Hit 3-Year Highs.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(28.2). July 8, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42226">Permalink</a>

Hog Prices Hit 3-Year Highs

In May, the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) released commodity cost and return estimates for crop and livestock products grown in the United States. These estimates are published twice a year and offer insights into the costs faced by the “average” producer at the national and regional levels across the United States. Additionally, on June 18, ERS released cost-of-production forecasts for the 2025 and 2026 production years. This article uses the ERS data to examine changes in operating costs<a href="applewebdata://1B08DC14-9E49-49EA-BF26-41CA53F143CC#_ftn1">[1]</a>&nbsp;for producers in southern states since 2022, when farm operating costs peaked, and to estimate future cost trends.



Figure 1 compares operating costs for selected crops in 2022, 2023, and 2024 based on ERS data. Note that ERS divides states into farm resource regions for their estimates. The Prairie Gateway includes most of Texas, parts of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Nebraska, as well as all of Kansas. The Southern Seaboard consists of the easternmost counties of Texas, the northwestern counties of Louisiana, the southeastern counties of Mississippi, and most of Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. Finally, the Mississippi portal covers the eastern parts of Arkansas and Louisiana, along with the western parts of Tennessee and Mississippi.



The data show that operating costs in the southern United States have decreased from their recent highs in 2022; however, they are still significantly above their 10-year averages. The only exception is cotton in the Prairie Gateway states, where increases in ginning costs (due to higher production in 2023 and 2024) and interest costs were enough to offset reductions in other expenses. Table 1 outlines the changes in specific operating costs from 2022 to 2024, explaining why overall costs have decreased since 2022. Unsurprisingly, reductions in operating expenses are mainly due to lower costs for fertilizer, chemicals, and fuel over the past two years.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Unfortunately for producers, the recent decline in operating costs is likely to be temporary. Table 2 presents the ERS forecasts for corn, cotton, peanuts, and soybeans&#8217; operating expenses in 2025 and 2026, alongside the 2024 cost estimates for comparison. The forecasts indicate that operating expenses will remain close to their 2024 level this year and are expected to rise slightly in 2026. Note that the commodity cost forecasts are reported at the national level rather than the regional level. However, regional and national trends are highly correlated in the ERS cost estimates. Therefore, it is reasonable that regional cost forecasts would resemble the national forecast provided by ERS.



Figure 1. Operating Costs ($/ac) for Selected Crops in Southern Regions, 2022-2024 and 10-Year Average



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="972" height="466" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42204" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.1-1.png 972w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.1-1-768x368.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 972px) 100vw, 972px" /></figure>



Table 1. Change in Operating Costs ($/ac), 2022-2024&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="468" height="128" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.1-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42205"/></figure>



&nbsp;Table 2. Estimated and Forecasted Operating Costs, 2024-2026



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="468" height="108" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/5.28.1-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42206"/></figure>



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



<a href="applewebdata://1B08DC14-9E49-49EA-BF26-41CA53F143CC#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;Operating costs for all crops include seed, fertilizer, chemicals, custom services, fuel/lube/electricity, repairs, purchased irrigation water, and interest on operating inputs. In addition, cotton operating costs includes ginning, and peanut operating costs includes commercial drying.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;



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



References and Resources



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Commodity Costs and Returns data.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns/documentation">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns/documentation</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;



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



Wright, Andrew. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/recent-trends-in-farm-operating-costs/">Recent Trends in Farm Operating Costs.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(28.1). July 7, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42193">Permalink</a>

Recent Trends in Farm Operating Costs

On April 22, 2025, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-fda-food-dyes-food.html">announced</a>&nbsp;the agency’s plan to “phase out” petroleum-based synthetic color additives. Though the announcement did not include any formal rulemaking or industry guidance documents, the agency described it as “a significant milestone in the administration’s broader initiative to Make America Healthy Again.” This article will assess where the phase out plan sits roughly two months after its announcement.&nbsp;



Background on synthetic dyes



Color additives are&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/color-additives-information-consumers">defined</a>&nbsp;by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as “a dye, pigment or other substance, which is capable of imparting color when added or applied to a food, drug, cosmetic or to the human body.” Color additives are distinguished from food additives by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and require pre-approval from the FDA before they can be used in food. Specifically, there are two types of color additives – naturally occurring and synthetic. Synthetic dyes are manmade, and the FDA requires that each batch of synthetic dye must be certified as safe for its approved purpose. Thus, all food in the US food supply that contains synthetic dyes has been certified by the FDA that the synthetic dye is safe at its approved level for its approved purpose. Synthetic dyes, which are the color additives targeted by this initiative, are typically petroleum-based. There are currently nine synthetic dyes that might be found in food today, and this initiative aims to phase all nine out of the food supply by the end of 2026.



FDA’s stated actions



Specifically, the phase out plan outlined six measures that the FDA will take:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Establishing a national standard and timeline for the food industry to transition from petrochemical-based dyes to natural alternatives.</li>



<li>Initiating the process to revoke authorization for two synthetic food colorings – Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B – within the coming months.</li>



<li>Working with industry to eliminate six remaining synthetic dyes – FD&amp;C Green No. 3, FD&amp;C Red No. 40, FD&amp;C Yellow No. 5, FD&amp;C Yellow No. 6, FD&amp;C Blue No. 1, and FD&amp;C Blue No. 2 – from the food supply by the end of next year.</li>



<li>Authorizing four new natural color additives in the coming weeks, while also accelerating the review and approval of others.</li>



<li>Partnering with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct comprehensive research on how food additives impact children’s health and development.</li>



<li>Requesting food companies to remove FD&amp;C Red No. 3 sooner than the 2027-2028 deadline previously required.</li>
</ul>



Industry “phase out”&nbsp;



The third prong of FDA’s six-pronged phase out plan was to work with industry to eliminate six synthetic dyes – FD&amp;C Green No. 3, FD&amp;C Red No. 40, FD&amp;C Yellow No. 5, FD&amp;C Yellow No. 6, FD&amp;C Blue No. 1, and FD&amp;C Blue No. 2 – from the food supply by the end of 2026. While many were skeptical of the voluntary nature of this plan, in the two months since the announcement, several food companies have announced their intentions to remove synthetic dyes from their food portfolios. For example,&nbsp;<a href="https://news.kraftheinzcompany.com/press-releases-details/2025/Kraft-Heinz-Commits-to-Remove-FDC-Colors-From-Its-U-S--Portfolio-Before-the-End-of-2027-and-Will-Not-Launch-New-Products-in-the-U-S--With-FDC-Colors-Effective-Immediately/default.aspx">Kraft&nbsp;Heinz</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.generalmills.com/news/press-releases/general-mills-announces-plans-to-remove-certified-colors">General Mills</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.conagrabrands.com/news-room/news-conagra-brands-to-achieve-multi-year-modernization-milestone-in-frozen-portfolio-by-end-of-2025-prn-122927">Conagra Brands</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nestleusa.com/media/pressreleases/eliminate-use-fdc-colors">Nestle USA</a>, PepsiCo, and Tyson Foods have all announced their commitment to removing synthetic dyes from their products.&nbsp;



Part of the reason for the skepticism was that though HHS Secretary Kennedy stated that there was an “understanding” between FDA and food manufacturers at the phase out plan’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0chZOSIs21Q">press conference</a>, no formal agreement was published, nor was any food industry representative present at the event. Part of the willingness of food industry might have something to do with the movement of this issue on a state level.&nbsp;<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB418/id/2839554">California</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/text/HB2354/id/3177443">West Virginia</a>&nbsp;have banned foods containing certain food additives from being sold in their state. Additionally,&nbsp;<a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2316">California</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?LegislationId=141908">Delaware</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?i=247976">Louisiana</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0134&amp;GA=114">Tennessee</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://legiscan.com/WV/text/HB2354/id/3177443">West Virginia</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1038323.PDF">Virginia</a>, and&nbsp;<a href="https://le.utah.gov/~2025/bills/static/HB0402.html">Utah</a>&nbsp;have passed legislation banning school meals from containing certain food additives.&nbsp;<a href="https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB25/id/3247967">Texas</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?i=247976">Louisiana</a>&nbsp;have passed legislation requiring disclosure labels on foods containing certain listed food additives – important to note that at the time of writing this article the Louisiana bill has not yet been signed by its governor. This state level inconsistency might have led to a desire by industry for federal movement on the color additive conversation. Specifically, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, MD, MPH,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0chZOSIs21Q">stated</a>&nbsp;in the press conference that food companies “want to do this,” and that they particularly “don’t want to deal with patchwork of 30 different state plans.”



New Color Additives&nbsp;



The fourth prong of the phase out plan has also seen movement in the past two months. In May, the FDA announced its approval of three new natural color additives. These color additives occur naturally and are not man made, but even natural color additives must be approved as safe for their intended use by the FDA before they can be used in foods.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/379e">21 § USC 379e</a>. Here, the FDA has approved Galdieria extract blue, butterfly pea flower extract, and calcium phosphate. Galdieria extract blue produces a blue color and is derived from the unicellular red algae Galdieria sulphuraria. Butterfly pea flower extract is also a blue color and it can be used to produce shades of blue like bright blues, intense purple, and natural greens. Calcium phosphate is a white color approved for use in ready-to-eat chicken products, white candy melts, doughnut sugar, and sugar for coated candies.&nbsp;



Additionally, as part of the six-pronged plan, FDA stated that it would fast track the authorization of four new natural dyes – the three approved here, and gardenia blue. The FDA also said it would accelerate the review and approval of other natural dyes and would issue guidance to industry. So far, the FDA has not published a guidance, nor made any announcements about the approval of gardenia blue or other natural dyes.&nbsp;



Partnership with NIH&nbsp;



The fifth prong in FDA’s phase out plan was to partner with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct comprehensive research on the effect food additives might have on the health and development of children.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nih.gov/">NIH</a>&nbsp;is a federal agency housed in the Department of Health and Human Services and is primarily responsible for conducting and supporting federal medical research. On May 9, 2025, the FDA&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-and-nih-announce-innovative-joint-nutrition-regulatory-science-program">announced</a>&nbsp;the creation of a joint research initiative with the NIH, titled the Nutrition Regulatory Science Program. This program will implement a nutrition research agenda that provides “critical information to inform effective food and nutrition policy actions to help make Americans’ food and diets healthier.” Specifically, the initiative highlighted the following questions it will aim to answer:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>How and why can ultra-processed foods harm people’s health?</li>



<li>How might certain food additives affect metabolic health and possibly contribute to chronic disease?</li>



<li>What is the role of maternal and infant dietary exposures on health outcomes across the lifespan, including autoimmune diseases?</li>
</ul>



This joint initiative will mirror the FDA and NIH’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/tobacco-science-research/tobacco-regulatory-science-research-program">Tobacco Regulatory Science Program</a>&nbsp;in structure and collaboration with FDA providing expertise in regulatory science and NIH providing the infrastructure for research. FDA states that the initiative will bring together experts in chronic disease, nutrition, toxicology, risk analysis, behavioral science, and chemistry, but is committed to conducting research that is “fair, independent and free of conflicts of interest.”



Remaining prongs



In the past two months, there has been no movement yet on the remaining three prongs of the FDA’s phase out plant. First, the FDA has not published an industry guidance document, promulgated formal rulemaking, nor posted any further documents regarding a national standard and timeline. Second, the FDA has not publicly announced that it has initiated the process for revoking Citrus Red No. 2 or Orange B. Last, though no company who has publicly committed to removing synthetic color additives from its food portfolio specifically mentioned Red Dye 3, it can likely be assumed that it is included under the board definition most are using to describe FD&amp;C dyes.&nbsp;



Conclusion&nbsp;



In only two months, the FDA has moved extraordinarily fast on accomplishing portions of its six-pronged phase-out plan. With an administration that has stated its&nbsp;<a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2835314">commitment</a>&nbsp;to “restor[ing] the focus on the ‘F’ in FDA,” it can be assumed that food-related policies will continue to be a priority.&nbsp;For up-to-date information on FDA announcements, click&nbsp;<a href="https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/su/PDswXKO/TheFeedSignUp">here</a>&nbsp;to subscribe to NALC’s bi-weekly newsletter “The Feed.” &nbsp;To learn more about the phase out plan, click&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/fda-announces-plan-to-phase-out-synthetic-dyes/">here</a>&nbsp;to read NALC article “FDA Announces Plan to ‘Phase Out’ Synthetic Dyes.” To learn more about other FDA updates, click&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/fda-updates-june-2025/">here</a>&nbsp;to read “FDA Updates: June 2025.”&nbsp;



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



Stone, Emily. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/06/17/two-months-in-assessing-the-movement-on-fdas-plan-to-phase-out-synthetic-dyes/">Two Months In: Assessing the Movement on FDA’s Plan to “Phase Out” Synthetic Dyes.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(27.5). July 4, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42184">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities