Policy

Diesel Prices Are Breaking Records Across Multiple States, And Relief May Not Come in 2026

Wed, 06 May 2026 12:53:40 GMT

On Tuesday, President Trump stated that high gasoline prices are a “very small price to pay” for the ongoing war with Iran, arguing they are necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. He predicted prices will “come crashing down” once the war ends. But for farmers and ranchers, diesel prices have risen more than gas, putting a further strain on already high input costs for 2026.

Trump on Oil Prices:

I looked today, it's like at 102 and that's a very small price to pay pic.twitter.com/2V8LC93wFj
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 5, 2026

To start the week, diesel prices went on another run with the national average diesel price is just 20 cents away from reaching a new all-time high. And across the country, a growing number of states aren’t waiting to get there. About six states are already seeing the national average price of diesel reach record highs.

From the Great Lakes to the West Coast, roughly a half dozen states have already smashed previous records, as a late-April dip in prices quickly faded and a fresh surge took hold.

“Diesel now averaging about $5.65 a gallon nationally. That is only about 20 cents away from a new all-time record high,” says Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy . “So even though we had that short-lived break, we’re right back knocking on the door of records again.”

That “break” didn’t last long. De Haan says even though diesel prices saw a bit of a respite for April, with even prices starting to trend down in mid-April, those prices re-accelerated in the last week.

New records for diesel in:
Michigan, $6.01
Illinois, $6.01
Wisconsin $5.67
(Indiana 0.2c/gal away), $6.03
(Ohio ~19c/gal away), $5.93 https://t.co/DV0387vvMR
— Patrick De Haan (@GasBuddyGuy) May 5, 2026

Now, the rally is showing up in state-by-state records, especially in the Midwest.

“Looking at it state by state, Great Lakes states have seen some tremendous refining issues that have really caused prices to rise dramatically,” he says. “Michigan has now set a new all-time record high for diesel over $6. Indiana is just a few tenths of a penny away from setting a new all-time record. Illinois has set a new all-time record. Wisconsin has set a new all-time record.”

And it’s not just a regional story. States in the West were some of the first to not just see the highest prices, but now also hit record levels.

“Out on the West Coast, Arizona set a record a couple of weeks ago, and Washington state is at an all-time record,” he adds. “So there are probably about a half dozen or so states that have set new all-time records, and again, the national average itself is just 20 cents away.”

Perhaps the most telling shift, though, is there’s no longer a low-price refuge.

“No states any longer have diesel averaging below $5 a gallon,” De Haan says. “Texas was the last holdout, and it now is above $5 per gallon. So across the board, $5 diesel is now essentially the floor, and in some areas, that’s actually the cheaper end of the spectrum.”

At the high end, prices are reaching extremes with California’s average diesel price now surpassing $8 per gallon.

Global Tensions Cloud Relief Outlook

With prices continuing to climb, farmers are looking for relief. What would it take to reverse course? That answer remains tied to global uncertainty.

“Relief may be a little bit elusive,” De Haan admits. “It really just depends on the daily developments in the situation between the U.S. and Iran—whether the Strait is open or not, or whether we’re in phases of escalation.”

The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical chokepoint for global energy supply, moving roughly 20 million barrels of oil per day.

“Nothing else matters to the oil market more than this waterway,” he emphasizes. “We’ve seen attacks that have pushed oil prices higher, which in turn pushes diesel wholesale prices up. You may get a little bit of day-to-day relief, but there really is no ‘coast is clear’ until there’s some sort of definitive resolution.”

And even then, he says a turnaround won’t happen overnight.

“If there is a definitive signal to the market, if the Strait reopens and both sides are aligned, prices could start falling within 48 hours,” De Haan explained. “But the rate of decline is likely to slow after that initial drop.”

Prices Likely to Remain Elevated Through 2026

Not only is the rate of decline projected to be slow, but De Haan says diesel prices aren’t likely to drop back to pre-war levels by the end of the year.

“Roughly half of the increase we’ve seen over the last couple of months could come down within the first few months of positive news,” he said. “But the other half could take many more months. We may not get back to pre-conflict diesel prices until late this year—or even into 2027.”

For agriculture, that prolonged stretch of elevated prices carries real consequences.

“When you look at what comes out of a barrel of oil, diesel only makes up about 25%,” De Haan explained. “Gasoline is a larger portion, so it’s been less impacted. Jet fuel, which is an even smaller share, has been hit the hardest. So it’s almost inverse to how much is produced.”

Why Diesel Is Climbing Faster Than Gasoline

If it feels like diesel prices are rising faster and hitting harder than gasoline, there’s a reason rooted in how a barrel of oil gets used.

“Diesel has seen more of the sticker shock compared to gasoline,” says De Haan. “And a lot of that comes down to what comes out of a barrel of oil.”

Not all fuels are created equally in supply. Gasoline makes up the largest share of a refined barrel, while diesel represents a smaller slice, making it more vulnerable when supply is disrupted.

“Gasoline is the top product flowing out of a barrel of oil, so it’s been the least impacted,” De Haan explains. “Diesel, on the other hand, only accounts for about 25% of a barrel, so it’s been more impacted when there are supply issues.”

That imbalance becomes even clearer when looking across the full spectrum of refined fuels.

“The most significant impact has actually been to jet fuel, which is only about 9% of a barrel,” he adds. “So if you look at it inversely—the smaller the share of the barrel, the bigger the impact we’re seeing right now.”

For agriculture, that dynamic matters more than most sectors.

Diesel isn’t optional on the farm. It’s essential. From planting to harvest, it powers tractors, trucks and the supply chain that moves commodities across the country.

“Diesel is the fuel that drives agriculture,” De Haan say. “And that’s why these price increases are so impactful, not just at the pump, but all the way through the economy.”

And while prices are already elevated, the full effect is still working its way downstream.

“Consumers really haven’t even seen the full onset of some of these higher prices yet,” he adds. “That’s going to continue to trickle through in the weeks ahead.”

Demand Holding...for Now

Even with these high prices, so far, demand hasn’t shown many signs of slowing.

“We have not seen much meaningful decrease in demand yet,” De Haan says. “We’ve seen very little, if any, diesel demand destruction so far, which tells you the economy is essentially preparing to pay these prices because it still needs the fuel.”

But there are warning signs ahead.

“If diesel nationally hits $6 a gallon, that’s likely when we start to see consumption slow,” he says. “For gasoline, that number is about $5 a gallon. We’re getting very close to those thresholds.”

Until then, the pressure continues to mount. And for farmers heading deeper into the growing season, that pressure is becoming harder to ignore.

Not Done Yet: Despite Packer Investigation Price Shock, Cattle Prices Could Keep Climbing Through 2030

Tue, 05 May 2026 16:12:18 GMT

Fresh policy headlines injected new uncertainty into cattle markets this week, but they haven’t changed the bigger picture driving beef prices higher.

On Monday, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced an intensified antitrust investigation into the so-called “Big Four” packers — JBS, Cargill, Tyson Foods and National Beef — which together process the vast majority of U.S. cattle. The probe, which the Trump administration says includes millions of documents and a push for whistleblower testimony, underscores growing concern in Washington over market concentration, pricing behavior and the impact on both producers and consumers.

That news sent cattle prices sharply lower.

While policy developments like Monday’s news can dominate the markets on any given day, they don’t necessarily alter the deeper supply-and-demand forces shaping the cattle market. And right now, those forces remain firmly intact: Record-high beef demand and historically low cattle supplies mean these strong cattle prices aren’t just here, but they may be here to stay through the end of the decade.

Cattle Prices Not Done Climbing Yet

Oklahoma State Extension livestock economist Derrell Peel says he’s never been this bullish for this long. And the reason is such strong fundamentals at play. The market’s direction is still being driven far more by biology and consumer behavior than by policy headlines. And while the investigation may shape the industry over time, it does not immediately create more cattle or reduce beef demand, which are two factors that remain at the core of today’s price strength.

The result is a market where short-term volatility — whether sparked by policy, disease concerns or geopolitical events — continues to play out against a longer-term bullish trend. And as long as supplies stay tight and consumers keep buying beef, the broader trajectory points toward the same conclusion: Cattle prices may not be done climbing yet.

What makes the current environment so unusual is not just the volatility in cattle prices, but how long demand has held together despite those increases. Consumers have continued to buy beef even as retail prices climb and supplies tighten, resisting the typical shift toward lower-cost proteins like pork or chicken. That resilience has been a cornerstone of the market’s strength, helping sustain the rally even as production constraints persist.

The Supply Side of the Story

Even with that looming concern, the supply side of the equation continues to dominate the broader market narrative. In fact, one of the most striking aspects of the current cycle is how little progress has been made toward rebuilding the U.S. cattle herd, despite strong price incentives that would typically encourage expansion.

“This is the longest in my entire career that I’ve basically had the same outlook,” Peel says. “This thing really started in the fall of 2022, as far as the current price run that we’re on. It continues. And the story hasn’t changed, and we really haven’t changed anything yet that sets up the idea that it’s going to change anytime soon.”

That consistency reflects a deeper theme within the industry. While high prices might suggest an imminent increase in production, the biological and economic realities of cattle production make rapid expansion difficult, especially when producers remain cautious.

“Very, very limited at this point — so essentially no,” Peel says when asked if there are signs the U.S. cattle herd is starting to rebuild. “I mean, we just have very limited indications of a little bit of interest in heifer retention, but not a lot happening yet. We’re watching the weather at springtime. There’s a lot of concern about drought conditions that could derail anything we might want to do anyway.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by U.S. Farm Report (@usfarmreport)

Without meaningful heifer retention, Peel explains the process of herd rebuilding cannot truly begin. And until that process starts, he thinks the market remains locked in a pattern of tight supplies and upward price pressure.

“The bottom line is we really haven’t started the clock yet on the things that would eventually lead to a top in this market,” Peel says.

That delay has pushed expectations further into the future, extending the timeline for when increased production might finally ease the market. Each passing season without expansion reinforces the same dynamic: limited supply supporting prices.

“Oh, yeah, we keep pushing it out,” Peel says. “You know, I’ve already extended it probably two years. We’re still waiting again for that clock to start at this point. So until we see some definitive signs of substantial amount of heifer retention, you know, the path continues as it is.”

Even if producers were to begin retaining heifers immediately, the lag time between that decision and its impact on beef production would stretch for years. That built-in delay is a defining feature of the cattle cycle and one reason why price trends tend to persist once they are established.

“And it’ll be some months after that,” Peel says. “Typically, a year to a year and a half after we start heifer retention would be when we would expect these markets to peak out. So we’re on a timeline now where, if we start saving heifers right now, it’s going to be the end of the decade before we really change overall beef production significantly.”

The Bullish Run in Cattle: How Long Can It Last?

That long runway helps explain why Peel remains firmly bullish — even at today’s record price levels. In his view, the market simply hasn’t reached the point where supply can begin to catch up with demand.

“Still predicting higher highs, as scary as that is for me to say,” Peel says. “We’re at record-high prices, and I expect that we’re going to go higher. I don’t think the peak in prices happens in 2026. I think it’s somewhere after that.”

Those supply constraints and demand dynamics point toward a market that could remain elevated well into the latter part of the decade.

“It’s really hard to say right now until we sort of know how it’s playing out,” Peel says, referring to how the eventual peak might unfold. “It’s all really kind of ahead of us as far as that goes. I don’t see it happening. We’re on such a slow build that I think it’s going to be more of a measured approach rather than a sharp peak.”

Still Some Uncertainty Ahead

Still, while the long-term outlook remains bullish, the short-term environment is anything but stable. Day-to-day market action continues to be shaped by uncertainty, with external shocks triggering rapid price swings that can complicate marketing decisions for producers.

“In the meantime, we’re dealing with a lot of risk and uncertainty in this market,” Peel says. “So we’re in this unusual situation where we have a bullish outlook and yet a really strong need for producers to be doing risk management just because the market is so volatile on a short-term basis.”

One Risk: High Gas Prices

One of those risks is the fact outside economic pressures are beginning to build. Gas prices recently jumped 33¢ in a single week, reaching their highest level since July 2022. While that may seem disconnected from cattle markets at first glance, fuel costs play a direct role in shaping consumer purchasing power, especially when increases persist over time.

“Economists define demand as willingness and ability to purchase products,” Peel says. “The willingness is there. But the ability, high gas prices is probably the biggest threat out there.”

That distinction between willingness and ability is critical to understanding where the beef market could be headed next. So far, consumers have shown little hesitation in purchasing beef, even at elevated price levels. However, sustained increases in everyday expenses like fuel can gradually erode disposable income, forcing households to make tougher decisions at the meat counter.

“If the current geopolitical situation persists and keeps gas prices high for another few months, at some point in time it may impact consumer incomes enough that it forces them to make more adjustments,” Peel adds. “And that would be the biggest threat to beef demand at this point.”

That potential shift has not yet materialized, but it represents one of the few risks to an otherwise bullish outlook. For now, demand remains strong, helping support prices even as supplies remain historically tight. But the longer external cost pressures linger, the more likely it becomes that consumer behavior could begin to change.

New World Screwworm Risk

Animal health concerns have been one of the more visible drivers of that volatility, particularly when it comes to New World screwworm . Even unconfirmed reports or isolated cases have proven capable of moving markets, highlighting just how sensitive current conditions are to uncertainty.

“These animal health issues are certainly one of them,” Peel says. “We’ve got a lot of things going on right now that are kind of like that. We get news, and markets don’t like uncertainty. And so that’s what we’re dealing with here.”

Peel says in some cases, the uncertainty is worse than the reality, which means the market is even more sensitive to any type of news.

“But the market is also very resilient. So when we do see these impacts, whether it’s from New World screwworm or concerns about infrastructure or geopolitical events, whatever it is, the market tends to react, but then it bounces back pretty quickly,” he points out.

But for producers, Peel says volatility is a major risk.

“And the challenge for producers is to not get caught where you have to be marketing something in the middle of one of these short-term shocks in the market,” he says. “And so that’s the challenge for them to try to manage around that volatility.”

Is the U.S. Prepared?

From a policy and preparedness standpoint, Amy Hagerman, Extension specialist for agriculture and food policy at Oklahoma State University, emphasizes risks like New World screwworm extend beyond cattle imports alone. The pathways for introduction are broader, requiring a more comprehensive approach to monitoring and response.

“This is a pest that likes anything that’s warm-blooded,” Hagerman says. “And so it’s going to catch a ride with anybody that it can catch a ride with.”

Yet, there’s a general assumption that even though the Southern border remains closed to live cattle imports, that if NWS enters the U.S., it won’t be because of cattle. Instead, it could enter the U.S. via wildlife or something else.

“I think a higher level of awareness, education and vigilance is really important, whether we’re talking about pets for somebody who has vacationed in Mexico, or even individuals, or whether we’re talking about wildlife,” Hagerman says. “We’ve seen a real effort, publicly and privately, to kind of enhance that awareness.”

The latest NWS case, according to Hagerman, is less than 70 miles from the U.S. border and points to the urgency of ongoing monitoring efforts in the region.

“As somebody who does a lot of emergency preparedness, I can tell you that all plans never survive interaction with reality,” she says. “But I do think we’ve put a lot of effort, a lot of time into preparing for this — setting up the infrastructure and educating producers because this is going to be a producer-management issue by and large.”

Possible Permanent Changes of Flow of Cattle From Mexico to the U.S.

Peel adds that while such issues may be costly and complex at the individual level, their broader market impact may be limited compared to supply fundamentals.

“I think the risk here for the impact of New World screwworm is not so much a broader market one, because it’s going to be a very costly issue for producers individually to manage, for regional efforts to control it,” Peel says. “It’s probably not going to impact the overall market all that much.”

Beyond animal health, trade policy remains another uncertain variable. The continued closure of the southern border to live cattle imports has already reshaped supply flows, and prolonged disruption could lead to more permanent structural changes.

“I think we could,” Peel says when asked whether trade patterns might shift for good. “I mean, arguably the biggest impacts of all of this in terms of the economic impact of the border being closed, we’ve already felt up to this point.”

“You know, we probably didn’t get 700,000 or 800,000 head of Mexican cattle last year that we would have gotten,” Peel adds. “And so, you know, we’re past that now, but the thing is, those cattle have been dealt with. They’re using them in Mexico. They have infrastructure to utilize those cattle in their domestic market.”

Peel says the longer this goes on, the more supply chains and production systems need to adjust to the fact the normal or historic trade flows have changed.

“The risk is that maybe we lose it permanently. It changes things on a permanent basis,” Peel says.

No matter the day-to-day noise, the market remains defined by a rare combination of strong demand, constrained supply and mounting external pressures. While higher fuel costs could eventually test consumers’ ability to keep paying record prices, the lack of herd expansion continues to underpin a bullish outlook, one that may keep cattle prices elevated through the end of the decade.

House Passes 2026 Farm Bill: The Impact on U.S. Farmers

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:28:02 GMT

With a bipartisan vote of 224-200, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 7567 , the bipartisan Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, on April 30. In addition to extensive updates to food and agriculture programs in a budget-neutral package, this vote marks the farthest a farm bill has made it in Congress since the most recent reauthorization was signed into law in 2018.

After a series of floor debates and last-minute amendments, the bill now moves to the Senate with some notable changes, including:

Year-round E15 sales removed from bill to be voted on in two weeks
Late amendment includes language to strengthen the domestic supply of fertilizer
Pesticide liability protections were stripped from the bill

My amendment passed! Pesticide liability protections have been stripped from the farm bill. 🔥⚔️🔥
— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) April 30, 2026

“Working in Congress on behalf of our nation’s farmers, ranchers, and rural communities is an honor — even when the work requires debating the farm bill through the night,” says House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (PA-15). “I can think of no more important work than championing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and I am extremely pleased to see this bill pass out of the House of Representatives with a strong bipartisan vote.”

With a vote of 14 Democrats in favor, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 obtained the highest number of votes from the minority party on a House farm bill since 2008. Similarly, with over 96% of the GOP Conference voting in favor, this is the highest level of Republican support for a House farm bill in history, affirming the commitment of House Republicans to rural America.

“I especially want to thank all parties who were involved in the negotiations that allowed the farm bill to proceed to the floor and secure a future vote on year-round E15,” Thompson says. “Members of the Biofuels Caucus are tireless champions for rural America, and I look forward to joining them May 13 in advancing that important legislation.”

Swift Senate Action Needed

As the bill heads to the Senate for debate, Thompson reinforces that “farm country needs updated policy” that reflects current challenges in U.S. agriculture.

“The 2026 farm bill fills that gap,” Thompson says. “I look forward to seeing Chairman Boozman and the Senate make progress on this important legislation so we can get the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 sent to President Trump’s desk as soon as possible.”

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, along with all of the Democrats on the committee, says the committee looks forward to working with Senate Republicans on a bipartisan Farm Bill that can be successful on the Senate floor.

“We have been clear that the Farm Bill must address the needs of American farmers and families,” Klobuchar says. “With a five-year high in small farm bankruptcies, the Farm Bill must address rising input costs, provide new opportunities for domestic markets, and fight for a trade agenda that works for everyone. Senate Democrats are committed to ensuring all states are treated equally by delaying the new SNAP cost shifts and addressing the needs of farm country.”

Pesticide Amendment Passes

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-Fla.) highly debated bill passed the House, stripping the farm bill of pesticide liability provisions. Before the amendment, the bill’s original language reaffirmed EPA as the sole agency capable of determining the information listed on a pesticide label. Critics, including Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) advocates, worried the language would shield pesticide manufacturers from liability claims.

D.C. consultant Callie Eideberg, with the Vogel Group, saysthe provision’s controversy means the bill will likely have an uncertain future moving forward.

“This means that pesticide companies, the chemical companies, are now still going to be dealing with the status quo, dealing with different requirements from different states,” Eideberg says.

In a post on X, Rep. Luna reaffirmed her disapproval of glyphosate and other pesticides.

“I do not support giving blanket immunity to corporations at the expense of American families. Pesticides are linked to a 30% increase in childhood cancer and over 170 studies corroborate the evidence,” Luna says.

In a press release following the bill’s approval in the lower chamber, the Modern Ag Alliance, a group backed by chemical company Bayer and over 100 agriculture companies wrote, “Today, the House turned its back on the farmers who feed, fuel and clothe this country. By gutting common-sense crop protection provisions from the farm bill, lawmakers caved to anti-science MAHA activists instead of standing with those who grow our food.”

Iowa farmer Mark Jackson says it is “unfortunate” Congress could not give farmers support for chemical weed control products. Jackson said farmers should be allowed the “freedom to farm” and said glyphosate’s scientific approval process, and the product’s 50-year registration history make it a credible product for farmers to use.

“I think we need to rally around science, follow the science,” he adds.

Eideberg says as the bill moves to the Senate, the MAHA movement could continue to influence debates. She believes the smaller body of the Senate will bring a different dynamic to the issue.

“I think we’re going to see those MAHA influencers feeling very emboldened by this win today and pushing even harder in the Senate to get more of what they’re looking for,” she says.

Farmers Praise Passage of Farm Bill
Ohio farmer and National Corn Growers Association President Jed Bower says USDA programs are important to the success of corn farmers and rural communities, particularly as growers face their fourth year of net losses and struggle with high input costs.

“We look forward to working with our allies in Congress over the next two weeks to secure passage of the E15 legislation,” Bower says. “Thanks to continued efforts on this issue from our biofuel champions, Speaker Johnson promised a vote on E15, and we refuse to allow a handful of multi-million and multi-billion-dollar energy companies to derail our efforts. Allowing the year-round sale of E15 would help our growers by expanding ethanol sales while also saving consumers money at the pump at a time when fuel prices are on the rise.”

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) is looking forward to the Senate taking up the farm bill without delay as farmers face unprecedented challenges.

“The House-passed 2026 Farm Bill supports the farm safety net, preserves existing conservation programs that include opportunities for dairy and livestock producers, bolsters trade promotion programs while protecting common food names, recognizes the important role of dairy in nutrition, and supports animal health programs,” said NMPF President & CEO Gregg Doud. “All of these are important priorities to dairy farmers and the broader industry, and we appreciate the leadership shown by House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson and other dairy champions to get this legislation through the House.”

U.S. pork producers are praising a very significant section that provides “much-needed relief from the misguided California Proposition 12 ” in addition to expanding the Animal Health Protection Act to include improving animal disease traceability and requiring thorough documentation on USDA’s ability to protect producers from significant economic losses due to a foreign animal disease outbreak.

Prop. 12 is creating uncertainty for pork producers and raising costs across the supply chain. Congress has a role to restore regulatory clarity.

It’s time for a fix. #FixProp12

🎥 Video credit: @HouseAgGOP pic.twitter.com/lkAmG1bmAw
— NPPC (@NPPC) April 30, 2026

“Today’s House farm bill passage is a testament to the power of rural America when we stand up for our farms and future generations with a unified voice,” said Rob Brenneman, National Pork Producers Council president and pork producer from Washington County, Iowa. “We wholeheartedly thank our champions—House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson, Rep. Ashley Hinson, and others—for not backing down from the fight for what is right for rural America. He and congressional supporters on both sides of the aisle heard our plea to help America’s pork producers.”

Eideburg points out that opposition to the farm bill pork provisions in the House are coming from several fronts.

“First, it’s coming from animal welfare groups that want to see those requirements in place,” she says. “We want to see minimum standard requirements for gestation rates. This other opposition is coming from companies and farmers who have already complied with Prop 12 and they don’t want that requirement removed because then they are going to be a) at a competitive disadvantage and b) out a ton of capital investment that they made on their to comply.”

The bill reflects many of wheat farmers’ top priorities from modernizing farm credit and safeguarding international food aid programs to enhancing export competitiveness, says National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) President Jamie Kres.

“These provisions will help ensure America’s wheat farmers can remain resilient and globally competitive,” Kres says.

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Ethan Lane appreciates how Thompson and House leadership took the time to listen to real farmers and ranchers.

“Instead of caving to attacks on the livestock industry from shell activist groups that impersonate real producers, a bipartisan group of lawmakers advanced a bill that will provide certainty and important policy fixes for cattle country,” Lane says. “We look forward to engaging with the Senate to advance this farm bill to the president’s desk.”

Industry Says This Farm Bill is Needed Now

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) CEO Ted McKinney says this legislation supports farmers, ranchers and consumers while providing economic growth opportunities for rural communities. H.R. 7567 prioritizes provisions that strengthen local food purchasing programs, enhance international market opportunities, reauthorize the three-legged stool for foreign animal disease prevention and preserve the viability of the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.

The American Veterinary Medical Association says the inclusion of the Healthy Dog Importation Act is just one of the many key veterinary provisions they applaud in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. This would improve importation standards to ensure a dog is healthy when imported into the U.S., which is especially important considering New World screwworm in Mexico continues to move closer to the U.S. border.

“The AVMA applauds the House for advancing a Farm Bill that will strengthen dog importation standards, fund and assess federal programs vital to veterinary medicine, and protect the country’s animal and public health,” says Dr. Michael Q. Bailey, AVMA president. “Enacting the Farm Bill is essential to advancing research into effective recruitment and retention strategies for veterinarians serving in rural and underserved communities. With the legislation now moving to the Senate for consideration, we look forward to working further with Congress and will continue to underscore the importance of including veterinary priorities in the final version of the Farm Bill.”

Now, Not Tomorrow

After voting in support of the bill, Congressman Rick W. Allen (GA-12) says, “Rural America needs a new Farm Bill now, not tomorrow. With today’s passage of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act, House Republicans have once again reaffirmed our commitment to American agriculture and delivered for hardworking growers and producers.”

Eideburg says funding for SNAP program will likely be a major fight in the Senate. The “One Big Beautiful Bill” shifted some costs within the program to state governments. She says the funding restructure and the combined potential vote to ban soda from SNAP could cause tension in the upper chamber.

She also says year-round E15 provisions, which were taken from the farm bill and punted for a vote in the House next week, could see as much opposition in the Senate.

“This really is a big hurdle to get E15, year-round E15 over the line.”

Trump Admin to Roll Out Major Fertilizer Plan This Week, Accelerate U.S. Production Push

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:36:28 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins says the Trump administration will unveil a sweeping set of fertilizer initiatives this week, warning that surging input costs are putting intense pressure on American farmers. Speaking at a Missouri farm on Friday, Rollins told those in attendance that fertilizer has become an issue of national security, which is why she says this week’s announcement will be broader than just USDA, also including EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce and Department of the Interior.

While at GR Farms in Higginsville, Mo., on Friday to roll out an announcement on the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) top-up payments, Rollins described the Trump administration’s upcoming announcement on fertilizer as a large-scale investment initiative. She says while she hoped to roll out the plan while in Missouri, the administration is still finalizing the size of the funding package.

Rollins says the plan will address both immediate actions to stabilize fertilizer prices and a longer-term roadmap aimed at ensuring affordable, domestically produced supply for U.S. farmers.

Washington analyst Jim Wiesemeyer says the plan will likely need to include a mix of financial and policy tools, such as grants, tax incentives, loan guarantees outside of existing USDA programs and greater consistency in U.S. trade policy, while noting imports will still play a role, particularly for key nutrients like potash sourced from Canada.

Short-Term Fertilizer Price Pain

During her comments Friday, Rollins highlighted how quickly fertilizer prices have increased since the conflict started in Iran, outlining the additional strain it is placing on producers.

“We know that urea prices have gone up 50% over the last month. Ammonia is up 30% or more,” she said, adding that “our farmers are feeling that pinch.”

Rollins also told the crowd fertilizer has been a longer-term challenge, even before the situation in Iran caused the latest price spike.

“To be clear, this has been a problem for years. The actual numbers are lower, believe it or not, than they were even in 2022,” she says. “But nevertheless, that jump in prices overnight, we have to address.”

Framing the issue as more than just an economic challenge and one that is a matter of national security after decades of offshoring fertilizer production, Rollins says the administration views the issue as part of a broader structural problem within the fertilizer industry.

“The loss of competition in the fertilizer industry has obviously led to higher fertilizer costs over time,” she says. “When combined with what’s happening overseas with the current geopolitical issues facing our world, certainly we have come to a crossroads that requires immediate action. This is indeed a matter of national security, and we are working to tackle it head on.”

Focus on Domestic Fertilizer Production

While Rollins didn’t give details, she hinted the centerpiece of this week’s announcement will be a major push to reshore fertilizer production, backed by federal investment to accomplish that. Working with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, she says the administration is preparing to direct significant funding toward building new fertilizer plants across the country, while also supporting existing projects.

“I have asked Howard to do, and his team to do, and what we’re doing in partnership is to identify a significant number ... that we can deploy into building out fertilizer plants in America,” she says.

Rollins emphasizes cutting regulatory delays will be critical to making that plan work. She says projects are already being identified nationwide, but permitting delays remain a major obstacle — with the goal of getting that process down to months versus the current years it takes.

“We’ve already begun to identify all over the country. Some are under production. How do we move them along more quickly? Some are in the permitting bureaucracy, which sometimes takes years to get through permitting,” she says. “Our goal is to, instead of years, to get to permitting in a matter of weeks, or perhaps months, so that even in one year, two years and three years, we will have facilities up and running that we will never have had that opportunity or option before.”

United States’ Energy Advantage for Nitrogen Fertilizer

Rollins also points to domestic energy resources as a key factor in expanding fertilizer output, particularly for nitrogen production.

“We became, in a matter of just a short period of time, a net exporter of LNG versus importer, meaning we were producing our own energy in America, so much so that we no longer had to rely on other countries,” she says. “The reason that is important is, as our farmers are facing these exponential nitrogen fertilizer costs, we now have the resources in America. We just have to build the facilities, the manufacturing facilities, to turn that LNG into nitrogen. So this is going to happen quicker than you would normally expect, I think because of the pieces of the puzzle that have already been put into place.”

In the meantime, Rollins says the administration is continuing short-term efforts to improve supply availability and reduce costs.

While the longer-term strategy ramps up, she says the administration is continuing short-term interventions to ease pressure on farmers. These include:

Extending a waiver of the Jones Act
Opening new import channels
Working and meeting with industry/fertilizer companies

Highlighting cooperation with domestic producers, she pointed to CF Industries as an example.

“They have said, in order to protect our farmers, we are going to stop maintenance. We are going look at holding our prices steady,” she says.

She also points to ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice.

“Last year, we signed a joint agreement, USDA did, with the Department of Justice, ensuring that farmers have access to competitive and affordable inputs,” she says. “Looking into the activities of our fertilizer companies and what has happened over the last few years, but with a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Long-Term Goal: Reduce Foreign Dependence

Looking longer term, Rollins says the administration is focused on reversing decades of reliance on foreign suppliers.

“America has offshored for far too long, far too much of our fertilizer production, leaving us dangerously reliant on Russia and China,” she says. “Changing that long-standing industry that is reliant on global markets won’t happen overnight,” she says. “But working with our farmers and across industry and government, we will find ways to make fertilizer that we can do here in America and make sure it is a price that our great farmers can afford.”

At the same time, the administration is increasing scrutiny of fertilizer markets. Rollins noted ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice, saying officials are taking “a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Ultimately, she framed this week’s announcement as the beginning of a broader shift away from foreign dependence.

Rollins says additional details, including funding levels and project specifics, will be included in next week’s announcement.

“We’re at a crossroads that requires immediate action,” she says.

Watch Rollins’ full press conference here:

USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden Says High-Level Washington Meeting Puts Fertilizer Industry on the Spot

Fri, 17 Apr 2026 20:10:03 GMT

The fertilizer market has been a growing point of tension in agriculture for years, but USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden says recent meetings in Washington marked a more direct and wide-ranging confrontation between federal officials and the companies that dominate input supply. Those discussions, he says, were not limited to USDA alone but included a broader slice of the administration’s economic leadership, signaling how central fertilizer costs have become to the national conversation on food production and inflation.

Vaden says cabinet-level officials from the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative were present, alongside USDA leadership and state agriculture commissioners from Iowa and Georgia. Fertilizer executives were also in the room, making the meeting a rare setting where policy makers, regulators and industry leaders sat together to address pricing, supply constraints and long-term market structure.

He says the purpose was not simply informational, but confrontational in the sense of putting real-world farm impacts directly in front of industry decision-makers.

“It was an opportunity for those other cabinet officials to hear from the fertilizer company executives,” Vaden says, “and for those fertilizer company executives to hear from the secretary and me, as well as our two state counterparts who joined, about the real harm that farmers are facing from uncertainty in the market and, equally as importantly, years of elevated prices.”

Vaden says what often gets lost outside agriculture is that the current fertilizer environment is not a short-term disruption, but the continuation of a multi-year pricing trend that has reshaped farm budgets.

“For people who don’t pay attention to ag every day like your listeners do, they may think this fertilizer thing came out of nowhere,” Vaden says. “But American farmers know that we’re on year five or more of elevated prices for fertilizer, and questions about adequate supply of all fertilizer types.”

He adds that the timing of the discussions is critical, as global geopolitical tensions are only adding pressure to already strained markets.

“So I see this as an opportunity now that the attention of everyone is focused on fertilizer, not just agriculture, to begin to solve the problem that has taken years to develop and that has been exacerbated by the current situation in the Middle East,” Vaden says. “So that we don’t find ourselves in another long-term question about fertilizer supply going forward.”

USDA Pushes Industry: Bring Projects Forward or Explain the Bottlenecks

As discussions continue with fertilizer companies, Vaden says USDA is shifting the conversation from general concern to specific accountability. Rather than broad discussions about market conditions, he says officials are now asking companies to identify concrete projects that could increase supply and to explain why those investments have not yet materialized.

This approach, he says, reflects a broader strategy inside the department to move beyond analysis and toward action, particularly in areas where supply constraints have persisted for years without meaningful change.

In meetings held both jointly and separately with industry leaders, Vaden says USDA has been consistent in its message to fertilizer companies.

“We are saying the same thing to everyone who comes before the department,” Vaden says. “Be a part of the solution, don’t be a part of the problem.”

He says that includes detailed questions about whether expansion projects are already in development but stalled due to permitting delays, regulatory barriers or capital constraints. In some cases, he says, USDA is asking companies to identify where federal or state action could realistically speed up timelines.

“We are asking them what projects they have in the pipeline that they can bring on board to create new fertilizer supplies, hopefully here domestically, but if necessary, near-shoring overseas,” Vaden says. “And are there steps that we can take to make those projects move faster? Are there permits that are held up? Are there states or localities that are holding up their expansions? Are there investments that they are looking for with regard to needing capital to be able to expand their production capacity?”

He adds the department is not approaching the issue passively, but actively pressing for answers.

“We’re asking as many questions as we are making declarative statements, and we’re trying to see what levers we can pull to get more supply on the market,” Vaden says.

Market Concentration at Center of USDA Concerns

Beyond supply timelines and permitting issues, Vaden says one of the core structural concerns in fertilizer markets is the level of consolidation, particularly in phosphate production where a small number of companies control a dominant share of supply.

He says that level of concentration raises fundamental questions about how prices are formed and whether farmers are receiving signals that reflect true market conditions.

With that in mind, Vaden says USDA is focusing heavily on competition and price discovery as part of its broader review of input markets.

“With one of our fertilizer markets, there are two companies that control 90% market share,” Vaden says. “Anybody, I don’t care whether it’s fertilizer or what any other commodity you want to talk about, if there are only two major players, how can anyone be sure that the price you are paying reflects actual market conditions?”

He says the issue is not simply about individual price spikes, but about whether enough competition exists to keep pricing behavior transparent and responsive.

“In order to have adequate price discovery in a market, you need multiple players,” Vaden says.

That concern, he adds, is one of the reasons fertilizer investigations already underway by federal agencies predate recent geopolitical disruptions and continue to expand.

Vaden Details Heated Meeting With Mosaic: “A Different Tune in My Conference Room”

Among the most pointed parts of Vaden’s interview are his comments about a recent face-to-face meeting with Mosaic, one of the most influential players in the phosphate fertilizer market. He says the discussion, held in his conference room just this week, was direct and, at times, uncomfortable, focusing heavily on production decisions, capacity investment and the company’s role in a highly concentrated global market.

Vaden says he challenged Mosaic on why additional production capacity has not been brought online in the United States over a long period of time, and what barriers the company believes are preventing expansion.

He says he left the meeting with clear expectations for follow-up information from the company, describing it as an assignment rather than a casual discussion.

“I gave them a homework assignment,” Vaden says. “I told them what I expected to see, and I hope that they will get back to me as soon as possible.”

But what stood out most to him, he says, was not just what was said in the room, but how it contrasted with the company’s public messaging.

So disappointed in this response, @MosaicCompany, especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market. 🚨

Our Great President and this Administration have our farmers' backs. 💪🌾

Any sleight of hand will not be… https://t.co/GTCxcBQNgi
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 13, 2026

In his view, there was a noticeable difference between internal discussions and external communications, particularly on social media, where fertilizer policy debates have increasingly played out in public.

“And I will say, without being able to go into details, when they were in my office, they were singing a slightly different tune than they were signing on Twitter responding to the president’s Truth Social message that you noted,” Vaden says.

He uses that contrast to underscore what he sees as a broader disconnect between industry messaging and the realities USDA believes farmers are facing.

“We need more supply, we need answers, your company hasn’t provided either of those two things,” Vaden says. “It’s about time that you did.”

Industry Responses, Trade Policy Pressure and the Mosaic Question

While Vaden applies pressure to Mosaic, he notes that not all fertilizer companies are taking the same stance on trade policy and tariffs. He points specifically to Nutrien, which he says has indicated support for removing certain trade enforcement measures.

“I was very happy after I met with the Nutrien CEO that they came out and announced we don’t need this CVD order anymore,” Vaden says.

By contrast, he says Mosaic’s position on countervailing duties and phosphate trade enforcement remains unresolved, and that broader policy decisions are now effectively waiting on the company’s response.

He characterizes the situation as fluid but heavily dependent on industry input.

“Right now the question is in Mosaic’s court, if you will,” Vaden says. “And we’re waiting for an answer from them.”

He adds that regulatory or executive action is unlikely to be taken in a vacuum while negotiations and responses are still unfolding.

“One thing that I know as a lawyer is that there’s a whole lot more possible if you have consent of the parties than if you don’t,” Vaden says. “With consent, nearly all things are possible.”

Investigations Expand as USDA Seeks Farmer-Reported Data

Alongside industry meetings, Vaden says USDA is working with the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission on ongoing fertilizer market investigations, with a particular focus on pricing behavior and market transparency.

He says one challenge is the nature of pricing information itself, which often reaches farmers through informal channels and can change quickly.

“We’re asking questions and waiting for answers, and we need farmers’ help as part of our question asking,” Vaden says.

He describes a pattern many farmers have reported directly to USDA, where fertilizer prices are quoted in a way that encourages immediate purchase rather than delayed buying.

“I know in my own family’s operation that you get phone calls, and those phone calls tell you ‘Here’s what the price is now, and if you wait, here’s what the price will be later,’” Vaden says. “And that later price is never lower than the price that it is now.”

To address that, he says USDA is working on a confidential reporting system designed to protect farmer identity while improving data quality for investigators.

“If they trust us with their information, if they trust us with the facts that they have, they’ll be able to remain anonymous,” Vaden says. “And the companies under investigation will not know who shared what data with us.”

“This Has Been Going On for Too Long”

Vaden closes by emphasizing that fertilizer prices and supply constraints are not a new challenge for agriculture, but an entrenched issue that has persisted through multiple years and market cycles.

He says the administration is trying to shift both short-term supply conditions and long-term structural dynamics at the same time, adding that USDA’s goal is not temporary relief, but sustained changes in supply, competition and pricing stability.

“We are focused on getting new supplies here now, and not just now, but next year and the year after that and the years after that,” Vaden says. “So that we can have guaranteed new supplies over the long term.”

Vaden’s Message to Farmers: “We’re Saying the Same Thing in Public and in Private”

At the end of the conversation, Vaden returned to what he described as the central audience for everything USDA is doing on fertilizer: farmers themselves. He acknowledged frustration is not just growing, but it has become a defining sentiment across much of farm country as input costs remain elevated and supply questions persist year after year.

He emphasized USDA’s posture is not different depending on the room or the audience, whether speaking with industry executives, other federal agencies, or producers themselves.

“I want farmers to know that when I am sitting with representatives of other cabinet departments or when I am sitting with big fertilizer CEOs, I am saying the same thing in private that you hear me saying in public,” Vaden says. “I do not change my tune. I may be slightly more polite, but I am equally as direct in terms of telling them what I think the situation is.”

Vaden says that directness is rooted in what he believes farmers are already experiencing on the ground, particularly when it comes to fertilizer pricing volatility and uncertainty in purchasing decisions. He says producers are not misreading the situation — they are responding to real, long-running pressures.

He also acknowledges the emotional toll on producers is part of the reality USDA is hearing more frequently.

“I especially communicate to them that farmers have gone from exasperation to anger with the situation that we have now,” Vaden says. “They are not wrong to be feeling those emotions because they understand that this is not a new situation.”

Looking ahead, Vaden says USDA’s goal is not just to address short-term pricing spikes, but to change the underlying conditions that have kept fertilizer costs elevated for years. That includes expanding supply, increasing competition and improving long-term stability in input markets.

“This is an issue that has bedeviled American agriculture for at least five years, and it is time that it stopped,” Vaden says.

Trump Warns Fertilizer Giants Against "Price Gouging" as Costs Soar 40%

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:46:56 GMT

Fertilizer market volatility is once again taking center stage as geopolitical tensions disrupt global supply lines and push input costs sharply higher. New analysis shows the increase in fertilizer prices may not be over, even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens soon.

Even with the situation in Iran pushing prices even higher, the sharp increase in fertilizer prices from 2020 to now is catching attention in Washington. Not only did President Donald Trump take to social media to warn of ‘price gouging,’ but Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins also posted on X Monday, specifically expressing frustration over Mosaic’s response to farmers.

While Rollins and USDA Under Secretary Stephen Vaden have raised concerns over fertilizer prices this year, the president posted on Truth Social over the weekend that he is closely monitoring fertilizer prices and pledged support for American farmers.

Trump said Saturday on his Truth Social platform he is “watching fertilizer prices CLOSELY” during what he described as the US “FIGHT FOR FREEDOM in Iran”, adding that the administration “will not accept PRICE GOUGING from the fertilizer monopoly”.

On Monday, Rollins posted on X, saying she was “So disappointed in this response” from Mosaic, “especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market.”

So disappointed in this response, @MosaicCompany, especially as you decide to idle two fertilizer production facilities, removing 1 MMT of supply from the world market. 🚨

Our Great President and this Administration have our farmers' backs. 💪🌾

Any sleight of hand will not be… https://t.co/GTCxcBQNgi
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) April 13, 2026

Mosaic announced last week the decision to shut down major phosphate operations in Brazil, a move the that will cut production, reduce jobs, and signal a *strategic shift in how the fertilizer giant deploys its capital.

Mosaic Company announced Thursday it will idle two phosphate facilities in Brazil as part of a broader effort to cut costs and shift capital. Mosaic expects idling of the facilities to reduce annual phosphate production by approximately 1 million tonnes. CEO Bruce Bodine says the decision reflects what he calls a disciplined focus on long-term returns.

.@MosaicCompany, you’re right that U.S. farmers are facing a difficult economic situation, only made worse by the extra $6.9 BILLION they have had to spend on fertilizer since you petitioned the government to place duties on imported phosphorus. This has played a major role in… https://t.co/UuOqjE0jBu
— National Corn (NCGA) (@NationalCorn) April 13, 2026

Mosaic and Simplot have also been in the cross hairs of the push to remove countervailing duties on Moroccan phosphate . Groups like the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) claim the CVDs are costing U.S. agriculture $1 billion each year.

The CVDs on Moroccan phosphate were put into place by the International Trade Commission (ITC) in 2021. As the sunset review begins, more than 50 state grower groups including the Texas Corn Producers Association, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the ITC to revoke the countervailing duties on imported phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia.

In separate filings by Mosaic and Simplot to the ITC and the Department of Commerce, both companies said the continuation is necessary to maintain a “level playing field.”

In a written response to Farm Journal, Mosaic said:

“American farmers depend on a strong domestic fertilizer industry, which in turn depends on strong enforcement of U.S. trade laws that ensure a level playing field. Mosaic is proud to support U.S. agriculture with high-quality, reliable products produced here at home.”

Iran War’s Current Impact on Fertilizer Prices

The message from the Trump adminstration comes as tensions escalate in the Strait of Hormuz, where the United States is weighing a potential full naval blockade. Ship traffic through the critical waterway has already dropped from roughly 135 vessels per day to the single digits. A complete shutdown could halt flows entirely, further increasing fertilizer prices.

The stakes are high as roughly one-third of global fertilizer shipments move through the strait, and the disruption is already sending prices higher, up more than 40% compared to a year ago.

It is the 6-week anniversary of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Fert price comparisons:

NOLA urea - +$230 or 49%
NOLA UAN - +$145 or 38%
Midwest NH3 - +$245 or 32%
NOLA DAP - +$130 or 21%
NOLA potash - +$10 or 3%

...corn - 2-cents or 0.5% higher#sickeningforfarmers
— Josh Linville (@JLinvilleFert) April 10, 2026

Market data shows the impact Iran is having on already high fertilizer prices. According to StoneX analyst Josh Linville says in the six weeks since the war started:

Urea prices have surged by $230 per ton, a 49% increase
UAN is up $145 per ton, or 38%
Anhydrous ammonia has climbed $245 per ton, a 32% jump.
In contrast, corn prices have barely responded, rising just two cents, or about half a percent. The divergence is putting additional pressure on farm margins.

DOJ Probe Into Fertilizer Costs Seeks Input From Farmers

The Trump administration is asking farmers to help provide information as part of an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation into elevated costs for fertilizer, machinery and other key agricultural inputs, according to reporting from Bloomberg.

Bloomberg reported the effort is aimed at gathering more on-the-ground data as regulators examine whether fertilizer producers may have coordinated to raise prices. The DOJ investigation was first reported in early March, when Bloomberg said federal officials had begun looking into whether fertilizer companies engaged in price coordination.

According to the Bloomberg report, Vaden said he has already met with officials at both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to discuss potential lines of inquiry. He also noted that farmers could play a key role in the process.

Vaden said farmers “have a lot of information that might be relevant to these investigations.”

Bloomberg previously reported in early March that the Department of Justice is investigating whether fertilizer producers colluded to increase prices.

Speaking at the North American Agricultural Journalists’ annual conference in Washington on Monday, Vaden encouraged farmer participation in the probe, emphasizing confidentiality protections.

“We need farmers to help provide us with that information on a confidential basis, so that that can help inform the investigations that are ongoing,” Vaden said, according to Bloomberg. “I think we will have a mechanism in order to help encourage that exchange of information.”

NCGA Surveys Show Not All Farmers Have Fertilizer Secured for 2026

Against that backdrop, along with fertilizer prices climbing even higher in the six weeks after the conflict started with Iran, new surveys results from NCGA highlight how those market pressures are translating to on-farm realities.

Krista Swanson, chief economist for NCGA, says the organization conducted the survey to better understand fertilizer availability from the farmer perspective. Ag Secretary Rollins has told mainstream media that 80% of farmers have fertilizer locked in for 2026, but NCGA data contradicts that figure.

“We’re hearing that number being thrown around too, which is why we really wanted to find out directly from farmers what the status is for them,” Swanson says.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

A Significant Gap in Fertilizer Readiness

The surveys show that only 60% of farmers report having their nitrogen fully purchased or secured for the 2026 growing season, while 64% say the same for phosphate. That leaves a sizable portion of producers still working to lock in supplies.

“When you think about over 500,000 corn farmers in the U.S., this isn’t a small number,” Swanson says. “Our survey results indicate that over 200,000 farmers still need at least some fertilizer for this year.”

Nitrogen remains a critical input for corn production and is closely tied to yield potential. Any shortfall, whether driven by availability or cost, can directly affect productivity and profitability.

NCGA Grower Surveys

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

Younger Farmers Feeling the Pressure Most

The survey also points to uneven impacts across the farm sector, with younger farmers facing greater challenges in securing fertilizer.

Swanson says younger producers reported having more nitrogen left to purchase compared to older farmers.

“You think about younger farmers that have less capital already built up in their business, maybe tighter cash flow needs because of their equity position,” she says. “This does seem to have a disproportional impact on younger farmers.”

That dynamic raises concerns about financial strain among newer operations in a high-cost environment.

Corn Acres Likely Stable, But With Reduced Inputs

Despite the challenges, most farmers are not planning to reduce corn acreage. The survey found that 80% of respondents expect to maintain their planned acres.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

At the same time, fertilizer application rates may fall short. Half of the farmers surveyed say they do not expect to apply their full amount of fertilizer.

“Pairing these two together, it seems to me like we are still going to see a lot of corn acres get planted,” Swanson says. “But those corn acres will have less fertilizer than maybe what they would have otherwise had.”

That combination could limit yield potential if input reductions become widespread.

Growing Concern Shifts to 2027

While fertilizer availability remains a concern for 2026, attention is already turning to the next crop year. Fertilizer purchasing follows a rolling cycle, and planning for 2027 will begin soon.

Survey responses show that for every one farmer more concerned about fertilizer price and availability for 2026, nearly two are more concerned about 2027.

NCGA Grower Survey

(National Corn Growers Association (NCGA))

“So farmers are concerned as we look ahead to next year,” Swanson says.

The shift reflects uncertainty about how long supply disruptions and elevated prices will persist.

Supply Chain Recovery May Take Time

Even if geopolitical tensions ease, relief may not come quickly. Swanson notes that the fertilizer market is still dealing with production disruptions and supply chain backlogs.

“A short-term ceasefire has limited immediate impact on this ongoing fertilizer crisis for farmers,” she says. “Even when a permanent end to the situation is reached, we’re still looking at recovery from supply chain backlogs and halted production that could take a long time to recover from.”

Damage to key inputs such as liquid natural gas and sulfur production could take years to repair, keeping pressure on supply.

A Tightening Outlook

The NCGA survey underscores a challenging environment for corn producers. Most acres are expected to be planted this year, but not all will receive optimal fertilizer applications. At the same time, concern is building for 2027 as farmers look ahead to the next purchasing cycle.

For many producers, the issue is no longer just securing fertilizer for this season. It is navigating a period of sustained uncertainty that could shape production decisions, costs, and risk management strategies across the U.S. corn sector.

Longstanding Concerns Over Market Concentration

In September 2025, USDA and the U.S. Department of Justice signed a Memorandum of Understanding, committing both agencies to jointly examine high and volatile input costs, which included fertilizer, by scrutinizing competitive conditions in agricultural markets and enforcing antitrust laws, particularly around price setting and market concentration.

While geopolitical tensions are the latest driver of volatility, many farm groups argue the root of the problem runs deeper. Matt Perdue, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, says ongoing federal investigations into fertilizer pricing must lead to meaningful action.

“We appreciate the administration’s investigations into input costs,” Perdue says. “But investigations don’t do anything if they’re not followed by enforcement, and they don’t do anything if we don’t learn what came out of those investigations.”

Groups like the Texas Corn Producers Association have been raising concerns about fertilizer market concentration for years. Texas farmer Dee Vaughan says the organization began studying the issue in 2020, working with the Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M to examine pricing trends.

“We’ve been very concerned about all of our input costs, but specifically fertilizer, because it’s the one that just keeps going up almost exponentially,” Vaughan says.

He adds those studies found a shift in how fertilizer prices are determined . Historically tied closely to natural gas costs, the study found nitrogen fertilizer pricing began tracking corn prices more closely after 2010, a change Vaughan says reflects deeper structural issues.

According to Vaughan, the small number of firms controlling the market have the data and market awareness to price inputs based on farmers’ revenue potential, rather than production costs.

“They all have economists on staff,” Vaughan says. “They know exactly what our costs are, what our income is, and they’re able to extract value based on what they see as the gross income of a farmer. It’s not based on cost of production any longer.”

The Hidden Squeeze: Why the $5 Make Allowance is the New Battleground for the U.S. Milk Check

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 11:58:29 GMT

In the world of dairy economics, there is a term that often flies under the radar of the average consumer, yet it keeps thousands of dairy farmers awake at night: the make allowance. To a processor, it is a necessary calculation of the cost to turn raw liquid milk into cheese, butter or powder. To the American Dairy Coalition (ADC) and the farmers they represent, it has become an invisible, multidollar tax that is fracturing the foundation of the family farm.

As of March 30, 2026, the tension between the barn floor and the processing plant has reached a boiling point. After requesting an extension March 20, which was not granted, ADC submitted final comments by the March 30 deadline to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) regarding the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).

Math of the Margin: A $5 Deduction

For years, the make allowance was a relatively stable figure. However, following the 2025 Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) changes, the math has shifted dramatically in favor of the processor.

According to a deep dive by Sherry Bunting, ADC market analysis and policy adviser, the first eight months under the new 2025 rules have seen total make allowances surge.

“When translated from cents per pound into real milk check impact, and paired with rising component levels, total deductions now range from $3.22 to as high as $5.04 per cwt at pool average test,” she says.

Using federal pricing formula calculations developed with longtime expert Calvin Covington, former CEO of Southeast Milk and National All-Jersey, Bunting points out that the eight-month average deduction for Class III increased $1 at $4.74 per cwt, with Class IV up $0.93 at $3.32.

“In practical terms, that’s a multidollar deduction built into the pricing system on the front end,” says Laurie Fischer, CEO of ADC.

The impact of this front-end deduction is staggering. ADC analysis shows that while estimated processor gross margins have jumped by 26% to 39%, the minimum milk value paid to farmers has plummeted by 5% from this change alone. To put that in perspective, that 5% reduction effectively wipes out nearly two decades of modest, hard-won price gains for producers — at a time when the cost of diesel, labor and feed is at an all-time high.

Transparency Gap

One of the primary green flags producers were looking for in USDA’s mandatory survey was transparency. If farmers are going to pay for the processing, they want to see the receipts. However, the process has been marred by what ADC calls a “lack of meaningful engagement.”

USDA provided a 30-day comment period — a window so small that many producers were unaware the conversation was even happening. With limited public outreach, the very people whose checks are being “audited” were left on the sidelines.

“Farmers didn’t have time to fully engage in a process that directly affects how their milk is priced,” Fischer explains. “There is a real expectation that this survey will provide transparency, and USDA needs to ensure that expectation is met.”

Efficiency Paradox: Where are the Savings?

Perhaps the most compelling argument raised by ADC involves the massive leap in plant efficiency over the last quarter-century. Historical data compiled by Covington shows that in 2000 it took 99.47 lb. of milk to produce 10 lb. of 38% moisture cheddar cheese. By 2025, that dropped to 87.2 lb.

“In more practical terms, it required almost 25 less tankers (50,000 lb./tanker) of milk per day to produce 1 million pounds of 38% moisture cheddar cheese compared to 2000,” Covington notes.

The logic is simple: If it takes fewer trucks, less milk volume to handle, less time to process the same amount of product and more product to spread the fixed plant costs, why are the deductions for processing costs reaching record highs? In its comment, ADC seeks distinction between fixed and variable costs to recognize this yield gain.

ADC is urging USDA to ensure the survey accounts for these gains in plant efficiency. They are also sounding the alarm on “cost shifting.” Modern dairy plants produce an array of high-value products — ultrafiltered milks, specialized proteins and niche ingredients — that aren’t even part of the federal pricing formulas. Without a clear separation of costs, farmers fear they are subsidizing the production of high-margin items that don’t actually contribute to their own milk checks.

Price Taker Dilemma

The fundamental struggle of the U.S. dairy farmer is their status as a “price taker.” In almost every other sector of the economy, if your costs go up, you raise your prices. In dairy, the farmer ships the milk weeks before they even know what they will be paid for it.

“Dairy farmers remain the only participants in the supply chain without the ability to set prices or recover costs through a built-in mechanism,” Fischer says.

Processors have the make allowance to protect their margins. Retailers have the ability to adjust the price on the shelf. The farmer, standing at the beginning of the chain, has only the hope that the federal formulas remain fair. But when the gap between the All-Milk price (used for risk management programs like DMC) and the mailbox price (what actually hits the bank account) widens to over $1 per cwt, the system begins to break.

Road to a Fair Formula

ADC’s message to USDA is one of focus and fairness. They are calling for an end to scope creep within the cost survey; the survey must remain strictly focused on the physical cost of converting milk into the four specific products used in federal formulas: butter, nonfat dry milk, cheese and dry whey.

As the industry moves toward the next chapter of the margin revolution, the demand for a stable, legal workforce and high-tech efficiency must be matched by a regulatory environment that values the producer.

The domestic supply chain is more than a logistical network; it is a promise of food security for a growing world. However, that chain is only as strong as its first link: the producer. If the $5 make allowance continues to deepen its impact without transparency or justification, the heartbeat of U.S. dairy — the family farm — is at risk of stopping.

“This is about transparency and fairness,” Fischer says. “Farmers should not be paying for costs tied to products that do not determine their milk price.”

The Golden Rule of Advocacy: Why Showing Up Matters in Washington

Tue, 10 Mar 2026 12:31:09 GMT

In the halls of Congress, silence is often mistaken for satisfaction. This was the sobering message delivered by Gregg Doud, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation during a recent panel discussion on the dairy outlook at the High Plains Dairy Conference in Amarillo, Texas last week. Despite the pressing need for agricultural labor reform and immigration solutions, Doud warns the message isn’t reaching the ears that matter most.

The conversation, moderated by Rick Naerebout, CEO of the Idaho Dairymen’s Association, highlighted a critical gap between the industry’s needs and Washington’s perception. Despite the pressing need for agricultural labor reform and immigration solutions, Doud warns the message isn’t reaching the ears that matter most.

“I’m talking to dozens of senators about this already,” Doud notes, recounting conversations where lawmakers told him they simply aren’t hearing about ag labor from their constituents. “If that member of Congress doesn’t hear from you, he’s just going to go hang out with the guys he does hear from.”

The panel, which included Michael Dykes, DVM, president and CEO of the International Dairy Foods Association, emphasized while national organizations can “raise hell” in D.C., the real power lies in the home district.

Navigate the Roadblocks

Naerebout pressed the leaders on the specific legislative hurdles, particularly in the House where jurisdictional battles can stall progress.

“GT [Thompson] is doing fantastic work in the house,” Naerebout notes, but he asked pointedly how the industry can navigate committees that don’t always see eye-to-eye on dairy’s needs. “How do we get around Jim Jordan and this committee? What’s the pathway there?”

The answer, the panel agreed, depends less on D.C. lobbyists and more on the farmers themselves. Dykes points out when elected officials return home for a week and hear nothing about dairy’s priorities, they assume those issues aren’t important.

The Golden Rule

Naerebout asked what the most effective ways for farmers are to break through the political noise: Is it phone calls to emails? Is it personal visits?

“What’s the golden rule? He who shows up,” Doud says. “You’ve got to put in the time and the effort; you’ve got to develop the relationship.”

The leaders urge producers to move beyond occasional emails and focus on consistent touchpoints:

Monthly Staffer Calls: Get to know the agriculture staffer in the Senator’s office.
On-Farm Invites: Bring regulators and lawmakers to the farm to show them the regulatory apparatus in action.
Unity of Message: Dykes warns the industry must be aligned when a policy train leaves the station.
“You better be together and make sure you want it when you get it in the bill, because you’re going to have one shot,” he says.

As the industry looks toward a volatile political season — including concerns over fringe ballot initiatives like those in Oregon (Petition 28 or the Peace Act) that threaten animal ownership — the message was clear: political organization isn’t just an option; it’s a necessity for survival.

Exclusive: In the Eye of the Cycle, John Deere Charts a Path Through Ag’s Slump

Fri, 13 Feb 2026 21:25:36 GMT

After months of workforce reductions and sliding equipment sales, John Deere is reversing course, announcing it will bring 140 employees back to its Waterloo, Iowa, operations as demand ticks higher for its 8R and 9R tractors.

The recall comes even as Deere forecasts the North American ag equipment market will decline another 15% to 20% in 2026, underscoring the push-and-pull shaping today’s farm economy. Large equipment sales remain under pressure from lower commodity prices and tighter margins, yet pockets of global demand are forcing Deere to recalibrate production in real time.

In an exclusive interview with Farm Journal this week, Deere & Company President Deanna Kovar laid out how the company is navigating that tension: tightening its long-standing build-for-retail manufacturing model, adjusting output month to month and working to protect farmers’ equipment equity during a downturn.

At the same time, Deere is attacking costs where it can, reducing prices on 187,000 parts over the past two years and preparing to roll out a new lower-priced tier of replacement parts later this summer. The company is also testing a tractor powered by E-98 ethanol, technology that could eventually eliminate the need for Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) altogether while driving even more demand for the crops farmers already grow.

For Kovar, who grew up on a Wisconsin dairy farm before spending 26 years rising through Deere’s ranks, the stakes are personal. Now, just months into her role leading Deere’s Worldwide Agriculture & Turf Division, she is steering the company through one of the sharpest equipment pullbacks in recent memory, while positioning it for what comes next.

A Cyclical Business in a Prolonged Downturn

The ag equipment cycle has clearly turned. Industry data show steep drops in large equipment sales, and Deere’s internal outlook aligns with the broader trend.

“Deere is 188 years old, so we know we’re part of a cyclical business of ag equipment, but definitely we’re seeing similar numbers. Our expectations that we shared in our last quarterly earnings was that the North American equipment market would be down 15% to 20% again in 2026. We recognize the ag economy is in a tough spot at the moment, and we’re working hard to make sure we can help farmers become more productive and more profitable through using our equipment and technology solutions, but it’s tough out there.”

She says the Association of Equipment Manufacturers figures for 2025, which show sales of 4WD tractors fell nearly 42% and combine sales are down 36%, align with what Deere is seeing.

The significant slump in sales doesn’t come as a surprise to row crop farmers who’ve seen several consecutive years of declining net farm income following a record high in 2022. USDA’s first official forecast for 2026 suggests continued pressure and another year of declining net farm income, with not much relief on input prices and stagnant commodity prices. Kovar says Deere understands the financial strains producers are seeing.

“Overall, the outlook for 2026 is that farmers are going to continue to be under pressure from a commodity price standpoint,” she says. “We’re certainly seeing input costs somewhat flatten for producers, and, of course, many producers are grateful for the government payments that will help them start 2026 maybe in a better place than they would have without it. Certainly great yields last fall were a good positive thing for producers, but it’s still putting a lot of pressure on commodity prices today.”

For Deere, that pressure translates directly into lower equipment demand and tough decisions inside its factories.

Manufacturing Adjustments: Building for Retail in Real Time

Over the past year, Deere announced workforce reductions across multiple Midwestern facilities. Since 2024, it’s reported John Deere laid off over 2,000 employees in the U.S., with those jobs primarily located in Iowa and Illinois. Recently, it reversed course in a couple locations, announcing it would bring some of those employees back.

Back in January, Deere also announced it was returning 99 workers to the job in Iowa, impacting both its Davenport Works and Dubuque facilities. But Deere said this week it’s also bringing back jobs at its Waterloo facility.

“We’re constantly evaluating what we think the market will be. And it’s not an annual thing. It’s a month to month, a quarter-to-quarter opportunity. And yes, we just announced 140 workers to come back to our Waterloo operations. This is the operations where we make the drive trains for 8R tractors, where we pour the castings for the new high horsepower 9R tractors, where engines are made, and where we put tractors final assembly together. So we’re always happy when we can bring workers back into our factory. And it’s because we’re starting to see a little tick up in demand for those tractors,” she says.

Kovar says it’s not necessarily just a North American phenomenon. The uptick in demand is coming globally.

“We are seeing some signs that there could be some opportunities, but much of this is going to be iterative over time. It won’t be from a very low point to a very high point. We expect over time that we can start to see things normal,” she adds.

Kovar emphasizes Deere’s long-standing “build-for-retail” philosophy, avoiding overproduction that would flood dealer lots and depress used values.

“We’ve been in business for 188 years, so we’re always making sure that we’re being as efficient and effective as we can at building the quality products that farmers come to rely on. So we’re all always adjusting how we manufacture, how we make sure we have the quality checks and the automation to make sure we’re making every tractor as good as we can,” says Kovar.

She says the company is also working to forecast demand expectations and where that additional demand could surface. But she says for the past 25 years, the company has been focused on a build-to-order mentality, especially in the larger ag equipment space.

“We are a build for retail mentality,” says Kovar. “We don’t want to build it unless somebody wants it. So this has been something we’ve been working on for 20 years, and we will continue to be focused on really understanding the demand in the market and making sure we’re setting up schedules and plans to build for that amount.”

Equipment Prices: It’s About the Trade Differential

Few issues generate more coffee-shop debate than equipment prices. Farmers have seen machinery values dramatically climb over the past five years. Kovar points out that looking at sticker price alone misses the bigger financial picture.

“We’re always looking at making sure we’re delivering value for farmers when they buy our equipment, when they buy our technology,” Kovar says. “When we think about the price of equipment it’s really important we understand that farmers, when they buy a new piece of equipment, it’s really about the trade differential from the product they’re trading in to the one they’re buying, and if we were to lower the price of equipment, it would lower the trade-in value of their used equipment as well. We’re always very mindful of the equity farmers have in their equipment fleet and the fact it’s a huge part of their balance sheet.”

Not only does Deere need to be careful that changes don’t impact the trade differential, but she says the company is also focused on making sure there’s a balance between products being affordable and creating the value farmers expect.

That balance, of affordability versus protecting used values, according to Kovar, shapes Deere’s pricing philosophy in a down cycle.

Lowering the Cost of Technology and Parts

While base machine pricing remains complex, Deere is targeting affordability in other ways. The first, she says, is on the technology side, and lowering the upfront cost.

“We’re lowering the barrier to entry to amazing technologies like ExactShot fertilizer systems, See & Spray sprayer systems and a combine automation system so that more farmers can afford to get into the technology. These technologies are saving inputs, ensuring we’re getting all of the grain out of the field and increasing yields. That strategy to lower the upfront cost of those technologies, and help the customer pay for it as they get the value from it, is a huge step forward in allowing affordability of the technology.”

On repairs and parts, she points to self-service tools and direct price reductions. She says the company is constantly looking at the cost of parts for their equipment.

“Over the last two years, we’ve reduced the price on over 187,000 part numbers in the John Deere system. Later this summer, we’re going to be announcing a new tier of parts from John Deare that will allow us to give customers choice when they buy parts from us as to whether they want the traditional OEM, that likely has a longer life, or if they want to look at a lower cost option,” Kovar says.

Deciding between the two parts tiers depends on:

How much a farmer uses the machine
Equipment age
How long a farmer intends to keep that piece of equipment

Retrofit Kits: Precision Without the New Iron Price Tag

As new equipment sales slow and more farmers turn to the used market, Deere sees retrofit technology as a critical bridge, allowing producers to upgrade performance without taking on the cost of a brand-new machine.

Kovar says retrofit kits are designed to separate technology adoption from iron replacement.

“I think the beauty of retrofit kits is you don’t have to buy a brand new piece of equipment to get brand new technologies. Just last year we launched what we call our precision ag essentials kit, which is the foundation of our technology stack. It’s where farmers start to go from no precision to a more precision mentality, and this ability allows them to put a John Deere GPS receiver, a display and a modem on any piece of equipment, Deere or non Deere,” Kovar says.

The strategy fits squarely into Deere’s broader push to lower the barrier to entry for precision ag. By allowing a GPS receiver, display and modem to be installed on any brand of older equipment, the company is effectively expanding the addressable market for advanced automation and data tools.

“We’re seeing people put these kits on 20-year-old tractors and then being able to do things like AutoTrac, AutoPath and turn automation, section control, the things that can save 10% of inputs and make sure your stand is better in the spring and your weeds are deader during the season,” Kovar says. “This is a huge opportunity for every farmer to get more into precision. Once you get into that base of the technology stack, the sky’s the limit to be able to go to other products like ExactEmerge or See and Spray — these technologies that really drive savings to the bottom line for farmers.”

In a downturn defined by lower commodity prices and cautious equipment purchases, Deere is betting the future of precision ag won’t be limited to the newest machines on the lot, but will increasingly ride on tractors that have already been in the field for decades.

Right to Repair, EPA and DEF: Seeking Clarity

Right-to-repair and diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) rules have been flash points between manufacturers and producers with two major announcements from EPA.

In early February 2026, EPA made a right-to-repair guidance announcement guidance and actions supporting the right to repair for farmers and equipment owners, specifically addressing issues with Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) systems and emission controls. The guidance clarifies the Clean Air Act allows for temporary overrides of emission systems during repairs, prohibits manufacturers from restricting access to tools or software, and enables repairs in the field.

The following day, EPA announced the agency is demanding detailed failure data from major diesel engine manufacturers as it considers additional rules aimed at reducing DEF-related shutdowns and derates that have plagued farmers, truckers and equipment operators for years.

“I think if you step back and think about what EPA’s done over about the last nine months, there’s been two important messages. One was last summer when they gave voluntary guidance that said we should extend the time from when a customer might have an issue with their DEF systems and not cause them to go into an inducement or a derate within two hours, which was the original rule. We’re very glad EPA has come out and said we can extend that time to give farmers more time to maybe finish the field, finish the day before they have to execute a derate or go through a regen on their DEF,” Kovar says.

She calls it a huge opportunity for Deere and one to which the company is already responding.

“We’re in the process of making sure we can extent that time on all the equipment we’re producing. We’ll do that over the coming months and years to help make sure we’re extending that time and not putting people in jeopardy of having a shutdown opportunity,” Kovar says.

On off-road right-to-repair clarity, Kovar says EPA’s right-to-repair guidance announced in February directly responds to a formal request the company made to the agency in June 2025 .

“[EPS] had already shared that on-road equipment didn’t have to go to the original equipment manufacturer or an authorized repair shop to turn your tractor or your truck back on after you had a deratement issue. We said, ‘Hey, we have tools that a farmer can do this on their own, but the way we read your rules, we believe we need you to tell us it’s OK.’ We’re grateful that last week EPA came out and said, yes, it is OK for off-road equipment for farmers to fix their own issues. We’re in the process of making sure John Deere Operations Center ProService, which is our self-repair tool any farmer can access, by early March, mid-March, we want to have the ability for a farmer to, if they run into a deratement issue on their tractor or combine or whatever, use Operation Center Pro Service to get their tractors back up.”

If DEF Goes Away, It’s Not a Quick Switch

With political discussions swirling around eliminating certain environmental regulations, and President Trump specifically stating he wants to see those regulations removed on equipment , some farmers wonder whether equipment could quickly be built without DEF systems.

When Trump was in a roundtable with farmers in December, he claimed removing those requirements on equipment would prevent breakdowns and make equipment cheaper. During the one-on-one interview with Kovar, Farm Journal asked if removing DEF on equipment would bring down prices.

“We have to really understand what they mean and how they want to go about it before we can really answer, does it make equipment cheaper? I think we’ve spent 15 years perfecting the system we have today, so we’ll have to continue to understand how far back do we think we’re going to go, how long would it take us, because we don’t have all of the technologies that don’t have DEF today,” Kovar explains. “If it were called tomorrow, we couldn’t start building tractors without it the next day.”

Removing DEF is not as simple as flipping a switch on the assembly line. Instead, she says Deere is focused on making sure farmers have the ability to repair their own equipment if it would go into derate. She thinks that’s a huge step forward in solving some of the issues that farmers have had with DEF.

Deere Tests an E-98 Ethanol Tractor

Even as debate continues in Washington over DEF requirements, Deere is exploring a future that could bypass the issue entirely.

While the company says it remains engaged with EPA on next steps surrounding DEF and emissions policy, Deere is also investing in an alternative fuel platform, an ethanol-powered tractor designed to run on E-98. The tractor will debut at Commodity Classic in two weeks.

“We’re not just thinking also about diesel, right, we also considering how might we fix this problem another way. And that’s an ethanol tractor we’ve been using across Iowa and other places. It’s early for us, but the idea that we could use E-98 to run a tractor, it’s so clean you don’t need diesel exhaust fluid to run it. We’re early in trying to pioneer what is an alternative to diesel that would allow a farmer to grow the fuel they put in their tractor to grow next year’s crop. It’s something we think we need to continue to talk about. There is a ton of infrastructure that would need to follow to allow an E-98-type fuel to flow and be on farm, but we think it’s an opportunity in the long run to help agriculture grow the fuel they use to grow the food we all eat.”

Deere confirms the early results are promising.

According to Deere, the limiting factor isn’t the engine technology itself, it’s the infrastructure needed to support it.

“Do we have the fuels available? Do we have the on-farm ability? Are the fuel companies ready to deliver it to the farm? At this point, there is a much bigger system challenge that will have to work,” Kovar says.

Advocating for Demand: Ethanol, Exports and E-15

Turning the ag economy around, in Kovar’s view, is about demand, both domestic and global. Not only is Deere working on equipment that could run with higher blends of ethanol, but Deere is also advocating for more demand.

“Certainly, we’re focused on helping farmers grow more with less. At the same time, we’re focused on helping to make sure there are markets for the crops our producers sell. We certainly spend a lot of time advocating for agriculture and for producers to have access to markets. We’re grateful for all of the trade deals that have happened here recently. We’re hopeful they start to materialize, and we see more and more grains flowing outside of the U.S. in exports. We also know we’ve got a huge opportunity here in the U.S. to drive ethanol and renewable fuels,” Kovar says. “We’re focused on making sure we’re using our voice at Deere to advocate for agriculture to not only feed the world, but fuel it. It starts with E-15, which we are hopeful we can get across the finish line at some point very soon. But it can’t end there. We have to continue to advocate for renewable diesels and an ethanol future, so we have to make sure farmers can sell their grains at a price that’s profitable, and it’s all about creating demand.”

The Next Five Years: From Data Collection to Real-Time Decisions

For Deere, which sees itself as a technology company, Kovar says she also sees Deere as a smart industrial company. With a focus on technology, she thinks the future isn’t about a single breakthrough machine, but rather about what happens behind the scenes in the data.

When asked what the biggest shift will be over the next five years, Kovar points to the evolution of information rooted in data.

“I think if you look back over those 25 years of technology, data has been such an important part of it. It started with yield maps, yield monitoring and binders on a shelf and has evolved over time to a cloud-based system. Everything’s connected. With Deere, it’s about John Deere Operation Center and how farmers can leverage that data, share it with partners, with their seed dealer, with their ag retailer, with the banker and with their landlords and have this really cohesive opportunity to bring all of the data they have in agriculture into one place,” Kovar says.

Personally, she sees the next step involving Deere helping farmers move beyond timely insights to timely decision-making.

“How do we help [farmers] get insights, timely information, that helps them make the best decision they can make in that moment on their unique piece of land in the middle of wherever they are farming and really give them confidence the data can help them drive to even better decisions,” she adds. “If we’re going to help them be more productive and be more profitable, it really starts with all the decisions they make. I think this next three to five years is a huge opportunity for us to make sure we are connecting all of their data in one place and helping them make really important decisions in real time that help them become more.”

Instead of one sweeping, industry-altering change, Kovar sees steady gains driven by machine learning, automation and in-the-moment decision-making, sometimes by the operator and sometimes by the equipment itself.

“I think that’s a huge part of the next three to five years, and those decisions happen because they’ve consciously made them or the machines are making them. If you think about See and Spray, it is deciding whether that’s a weed or a plant and only spraying the weed to save 50% to 60% of the herbicides,” Kovar says. “Those kind of in-the-moment decisions are a huge opportunity over the next 3 to 5 years as computer vision and machine learning compute and all of these things continue to accelerate at a pace that is very hard to keep up with.”

For Deere, the future isn’t just bigger iron or even more automation, it’s about connecting every data point on the farm and turning it into actionable insight, fast enough to matter in the field.

Watch the full interview here:

Trump Signs Executive Order Quadrupling Beef Imports from Argentina to Keep Ground Beef Affordable

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 22:39:03 GMT

In a move aimed at easing pressure on U.S. beef supplies and keeping prices in check for consumers, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Feb. 6, 2026, temporarily quadrupling imports of lean beef trimmings from Argentina under the U.S. tariff-rate quota (TRQ).

The action comes as USDA confirmed just last week the U.S. cattle herd is now at a 75-year low . Not only are producers showing no signs of herd rebuilding, the White House says low cattle supplies can be attributed to droughts and wildfires in 2022 that impacted key U.S. cattle-producing states, including Texas, Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota, which have constrained domestic beef production.

Compounding the supply challenges are restrictions on cattle imports from Mexico following detections of the New World screwworm have limited feedlot stocks, contributing to a record-low U.S. cattle herd.

“As President, I have a responsibility to ensure that hard-working Americans can afford to feed themselves and their families,” the proclamation states. “To increase the supply of ground beef for U.S. consumers, I am taking action to temporarily increase the quantity of in-quota imports of lean beef trimmings under the U.S. beef TRQ.”

The proclamation authorizes an 80,000 metric ton increase in in-quota lean beef trimmings imports for 2026, which will be allocated entirely to Argentina. The additional beef will be distributed in four quarterly tranches of 20,000 metric tons each, beginning Feb. 13, 2026, and continuing through the end of the year.

Record Beef Prices Drive Action

U.S. consumers have seen beef prices climb steadily in recent years, with ground beef reaching an average price of $6.69 per pound in December 2025, which was the highest level recorded since the 1980s. Despite higher prices and the availability of alternative proteins, demand for beef remains strong, prompting record beef imports of 4.64 billion pounds in 2024, a 24% increase over the previous year.

But this is not the first time President Trump has proposed measures to address rising beef costs. In October 2025, he told reporters at the White House, “We are working on beef, and I think we have a deal on beef. The price of beef is higher than we want it, and that’s going to be coming down pretty soon too. We did something,” without elaborating.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) responded at the time with a strong warning, criticizing the President’s approach. NCBA CEO Colin Woodall says. the plan risked “damaging the livelihoods of American cattlemen and women, while doing little to impact the price consumers are paying at the grocery store.”

He emphasizes concerns about trade imbalances, the risk of introducing foreign animal diseases from Argentina, and the importance of focusing on domestic solutions such as New World screwworm facilities, regulatory reforms, and disease prevention programs.

The Trump administration, however, argues the current import expansion is a necessary response to natural disasters and market disruptions that have reduced domestic beef supply. The administration will continue monitoring supply and demand, with the Secretary of Agriculture advising on any additional measures that may be necessary to ensure stable beef prices for American families.

This proclamation highlights ongoing challenges facing U.S. cattle producers, including climate-related disruptions, disease risks, and supply chain pressures, while signaling the administration’s willingness to leverage international trade to stabilize consumer costs.

Are Beef Prices Too High? Consumer Demand Signals No

Since the president’s initial comments in October, there’s been a debate about if beef prices are too high. Oklahoma State extension livestock specialist Derrell Peel agrees consumer behavior continues to support higher prices, even if there is talk about bringing beef prices down.

“I don’t think we have a demand problem or a beef price problem. Consumers are still paying,” Close says. “If consumers didn’t want to pay high prices for beef, they don’t have to. There’s places they can go. They’re still paying it.”

High prices have raised concerns about whether consumers will eventually push back, but Terrain’s Don Close says demand data continues to defy that narrative.

“Over the last two years at Terrain, we’ve spent more time trying to evaluate and study what we can about demand,” he says. “We’ve known what the supply is.”

By examining beef prices relative to income, inflation and competing proteins, Close said the results remain consistent.

“We’re looking at all-fresh beef prices against the consumer price index. We’re looking all fresh against average hourly wage. We’re now looking at beef in relationship to both pork and broilers,” he says. “And all those matrices that we’re looking at, we’re not seeing and have not yet seen any softening in beef demand. It’s still in place.”

Economists Weigh In: Can Beef Prices Be Lowered Without Harming Producers?

In October, Trump’s initial comments tanked the cattle market. To better understand whether retail beef prices can be reduced without affecting cattle markets, Farm Journal spoke with two economists and livestock market experts. When asked if there’s a way to lower beef prices without impacting cattle futures, both economists say the short answer is, “no.”

“Simple answer is no,” says Close. “I would add to that that when we look at beef prices in relationship to the other proteins, I would absolutely say that pork and broilers have been a beneficiary of the record high beef prices. No doubt. But they are not yet to a point that they are a detriment to beef prices; beef is still gaining market share relative to other proteins.”

David Anderson, extension livestock economist at Texas A&M, echoed that perspective. “I think it’s a great, interesting question, but from the ranch to wholesale beef to retail beef, these prices are all related,” Anderson says. “If it was possible to do something that actually brought down retail prices to consumers, it’s going to have an effect upstream, downstream, however you want to call that. But even then, I’m not sure there’s much you can do to bring down retail prices. We’ve got a product that’s in demand. Even though we look at our nominal retail beef prices that are record high, I think that for consumers, beef delivers value for the money and they’re going to keep buying. That and tighter supplies is a recipe for higher prices. People continue to buy. There’s a bunch of big trends there, heck, let’s eat more protein, you know, and that helps the whole meat complex: beef, dairy, eggs, beans, you name it. So while this supports cattle prices, it also means there’s not a whole lot you can do to bring down beef prices significantly.”

New U.S.-Argentina Trade Deal Sets Stage For President Trump’s Latest Proclamation

The move this week follows a new trade and investment agreement between the United States and Argentina, signed earlier this week by USTR Jamieson Greer and Argentina’s Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno. The agreement provides preferential market access for U.S. goods, eliminates or reduces tariffs on a wide range of products, and enhances cooperation on economic and national security issues.

On agriculture, Argentina has agreed to open its market to U.S. poultry and poultry products within a year and simplify export regulations for U.S. beef and pork. The agreement also requires Argentina to accept U.S. food safety and regulatory standards for meat and poultry, while prohibiting restrictions on U.S. use of certain cheese names, such as asiago, feta, or camembert.

USTR officials said the deal will also enhance cooperation on export controls for sensitive items, protect telecommunications infrastructure, and prevent digital trade barriers that could affect U.S. tech companies. Although China is not mentioned in the text, the agreement is designed to strengthen U.S.-Argentina coordination in addressing unfair trade practices from third countries.

What’s Ahead?

The Trump administration will continue monitoring domestic beef supply and demand, with the Secretary of Agriculture advising on any additional measures necessary to maintain affordable prices for American consumers. While some in the cattle industry remain cautious about importing Argentinian beef, the administration frames the decision as a short-term solution to natural disasters and market disruptions that have tightened domestic beef availability.

Buckle Up: Cattle Market Structure Signals the Highs May Still Be Ahead

Fri, 06 Feb 2026 15:51:06 GMT

For cattle producers wondering whether today’s price levels are sustainable, or whether the market has already peaked, the underlying fundamentals suggest the industry may not be finished yet. Despite historically high cattle and beef prices, the U.S. cow herd continues to contract, herd rebuilding has yet to meaningfully begin and beef demand remains resilient even as prices climb. And when you combine those forces together, it’s a recipe that indicates tight supplies are likely to persist well into the second half of the decade, setting the stage for continued strength, and potentially even higher highs yet this year.

That outlook was reinforced during a U.S. Farm Report roundtable markets discussion at this year’s CattleCon in Nashville, with Oklahoma State University Extension livestock economist Derrell Peel, Don Close, senior protein analyst for Terrain, and Joe Vaclavik of Standard Grain.

Close has been in the business for 48 years, and he says he’s waited his whole career for this, as the dynamics in the cattle market continue to build a strong case for cattle prices. And while there is definite risk at these price levels, and volatility is certain, both Peel and Close are bullish on cattle this year.

Inventory Report Confirms the Industry is Still Shrinking

The latest USDA Cattle Inventory report released last week showed another year-over-year decline in beef cows, underscoring just how tight supplies have become. While the number itself was not shocking, the market’s reaction reflected the realization that contraction is not over.

“The fact that [the beef herd] was down some was not a particular surprise,” Peel says. “I thought it also could have been up slightly, so plus or minus unchanged. It came in a little smaller than that. But in general, the report from my standpoint was pretty much what I expected.”

What matters most, according to Peel, is not a single percentage point, but the trend line producers are still on.

“The net effect is we continue to get smaller in this industry, and we are not growing at this point,” he adds.

For producers hoping tighter numbers would soon give way to expansion, the report instead confirmed the industry is still digging deeper into contraction.

Replacement Heifers Signal Intention, Not Expansion

One of the few increases in the report came in beef replacement heifers, but Close cautions producers should not confuse that with meaningful herd growth.

“I think it’s an encouraging indication that they’re starting to think about it,” Close says. “If you look at the offset to the decline in count numbers to an increase of 42,000, 44,000 heifers, there’s no real offset there. We’re still in the infancy of any expansion, and it can, depending on weather, go either way.”

From Close’s perspective, the increase reflects mindset more than action. After several years of drought and forced liquidation, producers are beginning to consider rebuilding, but that process is slow, cautious and far from uniform.

“I think the anecdotal evidence we’re seeing when talking with producers is [they’re] starting to see some very modest expansion,” he says. “And I would conclude with the number of ads we’re seeing online of bred heifers for sale, we’re just starting.”

That “just starting” phase suggests calf supplies will remain tight for several more years, even if expansion intentions continue to grow.

Very Solid Technical Uptrend in Cattle

From a market structure standpoint, Vaclavik says cattle and feeder cattle futures continue to reflect the supply realities producers are seeing today.

“The cattle market and the feeder cattle market are two of the strongest and most orderly bull markets that we’ve seen in a long, long time,” he says.

Vaclavik points to the long-term chart as evidence the rally is not speculative, but fundamentally driven.

“You basically go back, and it’s very easy to see. You go back to when the lows were posted in 2020, like right around the COVID timeframe, and what we built out of that,” he says. “I know there’s been some volatility, but big picture, it’s a very, very solid technical uptrend.”

While he acknowledges the potential for short-term disruptions, Vaclavik says the underlying fundamentals remain firmly in control.

“I just, I don’t see anything fundamentally to set this thing back,” he says. “I do worry about things like headline risk. You know, you worry about ‘Is Trump going to go on another crusade against beef prices?’ ‘Is there going to be a screwworm headline?’ There’s a lot of things that, over the near term, could result in a setback.”

However, he emphasizes recent inventory data does little to change the bigger picture.

“I just, I don’t see it as being material. It’s not enough to reverse the course,” Vaclavik says.

Market Structure Suggests the Highs May Not Be In Yet

When asked whether cattle prices have already peaked, Close was clear in his assessment.

“We’re not convinced we’ve seen the highs,” he says.

Looking at supply constraints and demand strength, he sees room for additional gains in fed cattle prices.

“We’re thinking we could see fed cattle prices this year up an additional 8% to as much as 10% over the average prices we saw in 2025,” Close says.

He points out the market correction tied to political headlines last fall ultimately strengthened the rally prices are currently experiencing, rather than ending it.

“When we went through that period in October, we had the headlines and the involvement from the administration, and that really gave us a scare, but it also gave a correction in the market,” he explains. “So, when we take the fundamentals we think we’ve been working with, and that was confirmed in that cattle inventory report last Friday, I think the structure of the market to continue the rally is absolutely in place.”

Even with the resounding bullish sentiment headlining the discussion, Vaclavik has a clear and pointed message for producers.

“I love all this optimism, but it scares me a little bit. Remember to keep your business a business. Don’t gamble,” he says.

Herd Rebuilding Timeline Keeps Slipping

One of the most critical implications for producers is how far the industry has delayed rebuilding the cow herd.

“We keep pushing off the timeline,” Peel says. “Every year that we could have started some heifer retention, we haven’t. So, I think we’re still pushing off that timeline.”

Even if producers begin retaining heifers in 2026, Peel says the biological clock means supply relief will not arrive quickly.

“If we start saving heifers in 2026, then that’s the start, but time it out. If you save a heifer calf in ’26, breed her in ’27, it’s 2028 or the end of the decade before we change beef production,” he says.

Peel also notes replacement heifers will first be used just to hold the line.

“The small increase we saw in replacement heifers may signal that we’re thinking about it a little bit,” he says. “But the other thing you have to keep in mind is that the beef cow herd has gotten smaller, and we’ve been culling less, so we need to replace some of those cows going forward. It’s going to take some of these additional heifers just to maintain the herd we’ve got.”

Delayed Culling Could Push Slaughter Higher

Close adds that years of holding onto older cows could create another wrinkle in the supply picture.

“If you take the number of cows that probably should have gone to town, but were kept back in 2024 to get one more calf, the same thing repeated in 2025,” he says. “I actually think we could see a modest increase in cow slaughter in 2026 just because of those cows that we kept an extra year or two longer than they probably should have stayed.”

That dynamic could further slow the pace of true herd expansion, even as producers begin thinking about rebuilding.

Another Bullish Factor: Beef Demand Continues to Hold Firm

High prices have raised concerns about whether consumers will eventually push back, but Close says demand data continues to defy that narrative.

“Over the last two years at Terrain, we’ve spent more time trying to evaluate and study what we can about demand,” he says. “We’ve known what the supply is.”

By examining beef prices relative to income, inflation and competing proteins, Close said the results remain consistent.

“We’re looking at all-fresh beef prices against the consumer price index. We’re looking all fresh against average hourly wage. We’re now looking at beef in relationship to both pork and broilers,” he says. “And all those matrices that we’re looking at, we’re not seeing and have not yet seen any softening in beef demand. It’s still in place.”

Peel agrees consumer behavior continues to support higher prices, even if there is talk about bringing beef prices down.

“I don’t think we have a demand problem or a beef price problem. Consumers are still paying,” Close says. “If consumers didn’t want to pay high prices for beef, they don’t have to. There’s places they can go. They’re still paying it.”

Tighter supplies mean prices may need to rise further.

“We do have supply getting tighter, and it’s going to continue to get tighter, which probably means we’re going to use higher prices in the future to ration a tighter supply even compared to where we are now,” Peel says.

What it All Means for Cattle Producers

With herd rebuilding still largely on hold, cow numbers continuing to tighten and beef demand holding firm, their message to producers is consistent: the fundamentals that drove cattle prices to record levels are still in place. While volatility and headline risk remain, the supply-side realities suggest the market may not yet be finished rewarding cattle producers as the industry heads toward 2026.

More DEF Relief? EPA Takes New Action for Farmers and Truckers

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 16:14:40 GMT

On the heels of clarifying farmers’ right to repair their own equipment, EPA is escalating pressure on diesel engine manufacturers over ongoing Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) system failures the administration claims continue to sideline farm machinery and trucks.

On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency is demanding detailed failure data from major diesel engine manufacturers as it considers additional rules aimed at reducing DEF-related shutdowns and derates that have plagued farmers, truckers and equipment operators for years.

The move builds directly on Monday’s EPA right-to-repair guidance announcement that clarified the Clean Air Act does not prohibit farmers from fixing their own non-road diesel equipment, which includes making temporary emissions overrides when necessary to complete repairs.

“As I traveled to all 50 states during my first year as EPA administrator, I heard from truck drivers, farmers and many others rightly complaining about DEF and pleading for a fix,” Zeldin said in a statement on Tuesday. “EPA understands this is a massive issue, which is why we have already established commonsense guidance for manufacturers to update DEF systems.

“Today, we are furthering that work and demanding detailed data to hold manufacturers accountable for the continued system failures,” he added.

While neither announcement fully rolls back DEF requirements on tractors, a step many farmers and truckers continue to push for, both signal movement in that direction.

With today’s news in the mix, here’s what farmers and truckers need to know:

1. Increased Operational Up-Time.

The most immediate benefit is the reduction of “forced downtime.” Under the clarified guidance announced on Feb. 2, farmers can now perform temporary emissions overrides to complete essential work, such as planting or harvesting, even if a DEF failure occurs. The extension of warning periods — specifically the 36-hour window for non-road equipment before a derate kicks in — provides a buffer to finish a job before seeking repairs.

2. Legal Empowerment for Repairs.

EPA has explicitly stated the Clean Air Act cannot be used by manufacturers as a shield to prevent farmers from fixing your own equipment. This clarification removes a major legal hurdle in the right-to-repair movement, potentially lowering repair costs by allowing farmers and independent mechanics to access the tools and software needed to address DEF-related faults.

3. Manufacturer Accountability.

Under Section 208(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is demanding warranty and failure data for Model Year 2016, 2019 and 2023 engines from 14 major on-road and non-road diesel manufacturers (covering 80% of the market). That shifts the burden of DEF reliability from the end-user to the manufacturer. EPA says the information will help determine whether persistent DEF problems are tied to specific product generations, system designs or materials, and will inform further regulatory steps in 2026. Manufacturers have 30 days to comply or face potential enforcement actions.

4. Impact on Machinery Values.

Auction data suggests farmers are already voting with their checkbooks. According to Machinery Pete , demand and values remain strongest for pre-DEF used equipment, while interest in DEF-equipped machinery has softened.

If these EPA actions lead to more reliable DEF systems or easier repairs, the high demand (and inflated prices) for older, less efficient equipment might eventually stabilize as newer models become less of a liability in the field.

5. More Changes are Coming.

When asked why EPA has not eliminated DEF requirements entirely,Zeldin said the agency said it is actively building on last summer’s guidance and actively moving toward “common-sense” adjustments that prioritize productivity alongside emissions standards.

EPA’s demand for warranty and failure data follows DEF guidance issued in August 2025 that significantly softened inducement rules. That guidance delayed severe derates, reduced sudden shutdowns and required manufacturers to update software so operators could continue safely working while addressing faults.

For heavy-duty trucks, warning periods were extended to up to 650 miles or 10 hours before derates begin, with weeks of normal operation allowed before speed is limited. Non-road equipment now sees no impact for the first 36 hours after a DEF fault.

EPA has also said that starting with Model Year 2027, new diesel trucks must be engineered to avoid sudden and severe power loss after running out of DEF.

EPA Backs Farmers, Affirms Right to Repair Equipment

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 17:42:11 GMT

EPA issued new right-to-repair guidance on Monday, clarifying how the Clean Air Act applies to non-road diesel equipment. It’s a move EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin says is intended to end years of confusion and misuse of the law that has limited farmers’ ability to fix their own machinery.

“Unfortunately, equipment manufacturers have misused the Clean Air Act by falsely claiming that environmental laws prevented them from making essential repair tools or software available to all Americans,” he says. “Because of this misinterpretation of the law, manufacturers have limited the ability of farmers and independent repair shops to repair equipment.”

How Much Will Right to Repair Save the Average Farm?

According to Kelly Loeffler, Small Business Administration (SBA) administrator, the savings could be $48 billion across agriculture. For an individual farm, that could mean:

$33,000 in savings per repair
$3,000 to $4,000 in potential yield losses avoided due to reduced downtime
10% reduction in annual operating costs
Up to 80% reduction in repair costs annually

Loeffler says savings come from avoiding dealer-only repairs, reducing downtime during critical fieldwork windows, and eliminating transportation and labor delays tied to authorized service requirements.

The news came as a joint announcement on Feb. 2 with Loeffler as well as USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins.

“Today we are issuing guidance out of the Trump EPA to make abundantly clear that if you own your farm and other non-road diesel equipment, you have the right to fix it,” Zeldin says. “This might seem like a no-brainer, but ask any American farmer and they will tell you about the headaches and costly hassles that they have been forced to endure at the hands of equipment manufacturers.”

Zeldin says manufacturers have relied on what he calls a false interpretation of the Clean Air Act to restrict access to repair tools, software and diagnostic systems. He says today’s announcement will make that new guidance clear.

What EPA’s Announcement Didn’t Include? A Complete Rollback of DEF

Following today’s right-to-repair announcement, Farm Journal asked EPA why the administration isn’t also removing Diesel Exhaust Fluid, or DEF, requirements for farm equipment. Farmers have long cited DEF as a major contributor to rising equipment costs, particularly compared with competitors in Brazil, for example. In summer 2025, EPA issued guidance relaxing DEF “inducement” requirements, and today’s announcement focuses on allowing farmers to temporarily override DEF when making repairs.

In response, EPA says the agency is actively building on last summer’s DEF guidance.

“As Administrator Zeldin mentioned on today’s press call, EPA is actively working to build upon the DEF guidance the agency issued this summer,” the press office wrote. “EPA understands DEF is a major issue facing farmers, truck drivers and equipment operators. The agency will be making an announcement on DEF in the near future.”

This indicates that while today’s right-to-repair guidance stops short of changing DEF rules, additional updates could be coming soon.

Downtime, Dealer Dependence and Lost Productivity

Zeldin says farmers are often forced to rely exclusively on authorized dealerships for repairs, even during critical times like during planting and harvest when downtime costs farmers time and money.

“Instead of a farmer being able to fix their own equipment in the field or bring it down the road to their local repair shop, farmers have been forced to rely solely on authorized dealers for essential repairs, which are not always close by,” he says. “For farmers, timing is everything. When equipment breaks down during planting or harvesting, delays can result in thousands of dollars in lost productivity.”

He adds that the financial burden goes beyond inconvenience.

“Being forced to haul machinery to a certified dealership, pay higher prices for repairs and wait in line; it’s not just inconvenient,” Zeldin says. “It can prove to be very economically damaging.”

The Future of DEF: Is an Emissions Rollback Coming?

This latest right-to-repair announcement builds on action taken by the Trump administration in August 2025, when EPA issued guidance addressing diesel exhaust fluid, or DEF, system failures in farm equipment. The 2025 guidance aimed to address widespread frustration among farmers with Tier 4 emissions technology, while maintaining long-term environmental protections.

Prior to that announcement, in early June, John Deere sent a letter to EPA, asking the agency to clarify that temporary emissions overrides are allowed. In response, EPA issued guidance on Aug. 12 and later urged DEF system software updates to prevent sudden shutdowns, helping farmers and equipment operators make repairs without losing productivity or safety.

The new right-to-repair guidance announced today by EPA, USDA and SBA aims to extend this administration’s approach by clarifying farmers’ ability to make essential repairs themselves, which they claim will further improve reliability, efficiency and cost savings on the farm.

If you go back to the Trump administration’s original announcement last summer, EPA said it would allow manufacturers to update DEF system software to prevent abrupt power loss in tractors, trucks and other diesel machinery. The goal was to reduce “red tape” and prevent equipment shutdowns during critical planting and harvest periods, while still maintaining emissions controls.

Key aspects of the 2025 DEF guidance included:

Reduced Derating: Instead of immediate, severe speed and power reductions when DEF levels are low or sensors fail, engines could now slow down more gradually, reducing disruption in the field.
“Soft” Power Loss for New Models: For 2027 and later models, engines were required not to shut down or lose power abruptly if DEF ran out.
Software Fixes for Existing Equipment: Manufacturers could issue software updates to ensure older machinery properly handled low-DEF scenarios.
No Deleting Permitted: Emissions equipment could not be removed, and the guidance did not legalize deleting any system.

EPA says the announcement meant tractors and machinery were less likely to experience sudden, catastrophic power loss, which would reduce downtime.

USDA: Right to Repair Is Important for Everyday Farm Operations

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins says the administration has been working on the guidance for months because of its importance to everyday farm operations.

“We have been working on today’s guidance now for a while because we know how much it means for the everyday farmer,” Rollins says. “The right to repair isn’t just a slogan. It’s a common-sense extension of the God-given right to private property.”

Rollins ties equipment downtime directly to food production and national security.

“Every single day our farmers feed us, they fuel us, they clothe us,” she says. “But when that equipment breaks down and remains out of operation, it means crops aren’t planted or harvested, mouths aren’t fed, and America’s economic growth and national security are put at risk.”

She says farmers overwhelmingly agree they should be able to repair their own equipment, an issue USDA has been hearing since President Trump took office more than a year ago.

“Farmers shouldn’t be forced to haul their equipment to specialized and costly repair shops when they could be making those repairs on their own,” Rollins says. “An overwhelming majority of farmers, north of 95%, agree with that statement.”

What Does the New EPA Right to Repair Guidance Allow?

Zeldin stresses the guidance does not weaken emissions standards or change the Clean Air Act.

“It does not change the law, and it does not reduce compliance obligations,” he says. “What it does do is stop the law from being misused to block common-sense repairs.”

The guidance clarifies that equipment owners may temporarily override emissions systems — including diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) systems — when necessary to complete a repair, as long as the equipment is returned to compliance.

“At times, a tractor might just stop working altogether in the middle of harvest because of a DEF issue,” Zeldin says. “This allows farmers to fix broken DEF systems right there at home or in the field.”

SBA: ‘Huge Relief’ with Measurable Savings

Small Business Administration Administrator Kelly Loeffler says the guidance delivers significant, quantifiable savings for farmers.

“I’m the product of one of the 1.9 million farms in this great nation that feed, fuel and clothe our country,” Loeffler says. “Diesel exhaust fluid and now right to repair — these are huge-relief, common-sense reforms.”

Loeffler says SBA economists worked to quantify the impact farm by farm.

“In the aggregate, this is about a $48 billion savings,” she says. “It’s about $33,000 per repair.”

She adds that downtime drives additional losses.

“The loss of yield could be up to $3,000 to $4,000 for the average farm,” Loeffler says. “That’s time spent leaving the field, missing a window of dry weather and dealing with delays in parts and labor.”

According to Loeffler, the guidance could reduce annual operating costs by roughly 10% and cut repair costs dramatically.

“This could potentially reach an 80% annual reduction in the cost of repairs,” she says. “And we know those repairs are getting even more expensive.”

John Deere Say’s EPA’s Guidance Responds to Formal Request

John Deere says the EPA’s right-to-repair guidance directly responds to a formal request the company made to the agency in June 2025 .

In a statement, John Deere says it sought updated guidance from EPA to expand repair options for customers and independent technicians while still ensuring compliance with federal emissions requirements.

“John Deere appreciates today’s action by EPA Administrator Zeldin, which responds directly to a formal request made by the company in June 2025,” the company says. “John Deere sought this updated guidance from the EPA with the intent to further increase customers’ and independent repair technicians’ repair capabilities while ensuring compliance with EPA requirements and guidance.”

The company says its request aligns with its long-standing position that customers should have flexibility in how their equipment is repaired.

“John Deere’s request to the EPA is consistent with the company’s longstanding commitment to supporting customer choice on how equipment is repaired — whether through their trusted John Deere dealer, with a local service provider, or by doing the work themselves,” the statement says.

John Deere adds that in light of the updated EPA guidance, it plans to roll out new repair functionality for customers.

“The temporary inducement override capability will soon be made available to John Deere customers through Operations Center™ PRO Service,” the company says, describing the platform as an enhanced digital repair tool that provides diagnostic, repair and reprogramming capabilities.

The company says additional information about the tool is available through its website.

Trump Administration Frames Announcement as Farmer Choice and Independence

All three officials frame the announcement as centered on farmer independence.

“This is about fairness, competition and independence,” Zeldin says. “Farmers should be able to choose where and how their equipment is repaired.”

“In America, the timely, affordable maintenance of agricultural equipment should not be a luxury,” Rollins says. “It should be a given.”

“And coming from a multigenerational farm family, this issue is very personal,” Loeffler says. “We’re going to continue to make sure farmers get the regulatory relief they deserve.”

Is The Death of DEF Coming Soon?

While today’s announcement is another step in reducing regulations and emissions standards, EPA didn’t go as far as to eliminate DEF requirements on farm equipment, but told Farm Journal an announcement on that is coming soon.

Industry analysts say a rollback of federal emissions requirements on machinery could send shockwaves through both the new and used equipment markets, though exactly how depends on how far any policy would go and how manufacturers respond.

Greg Peterson, widely known as “Machinery Pete,” says the biggest immediate impact would be on used equipment values, particularly older, pre-emissions models that farmers already favor.

Emissions Rollback Could Reshape Machinery Markets, Analysts Say

Peterson points to years of auction data showing strong demand, as well as rising prices for good-condition pre-DEF tractors and combines, even during tight grain markets. If emissions rules were suddenly relaxed, he says the industry would be entering uncharted territory.

“The wild card is what happens to that one-, two-, three-, four-, five- and six-year-old equipment that’s already out there,” Peterson says. “It would be unprecedented.”

Opportunity and Uncertainty for Dealers and OEMs

While that uncertainty could create short-term friction, Peterson also sees opportunity. If manufacturers were allowed to build simpler machines again, it could align more closely with what many farmers are already voting for with their checkbooks.

“That’s what farmers want,” Peterson says, noting the continued premium buyers are willing to pay for older machines without complex emissions systems.

He adds that such a shift could be “an unbelievable opportunity” for both manufacturers and dealers, depending on how quickly and cleanly changes could be implemented at the factory level.

Manufacturers Unlikely to Fully Abandon Emissions Systems

Casey Seymour, host of the ‘ Moving Iron ’ podcast, agrees the used equipment market could benefit, but he’s skeptical manufacturers would abandon emissions technology altogether.

Seymour says the bigger issue for OEMs is regulatory whiplash. Environmental rules can change dramatically from one administration to the next, making it risky to retool factories for non-emissions machines only to reverse course a few years later.

“I don’t see a manufacturer of any color completely stepping back and saying we’re not going to worry about this anymore,” Seymour says.

Flexibility Could Boost Used Equipment Values

Instead, if EPA would decide to roll back emissions standards, Seymour envisions machines leaving the factory “emissions-ready,” giving farmers flexibility down the road. If deleting emissions systems became legal, equipment could be modified and resold without violating regulations, opening new possibilities in the secondary market.

That shift, Seymour says, could actually strengthen used equipment values. Demand for legally modified machines could rise, and farmers would no longer need to remove emissions components illegally.

Both analysts agree the used market would likely react first to any regulatory change, while new equipment pricing may remain largely unchanged unless manufacturers gain long-term certainty on emissions policy.

Inside the Room: What Farmers Heard as USDA Rolled Out Its $700M Regenerative Ag Plan

Tue, 27 Jan 2026 20:54:33 GMT

When USDA quietly selected a small group of farmers to help roll out a new $700 million regenerative agriculture pilot program, most producers never knew the meetings were happening. Missouri farmers Jon and Brittany Hemme did, because they were invited into the room, sitting face-to-face with two cabinet secretaries and hearing firsthand how Washington plans to reshape soil health policy.

“We are very average farmers,” Hemme says. “It was a very humbling experience that we were chosen. My biggest takeaway is that I truly believe they’re trying to do the right things, bringing better health options to people through the way food is produced.”

Reinventing a Small Dairy to Stay Viable

Jon is one of three Hemme brothers continuing a dairy operation their father started 30 years ago. Today, the Hemmes operate the only dairy left in Saline County. Survival hasn’t come easily. As small dairies disappeared, the Hemmes reinvented their business model, adding on-farm processing and direct-to-consumer sales.

“That’s where our direct market part of our business came in, the creamery,” Hemme says. “Being able to go to processing and then direct market that end product has made us a viable operation yet as a small dairy.”

Their Hemme Brothers cheeses are now sold throughout Kansas City and central Missouri, but what also caught the attention of USDA was how they manage their land.

“We started planting cover crops the first time in 2017, got really aggressive by 2018 to where we tried to have all of our acres covered in one way or another,” Hemme says.

That shift began at the request of a landlord nearly a decade ago. Hemme says it pushed him to learn what regenerative agriculture really meant and how it could pencil out.

“We initially started just looking to try to reduce inputs to where we could keep a little more of our income,” he says. “For quite a few years we managed them that way trying to reduce our herbicide and we were successful, but that takes a lot of time and management. Here recently we’ve kind of mainstreamed it to where the main reason for them is erosion control.”

A Text Message From USDA

That work that started nearly a decade ago led to an unexpected invitation from Washington.

“We got a text message on Dec. 8 saying: ‘Would you and Jon want to come to USDA and be a part of Secretary Rollins’ announcement?’” Brittany Hemme says. “Thought it was a joke maybe at first, because it was so random. But we were on a plane the next morning and then with them in D.C. on Dec. 10.”

In the midst of the madness of the holiday season and school activities for their kids, the Hemmes went ahead and said yes, knowing this could be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

A First-of-its-Kind $700 Million Pilot Program

Not knowing exactly what USDA was going to unveil, at the event, USDA and HHS announced what they call a first-of-its-kind, $700-million Regenerative Agriculture Pilot Program, administered through NRCS. The goal is to test a farmer-first model that improves soil health while maintaining long-term farm viability.

“We’re doing things a little bit differently than typical Washington, D.C.,” said U.S Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins during the announcement at USDA. “We have encouraged the states to think differently and creatively as our laboratories of innovation about how to solve the many health issues facing America ... but really today is about the next step in making America healthy again, and that is talking about regenerative agriculture.”

During thee announcement, Rollins said the focus of USDA and HHS for the new pilot program was on protecting soil and is critical for farm productivity and longevity.

“Protecting and improving the health of our soil is critical not only for the future viability of farmland, but to the future success of American farmers,” she said. “We must protect our top soil from unnecessary erosion and boost the microbiome of the soil.”

But it wasn’t just USDA unveiling the new program. Rollins was standing beside Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who called the program a milestone tied to promises outlined in the MAHA Report.

“Among the recommendations of the report was the promise to make it easier for farmers in this country, farmers who are dependent on chemical and fertilizer inputs, to give them an off-ramp,” Kennedy said in December. “An off-ramp where they can transition to a model that emphasizes soil health. And with soil health comes nutrient density.”

An ‘Off Ramp’ for Farmers

When “U.S. Farm Report” recently caught up with the Hemmes to get their reaction, Jon says one of the key takeaways from the announcement is the structure of the pilot program and why that matters.

“It’s a five-year program, a five-year contract,” he says. “You can address multiple things in the same contract that you want to address. The farmer gets to pick his goal. They’ll develop a plan to help them achieve that goal, and then they’re going to quantify it with a soil test up front and one at the end.”

Along with the announcement, the Hemmes then had the chance to take part in a closed-door roundtable discussion with Rollins, Kennedy and Dr. Mehmet Oz, who serves as administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under Kennedy.

“They notified us that we would be in a roundtable discussion with Secretary Kennedy, Secretary Rollins and Dr. Oz; that made us pretty nervous,” says Jon, laughing.

Brittany says one word stood out during that discussion.

“He said ‘off-ramp’ several times,” she says. “I really appreciated that, because this is voluntary. There’s nobody forcing anyone to do this program. It’s not all or nothing. You can work with USDA NRCS and come up with a plan that is going to work for you on your farm, in your context.”

With no cameras in the room, Hemme says the conversation felt genuine.

“They wanted some feedback from farmers,” he says. “They allowed us to each go down the line and explain our operations, our motivations behind using regenerative agriculture, and then they followed it up with some really good questions.”

Those questions included market access and how long the transition takes.

“You could see him, the wheels turning,” Hemme says of Kennedy.

What Was (And Wasn’t) Discussed

Before Kennedy joined the cabinet, some farmers worried his focus would be on restricting tools like glyphosate. The Hemmes say that never came up.

“It’s been more voluntary, putting something out there instead of coming in with a stick,” Jon says.

“There was mention of tools in the toolbox, and there was no mention of taking any of those tools away,” Brittany adds.

As Brittany has watched Jon’s regenerative journey on their own farm, she says regenerative agriculture is often misunderstood.

“Some of the negative connotation has come in from an all-or-nothing mindset,” she says. “They demonize certain tools in the toolbox, and that’s unfortunate. True regeneration is what works in your context.”

Lessons From Their Nearly Decade-Long Journey in Regenerative Ag

For Jon, this really isn’t unconventional or something new. He says regenerative ag, to him, all comes back to building resilience in your soil.

“It is conservation, but it’s also trying to build resilience into your soil,” he says. “If you follow the soil health principles, minimize disturbance, keep residue on the surface, a living root in the soil, you will start to build carbon. You’ll hold more water, perform better in dry conditions, and handle weather shifts.”

But in the nearly 10 years of diving into regenerative ag, Jon says that journey didn’t come without mistakes.

“I was very aggressive when I started out, and I kind of set myself back,” Hemme says. “If I were to give any advice, it would be to start slow and safe.”

He points specifically to cover crops. He says by trying to put cover crops on every acre at the start, he learned the hard way that if you let those cover crops get too tall, it can actually negatively impact crop production.

“If you’re too aggressive up front, you almost constipate your soil,” he says. “Eventually that residue has to leave.”

As the Hemmes say, they still want to pinch themselves over a trip that seemed like a dream, it was those direct conversations with President Donald Trump’s cabinet members that made them believe USDA’s support of regenerative ag will be a practical approach and one any farmer can try or do.

What else should you expect when it comes to regenerative ag? That’s exactly what “AgriTalk” Host Chip Flory asked Richard Fordyce, USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation, just last week.

The Politics of the Plate: How Voter Sentiment is Reshaping the Ag Landscape

Wed, 28 Jan 2026 15:15:31 GMT

The road to the 2026 midterms runs directly through the dairy aisle. At the International Dairy Foods Association Dairy Forum in Palm Springs, Calif., Morning Consult’s lead U.S. politics analyst, Eli Yokley, delivered a high stakes briefing on the cultural forces currently driving the American voter. From the surprising bipartisan popularity of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement to a softening public stance on agricultural labor, Yokley’s data outlines how the dairy industry can leverage its position at the intersection of nutrition and necessity to navigate an increasingly complex political landscape.

The “MAHA” Momentum and the Milk Moment

Yokley began with a surprising revelation: While voters historically distrust the Republican party on general healthcare policy, the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda is a notable exception.

“Voters just don’t trust Republicans on healthcare in the traditional sense,” Yokley notes. “But the MAHA agenda, specifically as it relates to food, is remarkably popular. It’s working on bipartisan territory.”

According to Morning Consult data, the favorability of the MAHA agenda remained steady throughout 2025. Voters associate the movement with improving food access and reducing harmful additives rather than vaccine skepticism. This “big moment for milk” is rooted in a return to natural, whole foods. Interestingly, Yokley points out a significant gender divide. Men across the political spectrum view whole milk as “generally good for you,” women, who still perform the majority of grocery shopping, are slightly more skeptical. However, a quarter of all grocery shoppers expressed a willingness to pay more for “natural” or “whole” products, a trend driven by high-earning suburban parents who will be the ultimate deciders of the 2026 midterms.

The Inflation Disconnect: Groceries as a Political Weapon

The most significant headwind for the current administration is the economy, specifically the “grocery store” voter. Yokley argues the administration’s focus on tariffs is increasingly out of sync with voter concerns.

“Voters perceive big price increases in groceries more than any other category,” Yokley says. “Groceries are the biggest driver of voter concern this year. It activates people across all income levels.”

For the dairy industry, there is a silver lining: Dairy products are still perceived as relatively affordable compared to bread, fruits and vegetables. And while, prices of fruits and vegetables have actually remained remarkably stable , dairy’s perceived “affordability halo” gives the industry a level of credibility when engaging with policymakers. Voters are far more likely to blame trade policies and immigration enforcement for rising food costs than they are to blame the farmers themselves.

The Immigration Leverage Point

One of the most delicate issues for the dairy industry is immigration, and Yokley’s data suggests a surprising shift in public sentiment. While the political rhetoric around border security remains fiery, the American public’s view on agricultural labor is softening.

“There is an openness among the American people to the idea that these kinds of workers are important to the economy, especially in this inflationary environment,” Yokley explains.

The share of voters who believe there is “about the right number” of seasonal or lower-skilled workers has increased, while the share of those who believe there are “too many” has stalled. This creates a strategic leverage point for the dairy industry to advocate for reform, framing it as a solution to food inflation rather than a purely political issue.

The CEO Conundrum: Public Silence Versus Private Action

Yokley also addressed the role of business leaders in this volatile climate, describing it as a pickle. Morning Consult data shows only a third of voters want to see CEOs speaking out publicly on issues such as trade or immigration. In fact, public attacks on the administration can be more harmful among a leader’s own base than helpful among the general public.

The solution? Private action and the power of trade associations.

“Voters are much more open to private action and lobbying,” Yokley says. “They get that this happens. It underlines the importance of trade associations like IDFA to provide the political cover that individual CEOs might not want to risk.”

Forecasting 2026 and Beyond

Looking ahead to the midterms, Yokley described a “split” reality. The Senate map currently favors Republicans, with high-profile races in Georgia (Jon Ossoff) and Maine (Susan Collins) serving as key bellwethers. The House, however, remains a toss-up, with Democrats needing only a three-to-four-point advantage on the generic ballot to reclaim control.

Finally, Yokley cast an eye toward 2028, noting that California Governor Gavin Newsom is a figure to watch. Newsom’s “fiery rhetoric” and “Trump-style” engagement are activating young voters in a way that feels authentic to the Democratic base.

The Bottom Line for Dairy

Yokley’s concluding message was one of optimism for the industry. In a deeply divided country, milk remains a “wholesome, accessible staple” that doesn’t trigger as much discord as other issues.

“The American people don’t hate milk,” Yokley concludes. “The industry is positioned at the intersection of nutrition and affordability — the two things voters care about most.”

Your Next Read:
IDFA President Outlines Top 5 Priorities For The $800B Dairy Industry’s Future

USDA Announces New World Screwworm Grand Challenge

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 21:52:36 GMT

Today, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins announced the launch of the N ew World Screwworm (NWS) Grand Challenge. This funding opportunity marks a pivotal step in USDA’s comprehensive strategy to combat NWS and prevent its northward spread.

“This is a strategic investment in America’s farmers and ranchers and is an important action to ensure the safety and future success of our food supply, which is essential to our national security,” Rollins says. “These are the kinds of innovations that will help us stay ahead of this pest and protect our food supply and our economy, protecting the way of life of our ranchers and go towards rebuilding our cattle herd to lower consumer prices on grocery store shelves. We know we have tried-and-true tools and methods to defeat this pest, but we must constantly look for new and better methods and innovate our way to success. Together, through science, innovation, and collaboration, we can ensure we’re utilizing the latest tools and technology to combat NWS in Mexico and Central America and keep it out of the United States.”

As part of the Grand Challenge, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will make up to $100 million available to support innovative projects that enhance sterile NWS fly production, strengthen preparedness and response strategies, and safeguard U.S. agriculture, animal health, and trade.

Priority Areas for Funding

APHIS invites proposals that support one or more of the following objectives:

Enhance sterile NWS fly production
Develop novel NWS traps and lures
Develop and increase understanding of NWS therapeutics/treatments (i.e., products that could treat, prevent, or control NWS) for animals
Develop other tools to bolster preparedness or response to NWS

The notice of funding opportunity, including application instructions, eligibility, and program requirements, is available on the NWS Grand Challenge webpage . Applicants can also find information on the ezFedGrants website  or  Grants.gov  by searching USDA-APHIS-10025-OA000000-26-0001.  

Eligible applicants are invited to submit proposals that align with and support these priorities by the deadline on February 23, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. ET.

Entities interested in submitting a proposal should ensure they are registered with the  U.S. Government System for Award Management (SAM) . Learn more about the basics of the funding process and  how to get ready to apply .  

Your Next Reads:
New World Screwworm Found in Newborn Calf 197 Miles from U.S.-Mexico Border
USDA Launches Screwworm.gov
The Smell You’ll Never Forget: A Calf Infested with New World Screwworm

'Dust Bowl' Agency at USDA Looks to Cut Red Tape and Speed Up Slow Computers That Frustrate Farmers

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 19:55:33 GMT

USDA’s reorganization plan in 2025 drew criticism over the number of job cuts and headcount reduction’s potential impact on farmers, with fears it would hinder field office staff and county offices, many of which were already understaffed. However, third-generation California farmer Aubrey Bettencourt, who’s now serving as chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), says those local constraints aren’t due to staff reductions. She says those issues stem from outdated infrastructure and processes that are creating bottlenecks for farmers and ranchers trying to sign up for programs through USDA agencies such as NRCS. And that’s something she’s now working to change.

By any measure, Bettencourt did not come to Washington to keep things the same. But then, her background for a government official isn’t that traditional either. Bettencourt was raised on her family’s farm in Hanford, Calif. But her political interest really started with her efforts to help lead California’s fight over water.

During the first Trump administration, she first served as the state executive director for USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA). She was then selected to work with both the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and USDA as a deputy assistant secretary with the DOI, where she oversaw water and science policy.

Bettencourt says conservation policy has never been theoretical for her. Instead, it is personal and it is operational, as she’s experienced the frustration firsthand with the slow speed at which many USDA agencies were forced to work.

As she entered into her role as chief of NRCS, Bettencourt says the changes she’s working to implement are about time and how much of it farmers lose navigating paperwork and how much time NRCS staff lose staring at what she calls the “spinning wheel of death” on outdated systems.

“I’ve always said my whole goal has been to keep farmers farming, get water to people who need it, take care of the resources that take care of all of us, and have high-speed internet everywhere in the United States, the indoor plumbing of the 21^st century,” Bettencourt says. “NRCS gets to do all of that.”

Now, nearly 90 years after the agency was created in response to the Dust Bowl, Bettencourt says NRCS is again confronting a foundational threat. This time, it is not erosion or war but the pace at which farmland is disappearing and the friction farmers face trying to stay productive on what remains.

“We are losing 5,000 acres of farmland a day in the United States,” she says. “Two thousand acres of prime farmland a day.”

To meet that challenge, Bettencourt is driving sweeping internal reforms, many of them invisible to farmers at first glance, that aim to reduce the number of times producers have to sign up, re-sign up, re-enter data or wait for answers. The goal, she says, is to get NRCS staff out from behind desks and back into the field, and to make USDA work at the speed agriculture actually operates.

From Policy to Processing, NRCS Is Undergoing Rapid Change

One of the most consequential changes underway is how NRCS processes applications for its flagship programs, EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) and CSP (Conservation Stewardship Program). Bettencourt explains years of layering subcategories, scenarios and hyper-specific ranking criteria slowed everything down, not just for farmers, but also for USDA field staff.

“The reason it took so long for us to get an answer back as a customer of ‘where is my application and where am I in this process’ is because we had so many individualized and subcategories and scenarios of practices that we would have to rank and score the application for every scenario, every single time,” she says

Rather than forcing applications through dozens of narrowly defined pathways, NRCS is shifting toward higher-level practice codes that still rely on vetted science but allow district conservationists, those who she says are closest to the land, to make judgment calls based on local conditions.

“I think it’s getting people to where they need to be, and it’s giving them the tools they need to be there. So one is freeing up time. Time is a huge component, and the ability for someone to have less time in front of a computer,” she says. “And the numbers, I kid you not, just by going to email notifications, we’re going to save 96,000 hours a year. 96,00 hours. Just by going to a singular ranking that then, you on your adventure. We’re going to save over 75,000 hours. That amount of time is a huge capacity builder for us, for our staff.”

Fixing the Infrastructure Farmers Never See

While some reforms focus on simplifying rules, Bettencourt points out some of the most significant barriers to faster program delivery have nothing to do with policy at all. They are physical and technological shortcomings inside USDA field offices, and problems farmers rarely see, but ones they often feel.

“I already knew we had rough bandwidth capacity at our offices,” Bettencourt says drawing on her experience at FSA. “What I didn’t realize is statistically how bad it was.”

She says industry standards call for five to eight megabits per second per person. Many NRCS offices, she says, operate with roughly 10 megabits total per office, regardless of whether that office has four employees or two dozen employees. She says the result is a system where applications stall through no fault of the farmer or the staff.

“You get your application in on time, and staff is working their rear ends off trying to get these things uploaded,” she points out. “And you miss out on the opportunity, not by any fault of your own, not by fault of the staff’s own, but because of a failure of the basic infrastructure to support the operations of our mission.”

As USDA programs have become more digital and data-heavy, those limitations have only been compounded. Bettencourt says improving connectivity might not sound exciting, but it is essential to restoring fairness and predictability in the process.

“It may sound boring. It may just sound not that sexy,” she says, “but it is so vitally important that we get the basic structure available to our staff, because that is doing respect to them and doing respect to our customer.”

The payoff, she says, is capacity. When staff are not losing hours to failed uploads and system delays, they can spend that time where it matters, and that’s working directly with farmers on conservation solutions.

“That’s how you build capacity,” Bettencourt says. “Not by asking people to work harder but by removing the friction.”

New Initiative Called ‘One Farmer, One File’

If infrastructure fixes address how fast data can move, the new “One Farmer, One File” initiative tackles how often that data has to move at all.

Bettencourt says USDA agencies routinely ask farmers for the same information, even though that data already exists elsewhere within the department, just often with a different agency within USDA.

“That’s why I have to fill out the same eligibility form twice,” she says. “That’s why I have to fill out the same direct deposit form twice. It makes no sense. It’s the exact same form with the same information.”

Working with FSA and RMA, NRCS is building a unified, protected back-end system that allows agencies to securely share core farmer information. Privacy protections remain unchanged, Bettencourt emphasizes, but usability improve dramatically.

“We share so much data between us to operate our different programs,” she adds. “But we don’t actually have it in one place where we can see it … It saves time, it saves energy and it saves my dad having to drive 50 miles back to the office to sign the same farm file that he signed four months earlier for FSA.”

For farmers who participate in multiple USDA programs, Bettencourt says redundancy has been a persistent barrier, especially during busy seasons. One Farmer, One File is designed to remove that friction by allowing USDA to view farmers holistically rather than as separate program participants.

“When we can see the farmer as a whole. It improves the customer experience, and it improves our operational capacity,” she says.

The More Talked About Issue: USDA Faces Major Workforce Shake-Up Amid Departures and Reorganization

The reality in 2026, though, is USDA has seen a sharp decline in staffing over the past year, with more than 20,000 employees leaving between mid-January and mid-June 2025, which was a 20% drop in total workforce during that time. Data also shows roughly 15,000 employees accepted voluntary buyouts through the Deferred Resignation Program, while others retired or resigned. Reports also show agencies such as NRCS and FSA experienced some of the steepest losses.

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced the downsizing last summer and said she would oversee a rapid reorganization aimed at reducing bureaucracy. That included the relocation of 2,600 Washington-based staff to five regional hubs and aligning staffing with budget constraints. That relocation plan is still underway.

At the time, Rollins framed the restructuring as a move to make USDA “efficient, nimble and innovative” while bringing staff closer to rural farmers and ranchers.

“Over the last four years, USDA’s workforce grew by 8%, and employees’ salaries increased by 14.5%, including hiring thousands of employees with no sustainable way to pay them,” USDA’s announcement stated last summer. “This all occurred without any tangible increase in service to USDA’s core constituencies across the agricultural sector.”

Still, it’s those cuts that critics say will further strain field staff. But Bettencourt says it’s current changes underway with processes and infrastructure that will help relieve some of the time constraints on staff, ultimately getting staff back in front of farmers and bringing NRCS back to its roots as a field-based agency.

Bringing the Office to the Farmer

Through a new Integrated Field Tool, NRCS staff will be able to build conservation plans with farmers in real time, on the farm and in the field.

“Our staff will be able to go out in the field with you and design your farm plan in the field with you,” Bettencourt says. “Auto-populate your application, verify it, sign it, send it off and get the process going.”

Rather than requiring multiple office visits, Bettencourt says NRCS wants to reverse the dynamic.

“This will actually be a digital and mobile-based platform where our staff at NRCS will be able to go out in the field with you, the farmer, and design your farm plan in the field with you in real time and say, ‘All right, here’s your options. What would you like to focus on? Let’s go ahead and do these EQIP practices here, here and here. Let me auto-populate your farm and your application. Can you verify this is right for me? Great let’s go ahead and just sign that and send that off and get this process going,’ and we’ll be able to do that in the field with the farmer in real time,” she says. “Again that’s back where we should be; that’s where we’re working with you instead of, you know, trying to make you come to the office and go back and forth 9 million times. We’re just going to be out in the field and bring the office to you.”

County offices will still play a role, she says, but the future of NRCS is face-to-face where it’s convenient for farmers.

A New Sense of Urgency Inside USDA

Behind the scenes, Bettencourt says collaboration across the administration is happening at a pace she has not seen before, including with USDA’s recently announced $700 million Regenerative Ag Pilot Program , which will be administered through NRCS.

“The conversations are happening lightning fast, and there is that sense of urgency,” she says.

That urgency, she says comes from a shared understanding that redundancy, inconsistency and delay cost farmers real money.

“As a Californian, I pay for the privilege to farm to 86 separate agencies,” she adds. “I know that frustration.”

Her charge at NRCS is to ensure farmers feel the difference, not through press releases but through fewer forms, fewer trips to the office and faster answers.

“We’re judged by one lens every day,” Bettencourt says. “Farmer first, and how are we producing in practical and measurable terms?”

For Bettencourt, she says it’s vital NRCS gets back to the basics, which is exactly what this new plan intends to do.

You can watch the full episode of “Unscripted” on the Farm Journal YouTube page.

Whole Milk is Back: The Dairy Farmers Who Witnessed History, and the Whirlwind Trip to Get There

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 22:24:38 GMT

What would you do if the White House called and asked you to get on a plane the next day to be part of a bill signing? For several dairy farmers this week, that whirlwind invitation became reality.

Nutrition shouldn’t be controversial. It’s common sense. #DrinkWholeMilk pic.twitter.com/le9vHOWXqs
— Dept. of Agriculture (@USDA) January 15, 2026

The occasion? President Donald Trump signing the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act into law, legislation aimed at giving students across the country access to whole milk in school lunches, a move the administration is calling “common sense” for both nutrition and parental choice.

“Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, whole milk is … a great thing,” Trump said during the signing, surrounded by farmers, legislators and a giant bottle of milk on the desk. “I’m delighted to sign the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act into law, which is very important for our farmers and maybe even more important for the people that drink milk.”

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins highlighted the nutritional benefits, noting that the law allows schools to expand milk offerings beyond low-fat or nonfat options within just a few weeks.

“It’s a big announcement for our schools and our children,” Rollins said, emphasizing that the law empowers parents to make milk choices for their children without requiring medical exemptions.

🖊️ INTO LAW: President Donald J. Trump signs the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, ensuring millions of children have access to high-quality milk in schools.

MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY AGAIN 🥛🐄 pic.twitter.com/VUI36QKgnU
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 14, 2026

For New Mexico dairy farmer Tara Vander Dussen, a fifth-generation dairy farmer and host of the “Discover Ag” podcast, she didn’t just experience the White House for herself; she actually attended the signing with her two daughters, making sure the experience was unforgettable.

“Oh my gosh, it was such a whirlwind,” Vander Dussen tells U.S. Farm Report. “I got the call on Monday, and within 24 hours, I needed to be in D.C. Thankfully, my mom packed everything in less than three hours so we could make it. I was on vacation with my husband, so it was a crazy scramble, but we made it.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tara Vander Dussen | New Mexico Milkmaid (@taravanderdussen)

Van Dussen says she almost turned down the invitation, as she was already on a trip and her girls were back at home in New Mexico, but she knew this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity she needed to make a reality for her family.

“Not only was it an incredible opportunity to meet the president, for the girls to meet him, but this is a huge win for dairy farmers across the country, a huge one for school-aged kids that depend on school lunches,” the New Mexico dairy farmer says. “And Trump, I think, said it best when he said, this is common sense. Why can’t kids have whole milk? And it’s not just a win for a whole milk; it’s also a win for parents’ choice. So before this bill was passed, if you wanted to have your kids have an alternative milk option, you had to have a sign to know from a doctor. Now parents can make that choice themselves.”

A really special moment with a fifth-generation dairy farmer, @TaraVanderDussn, and her two beautiful little girls yesterday (who already plan to be the SIXTH generation!!) — all headed to the White House for a big win for kids and real food. 🥛🐮🐄

With the Whole Milk for… pic.twitter.com/9RFoGbwDIC
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) January 15, 2026

The White House signing included farmers from operations of all sizes. USDA highlighted attendees like William Thiele, who milks 40 to 60 cows in Butler County, Pa., and Jamie Witcpalek, of Pagel’s Ponderosa Dairy, LLC from Wisconsin, who manages 5,000 cows.

“This is such a monumental day in agriculture, not just for dairy farmers, but for all of agriculture,” Thiele said during the White House signing. “It helps producers, processors and these kids. It’s a perfect piece of legislation, a great day for America.”

Mr. President, I love Butler, PA too — and I’m always amazed by our hardworking dairy farmers across the Commonwealth 👍 pic.twitter.com/VbwuaL5muA
— Dave McCormick (@DaveMcCormickPA) January 15, 2026

U.S. Farm Report had the chance to talk to Thiele fresh off his trip to D.C. this week. He also emphasized the nutritional impact of the law, noting that the fat in whole milk is beneficial.

“I believe it was Secretary Brooke Rollins and Secretary Robert Kennedy [who] said yesterday about how important this is to a growing children’s diet and for brain health, brain function and physical health and all those things,” he says.

The signing marked the first bill of the year and quickly became a social media sensation, with images of Trump as the “Milk Man” and USDA posts celebrating the law’s passage. For dairy producers, it was a moment of recognition and celebration, a rare spotlight for an industry often overlooked.

Make Whole Milk Great Again.🥛 pic.twitter.com/l14FZhZDgw
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 15, 2026

This historic signing brings a personal element to legislative victories, a reminder that policy decisions can directly impact farmers’ livelihoods and children’s nutrition. For the dairy families who boarded planes at a moment’s notice, it was a trip of a lifetime and a reason to toast milk instead of debate it.

Trump Signs Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act into Law

Wed, 14 Jan 2026 21:25:58 GMT

President Donald Trump has signed the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act of 2025 into law, clearing the way for whole and 2% milk to return to America’s school cafeterias for the first time in more than a decade.

Schools Regain Full Milk Options

The bipartisan legislation reverses Obama-era restrictions that limited federally supported school meal programs to fat-free or low-fat milk options. The bill passed both chambers of Congress unanimously in late 2025, signaling broad agreement around child nutrition, school meal flexibility and dairy market access.

Under the new law, schools may now offer a wider range of fluid milk choices, including flavored and unflavored organic or conventional whole, 2%, 1%, skim and lactose-free milk. Supporters say the expanded menu better reflects current nutrition science and aligns school offerings with what families commonly consume at home.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by U.S. Department of Agriculture (@usdagov)

Farm and Dairy Groups Sing Praises

Farm organizations quickly praised the signing, calling it a practical policy win for both students and farmers.

“Farmers applaud Rep. GT Thompson and Sen. Roger Marshall for working to return whole milk to America’s schools, and to the president for signing the legislation today,” says Zippy Duvall, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. “The commonsense, bipartisan bill ensures children will have access to important vitamins, protein and other nutrients while supporting dairy farmers who need access to expanded markets for their product.”

Dairy industry leaders emphasized that milk’s full nutritional profile was a key driver behind the legislation.

“Dairy farmers and their cooperatives couldn’t be more thrilled that whole and 2% milk is returning to school meals,” says Gregg Doud, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation. “Dairy is a nutrition powerhouse that should be used to its fullest potential — and that means making it available in the same varieties families consume at home.”

Doud says NMPF is prepared to support implementation efforts as schools update menus and procurement plans.

“We are ready to help schools and USDA in any way we can as this important legislation is implemented, and we thank the Trump administration, our advocates on Capitol Hill, and everyone who has worked to make school meals better through increased access to dairy,” he says.

The International Dairy Foods Association also hailed the signing as a long-awaited milestone.

“The long wait is over! Whole milk is coming back to schools,” says Michael Dykes, president and CEO of IDFA. “This law is a win for our children, parents and school nutrition leaders, giving schools the flexibility to offer the flavored and unflavored milk options, across all healthy fat levels, that meet students’ needs and preferences.”

Dykes thanked a broad group of lawmakers for advancing the bill, including U.S. Rep. Kim Schrier and Thompson, and U.S. Sen. Peter Welch and Marshall, as well as congressional committee leadership involved in shepherding the legislation through Congress.

“IDFA is deeply grateful to President Trump for signing the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act into law,” Dykes says. “IDFA and our members stand ready to partner with USDA, states and school nutrition leaders to help schools offer the milk options kids prefer so more students can benefit from the 13 essential nutrients that milk provides.”

Schools could begin offering whole and 2% milk as soon as the next school year.

The New Beef Powerhouse? As Brazil Overtakes the U.S., Here’s What It Means

Tue, 13 Jan 2026 21:54:27 GMT

The global beef landscape is witnessing a historic changing of the guard. According to recent reporting from Reuters , Brazil has officially surpassed the U.S. as the world’s leading beef producer.

While the U.S. industry grapples with a significant herd contraction, Brazil’s production has defied earlier bearish forecasts to take the top spot on the global stage.

In 2025, U.S. beef production fell by 3.9%, dropping to 11.8 million tons. In stark contrast, Brazil’s production, which analysts at Rabobank previously expected to decline, surged by 0.5% to reach 12.5 million tons in carcass weight equivalent.

And as Mike North of Ever.ag and Dan Basse, president of AgResource Company, told “U.S. Farm Report,” Brazil’s growth isn’t a shock, but it is something that is changing the global dynamics of the beef industry.

The Feed Engine: Why Brazil’s Growth Isn’t a Shock

For many in the industry, Brazil’s ascent is the result of years of aggressive agricultural expansion. Mike North, of Ever.ag, notes the foundation of Brazil’s livestock success is its massive grain production capacity.

“Livestock industries depend on the availability of feed, and let’s look at the track record,” North explains. “They’re continuing to grow bigger and bigger crops each year. As we look at their exports, yes, they’ve become a growing partner to China, especially in our absence, but they have enough there to also feed a growing livestock industry.”

North points out Brazil’s “double-crop” system, planting soybeans followed immediately by a second crop of corn (safrinha), has created a consistent, high-volume feed supply that the U.S. is finding harder to compete with.

“The writing’s kind of been on the wall as they grow more and more soybeans and then backfill that during the second crop with more and more corn,” North says. “The gates are open, and they walk through them. This doesn’t come as a shock.”

However, North warns that volume isn’t everything. Brazil still faces hurdles in global perception.

“It’ll be an interesting thing to see what they do as those cattle leave the feedlot, go to processing, and whether or not they can meet all the phytosanitary concerns that the world demands as that meat leaves the country,” he explains.

A Shift in Market Sentiment: From Bullish to Neutral

For the past several years, Basse has been one of the most vocal bulls in the cattle market. However, the combination of Brazil’s dominance and shifting domestic factors has caused him to re-evaluate his position.

“I’ve been bullish for about the last four years,” Basse admits, “but I’m starting to see where there’s some solutions to the tightness in the beef market in particular. My outlook is starting to be a little more neutral, or let’s say, in a wide-swinging market.”

Basse notes international beef is increasingly filling the void left by the shrinking U.S. herd. Imports from Brazil and Australia are becoming a “solution” to high domestic prices, potentially capping the market’s upside.

“As you look at Australian and Brazilian imports of beef, it is going to be something that will keep this market under the high that we scored last October,” Basse says. “I’d be a little careful here on feeders, because while people are still optimistic, I’m becoming less bullish of cattle just based on imports.”

The “Ozempic” Factor and the Dairy Influence on Supply

Beyond international trade, Basse says internal shifts in the U.S. protein market are also underway. Interestingly, he says that while general protein demand remains high, partially influenced by health trends and weight-loss medications like Ozempic, the U.S. is finding new ways to supplement beef supplies.

“As we look at the dairy herd, we’re keeping back numbers,” Basse says. “We’re seeing more cross-calves being produced by the dairy industry. Between that and the expansion of imports into the United States, the supply picture is changing.”

Looking Toward the Horizon

While Brazil’s production numbers are the headline, several wild cards remain for 2025. Basse points to the upcoming USDA inventory report as a critical data point that will determine the next leg of the market. Additionally, biological threats remain a concern for the coming year.

“Screwworm is something we’ll have to deal with as we turn the page to April or May of next year,” Basse cautions.

For now, the U.S. cattle industry finds itself in a period of transition, watching a southern competitor take the lead while navigating a domestic market that might have already seen its historical highs. Yet, as the U.S. cattle herd remains tight, Brazil could continue to outproduce the U.S., just based on the fact it will take years for the U.S. to rebuild the cattle herd. And some economists think the herd might never get back to cattle numbers the U.S. saw at its highs.

New Leadership to Take on Key Animal Health Roles at USDA

Tue, 13 Jan 2026 19:23:03 GMT

USDA announced major leadership changes within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Michael Watson, APHIS administrator, will retire at the end of January after decades of distinguished service, and Rosemary Sifford, deputy administrator for veterinary services and U.S. chief veterinary officer, has also retired from federal service after a similarly notable career.

Dedicated Public Servants

Watson’s notable career reflects his unwavering commitment to safeguarding U.S. agriculture, building strong partnerships with states and stakeholders and mentoring future leaders. Beginning his USDA career in 1994 as a plant pathologist with the Agricultural Research Service, he later held key leadership roles across multiple APHIS programs. APHIS says Watson consistently championed science-based policy, ensuring APHIS decisions were grounded in rigorous data and research to protect U.S. agriculture and maintain public trust. His legacy is one of collaboration, integrity and dedication to public service.

Sifford began her USDA career in 1997 as a Saul T. Wilson Scholar and held numerous roles across APHIS. Under her leadership and guidance, APHIS advanced major animal health efforts, including combatting highly pathogenic avian influenza — with unprecedented detections in dairy cattle — and strengthening preparedness and response for New World screwworm. APHIS says her direction ensured these efforts were grounded in science-based policy, supported by field-ready guidance, and delivered with transparent stakeholder engagement. A steadfast champion of practical, proven biosecurity, she worked hard to protect animal health nationwide.

“Dr. Watson and Dr. Sifford are dedicated public servants and we greatly appreciate their time at USDA, serving American farmers and ranchers, and protecting the national security of the U.S. I am so grateful for their extended service to support the Trump administration during such a critical time for American agriculture,” says U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins in a news release. “The team at APHIS plays a critical role in protecting our food supply from foreign pests like the New World screwworm, as well as fighting diseases like bird flu. I have the utmost confidence in Ms. Moore, Dr. Huddleston and Dr. Dijab in continuing this critical mission and defending American agriculture.”

New Leadership

Starting Feb. 1, Kelly Moore will serve as acting administrator. Moore is currently acting chief operating officer for USDA’s marketing and regulatory programs mission area, and acting deputy administrator of marketing and regulatory programs business services.

“She brings extensive operational leadership experience and results-driven management, including a strong foundation of discipline from her prior service in the U.S. Marine Corps,” APHIS reports. “Ms. Moore is highly adept at guiding organizations through periods of change and transition and driving efficiency, compliance and innovation at scale — critical to APHIS’s mission during this pivotal time.”

Effective immediately, Dr. Alan Huddleston will serve as acting U.S. chief veterinary officer. With deep expertise in epidemiology and program development, he will represent U.S. animal health priorities internationally and maintain strong engagement with states and industry.

(USDA APHIS)

Dudley Hoskins, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs, says their leadership and commitment to collaboration strengthened APHIS and the nation’s animal and plant health systems.

“These are consequential changes at a pivotal moment for the agency, and I am confident that Ms. Moore, Dr. Huddleston, and Dr. Dijab will not only serve as steady hands for program continuity but will lead APHIS into a new era,” Hoskins says.

To ensure continuity during this transition, APHIS veterinary services associate deputy administrator Adis Dijab will continue to provide operational oversight of veterinary services.

“APHIS operations continue uninterrupted, guided by science-based policies, strong stakeholder engagement and experienced acting leaders to ensure program continuity,” APHIS reports. “APHIS remains steadfast in its mission to protect the health, welfare and value of our Nation’s plants, animals, and natural resources — continuing to deliver solutions and essential services that safeguard U.S. agriculture and support stakeholders nationwide.”

Economists Forecast Farm Economy to Stabilize, But High Costs and Policy Uncertainty Block a 2026 Rebound

Wed, 07 Jan 2026 18:26:38 GMT

As 2026 ushers in a fresh start, agricultural economists say the U.S. farm economy has stopped sliding, but it’s far from fully healed.

The December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor shows month-to-month sentiment is improving, but deep structural strain remains — especially in row crops. Meanwhile, livestock markets continue to provide strength. Crop producers face another year of tight margins driven by high input costs, weak prices and unresolved trade and policy uncertainty.

“There’s cautious optimism,” the economists say, “but very little belief that 2026 will bring a meaningful rebound without cost relief or stronger demand.”

Those themes mirror the perspective of Seth Meyer, former USDA chief economist and now director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) at the University of Missouri. In a recent interview, Meyer connected the dots between narrow margins, policy responses and what might actually move the dial for U.S. agriculture heading into 2026.

Stabilizing, Not Recovering

December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Economists see the ag economy holding its ground — but not gaining strength.

54% say the ag economy is somewhat better than one month ago.
Compared with a year ago:
- 42% say conditions are worse
- 33% say they are better
Looking ahead 12 months:
- 46% expect conditions unchanged
- 38% expect improvement
- 15% expect conditions to worsen

“Momentum has improved since mid-2025,” Meyer notes, “but tight margins have been with us for a long time. Turning that around requires demand growth, not just price stabilization.

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

Grant Gardner, assistant Extension professor at the University of Kentucky, tells AgriTalk’s Chip Flory: “I think as we move into kind of this next marketing year, you’re looking at what looks like a breakeven and not a loss, but breakeven still doesn’t look great after three years of breakeven or losses.”

He says even with the $11 billion in Farmer Bridge Program payments , it won’t drastically change the outlook for the farm economy.

“Purdue had a good survey about a month ago, where they looked at what were these payments going to go to, and research would show that a lot of these payments go into long-term assets, and so land tractors, but I think over 60% of producers right now are in such a tight cash crunch that you’re going to see a lot of these payments go into that short-term debt,” Gardner says.

Consolidation a Growing Threat

Economists are nearly unanimous that the crop sector remains under extreme financial stress. 83 percent say row crops are currently in a recession. That isn’t about production declines — acres and yields haven’t collapsed — but about persistently weak profitability.

“Negative returns for at least the third consecutive year across nearly all row crops,” one economist wrote in the survey.

Another said: “Margins remain below full costs of production for many producers.”

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes)

Meyer traces that back to how abruptly agriculture moved from the high prices of 2021 and 2022 into today’s tighter margins.

“We moved very quickly from a very high price environment and good profitability in 2022 to very tight margins,” he says. “That usually happens coming off price peaks, but this time it happened really rapidly.”

A minority of survey respondents argued farms are “treading water,” supported by strong land values and government aid rather than eroding further, which Meyer acknowledged aligns with how risk and safety nets have interacted this year.

But when you look at how the current stress in the farm economy could impact consolidation, the ag economists say it’s the economic pressure combined with demographic trends causing the acceleration. In fact, 92% of them say consolidation is underway and unavoidable.

“Markets go to the lowest-cost producers,” one economist wrote. “That sorting is consolidation on the production side.”

Aging producers exiting and rent-heavy operations under pressure only add fuel to that trend, with one economist saying: “Consolidation happens because producers have to exit, not because they want to.

What’s Driving the Farm Economy Right Now

When economists were asked to identify the two most important factors shaping agriculture’s economic health today, their responses clustered around a familiar, but increasingly sharp, divide: strong demand in livestock and the protein sector versus persistent oversupply and cost pressure in crops, all layered with trade and policy uncertainty.

Several economists pointed to continued strength in beef demand, both domestically and through export channels, as a key stabilizing force. While the dairy sector is an area that shows signs of weakness for 2026.

“Livestock revenues are a bright spot,” one respondent noted, underscoring why the livestock sector continues to outperform crops financially.

Looking to 2026, economists overwhelmingly point to input costs, not interest rates, as the biggest barrier to profitability. Nearly 70% cited input prices as the largest challenge as well, far ahead of trade concerns or capital availability.

Farm Journal’s December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lori Hayes )

“We have too much supply and not enough demand for row crops,” one economist wrote.

Another said: “Input costs are still too high.”

Trade remains a central wild card, especially relationships with China and uncertainty around global supply. Several respondents cited trade disputes and agreements as critical factors, along with questions about the size of South American crops and how that could shape global competition in the months ahead.

Policy uncertainty was also featured prominently, with economists pointing to domestic biofuels policy, government payments and broader market signals as factors influencing both short-term cash flow and longer-term demand growth.

Overall, economists say the ag economy is being pulled in opposite directions: strong livestock demand providing support, while crops struggle under high costs, oversupply and unresolved trade and policy questions — a dynamic that helps explain why the broader farm economy feels stable, but far from healthy, as 2026 approaches.

Livestock: A Continued Bright Spot

Livestock continues to stand out as the most financially healthy segment of the ag economy. Every economist surveyed rated beef as above average or excellent, supported by strong domestic demand and tight supplies. Dairy and pork were viewed as stable to moderately strong.

That success creates a stark contrast with row crops, where corn and cotton were cited by 38% each as the commodities most at risk financially in 2026.

What Could Move Crop Prices in the Next Six Months

Looking ahead to the first half of 2026, economists say crop prices will hinge less on domestic fundamentals and more on global supply, trade flows and policy clarity.

Across responses, South America emerged as the dominant influence, with economists repeatedly citing Brazilian weather, the size of the South American harvest and how those supplies compete with U.S. exports. Several noted that clarity around South American production will be critical in setting price direction for corn, soybeans and wheat.

Trade, particularly with China, remains another key swing factor. Economists emphasized not just the announcement of trade agreements, but whether purchases translate into actual shipments.

“China purchases of U.S. crops, but also if and when actual shipments occur,” one respondent noted, adding that details within any trade deal, including purchase commitments, will matter just as much as headlines.

Domestic factors still play a role, but economists see them as secondary in the near term. Input prices, early U.S. planting conditions and assumptions about 2026 acreage were all cited as important — especially as markets begin to trade expectations for next year’s crop mix.

Policy uncertainty also hangs over the outlook. Economists pointed to ongoing questions around trade policy, biofuels policy and broader economic conditions as variables that could amplify or mute price moves.

Economists say crop prices over the next six months are likely to be driven by how global supply unfolds, whether export demand materializes and how quickly policy uncertainty is resolved, rather than by any single domestic production shock.

Biofuels Policy: A Potential Turning Point?

One of the clearest themes Meyer highlights as a possible game changer for demand, and ultimately prices, is biofuels policy.

For economists, policy levers like year-round E15, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) volumes, 45Z investment tax credits and how small refinery exemptions are handled could meaningfully influence demand for corn and soybeans in 2026 and beyond.

“It’s one of the places where policymakers actually have levers to help with tight margins in the row crop sector,” Meyer says.

He emphasizes that final rules on RFS volumes and how biobased credits are implemented could impact feedstock demand.

“For the next couple of crop seasons, RVO (Renewable Volume Obligations) and how EPA reallocates small refinery exemptions are big factors,” Meyer says. “Should we raise the RVO to soak up that pool like a sponge? Should imported feedstocks get full 45Z credit? Those decisions could move demand.”

On year-round E15, a long-sought policy priority for corn growers, Meyer is cautiously optimistic.

“I do think it matters,” he says. “Maybe it’s not a huge swing this year, but offering certainty and building demand over multiple seasons is supportive. Other countries like Brazil are ramping up their biofuels production too, so this isn’t happening in a vacuum.”

Policy Uncertainty Still Looms

Economists also flagged top priorities for 2026 policy action:

Year-round E15 (row crops)
Trade policy clarity (row crops & livestock)
Labor reform and regulatory issues (livestock)

They also highlighted under-covered risks, which include pressure on land rents and values, labor shortages, biofuels policy details (such as 45Z credits) and slower population growth affecting long-term demand.

What Could Move Livestock and Dairy Prices in the Next Six Months

When economists look ahead to livestock and dairy markets in early 2026, they see a mix of strong demand signals, supply-side risks and policy uncertainty shaping price direction.

Consumer demand remains the cornerstone of the outlook, particularly for beef. Several economists pointed to continued buying interest from U.S. consumers as the primary support for cattle prices, even as affordability pressures rise. At the same time, some warned that a more “K-shaped” economy could begin to shift demand, pulling some consumers away from beef and toward pork.

Supply dynamics and herd trends are another major focus. Economists cited herd size, potential herd expansion and the availability of feeder cattle as critical variables. The expected resumption of feeder cattle imports from Mexico was highlighted as a key factor that could influence cattle supplies and pricing, depending on timing and volume.

Animal health risks also remain on the radar. Issues such as avian influenza, screwworm and other disease threats were mentioned as potential disruptors that could quickly alter supply conditions in both livestock and dairy markets.

Policy and trade uncertainty continues to hover over the sector. Economists pointed to ongoing questions around tariffs, restrictions on live animal trade with Mexico and the next steps under the USMCA as factors that could impact both imports and exports. Political uncertainty more broadly was also cited as a potential source of market volatility.

For dairy, economists noted that beef-on-dairy dynamics are likely to continue weighing on milk prices by increasing beef supplies while complicating dairy herd decisions.

Taken together, economists say livestock and dairy prices over the next six months will be driven by a delicate balance between strong consumer demand, evolving supply conditions and unresolved trade and policy questions, with any shift in one of those areas capable of moving markets quickly.

Acreage Expectations: Stress, Not Shock

Despite margin pressure, economists do not expect dramatic acreage pullbacks in 2026. Most expect:

Corn: 93 to 95 million acres
Soybeans: 84 to 86 million acres
Wheat: 44 to 45 million acres
Cotton: 9 to 10 million acres

Corn acreage expectations have edged lower since November, as economists backed away from another year above 95 million acres. At the same time, soybean acreage expectations have firmed, with 75% now targeting 84 to 86 million acres, suggesting stronger relative economics for beans.

“Export demand has helped keep corn acres supported,” Meyer says. “The question is whether that demand holds and whether policy supports it.”

As for acreage, the major impact on prices would be a large acreage reduction, which is unlikely.

“That’s what it comes down to, too. What I’ve been thinking about is what else can you use land for? And you’ve got the pushback on urban sprawl, you’ve got pushback on other uses for ag land. But right now, the simple fact is we’ve got way too much production. Without that slowing, or a drastic increase in demand, I don’t see prices improving to very lucrative levels,” Gardner says.

Overall, The Ag Economy Is a Grind, Not a Rebound

When you look at all the results from the December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor, economists paint a picture of an industry that has stopped getting worse, but has not yet found a path to durable profitability.

Crops remain mired in margin compression; livestock continues to outperform but remains sensitive to policy decisions. Government aid is buying time but not addressing structural challenges, but it’s policy outcomes, especially around biofuels, trade and E15, that could be decisive in shaping 2026 outcomes.

For now, the farm economy has found a floor. The tougher question, economists say, is whether policy can help lift it, or if it will continue to grind forward without a genuine rebound.

Related News: As Screwworm Inches Closer, When Could the U.S. Reopen the Southern Border to Cattle Imports?

As Screwworm Inches Closer, When Could the U.S. Reopen the Southern Border to Cattle Imports?

Tue, 06 Jan 2026 20:49:10 GMT

A newly confirmed case of New World screwworm (NWS) in northern Mexico is renewing concern among U.S. cattle producers and policymakers, as the parasitic fly continues to inch closer to the U.S.-Mexico border.

As reported by Drovers, on Dec. 27, Mexico’s National Service of Agro-Alimentary Health, Safety, and Quality (SENASICA) reported a case of NWS in a 6-day-old calf with an umbilical lesion in the municipality of Llera, located in the state of Tamaulipas. The location is approximately 197 miles south of the U.S.-Mexico border, and a reminder that NWS is still a high threat to the U.S.

Critical Timing with Calving Season Approaching

NWS, which was eradicated from the U.S. in the 1960s through an extensive sterile fly program, poses a serious threat to livestock. The larvae infest open wounds, feeding on living tissue and often leading to severe injury or death if untreated. Calving season is considered a particularly vulnerable period due to natural points of entry such as navels and birthing injuries.

Seth Meyer, director of the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) and former chief economist for USDA, says the new case raises a tremendous amount of concern as USDA remains vigilant on keeping NWS out of the U.S. But Meyer says the growing proximity of NWS complicates already difficult decisions for cattle producers at calving season , which is a critical time of the year.

“There are concerns not just from a consumer standpoint, but also about whether southern producers are willing to retain heifers during calving season if there’s a risk of fly exposure,” he says. “Calving is a point of access for these animals, and that risk matters.”

Those decisions could have longer-term implications for herd expansion and cattle supplies, Meyer notes. If producers decide the risk is too great and opt against retaining replacement heifers, it could tighten supplies further down the road.

“That’s the last thing you want,” Meyer says. “You don’t want people giving up on retaining heifers and turning away from herd rebuilding.”

The Possibility of Reopening the Southern Border

The U.S. most recently closed its southern border to Mexican cattle imports in May of 2025 due to the rapid spread of NWS in Mexico. There were additional closures and reopenings in July 2025 as the situation evolved ultimately halting trade again to protect U.S. livestock.

Here’s a timeline so far:

November 2024: NWS was first detected in southern Mexico, leading to initial border closures and trade disruptions.
Feb. 1, 2025: A temporary ban was lifted after agreements for inspections.
May 11, 2025: U.S Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins ordered an immediate suspension of imports due to NWS spreading closer to the border.
July 2025: A phased reopening began but was halted again after new NWS cases were found farther north, leading to another immediate closure of southern ports to protect American livestock.

Considering the cattle just south of the border are being vigilantly monitored and inspected, the bigger threat of NWS crossing the Southern border could be through wildlife . Still, as NWS gets closer, USDA is keeping the border closed and remaining cautious.

When could the U.S. reopen the border? That’s exactly what Farm Journal asked economists in the latest Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor and the responses were extremely mixed. It’s important to note the survey was sent out prior to the most recent detection of NWS.

33% of economists say USDA could reopen the border in February 2026
25% say it could happen April through June
17% think the border could reopen July through September
And 17% were unsure.

For policymakers, the situation adds another layer of complexity as they balance animal health, trade and producer confidence. While officials stress that there is no immediate threat to the U.S. herd, the latest detection underscores the importance of surveillance, rapid response and continued cooperation between U.S. and Mexican animal health authorities.

As Meyer puts it: “There are a lot of balls in the air right now,” and preventing NWS from crossing the border remains a critical priority for the livestock industry on both sides.

Follow Farm Journal’s extensive coverage of the ongoing NWS situation.

Whole Milk is Back! Congress Passes Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act

Mon, 15 Dec 2025 21:08:05 GMT

At a glance:

Congress passed the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, allowing schools to once again offer whole and 2% milk.
The legislation reverses a 2012 policy that limited school milk options to fat-free and 1%.
The bill now awaits the president’s signature, with implementation expected as early as the next school year.

Congress has approved the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act , marking a major shift in federal school nutrition policy and reopening the door for whole and reduced-fat milk in school meal programs. The legislation reflects growing consensus around the nutritional value of milk at all fat levels and underscores the impact of sustained, bipartisan advocacy.

“Today we will restore students access to a wide variety of milk options assuring students have the necessary nutrients to learn and to grow, says Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., a leading supporter of the bill since its introduction. “I have worked for a decade to restore whole milk to our school cafeterias, which have been limiting healthy choices for students, but that changes today.”

He emphasized the importance of choice in school meals, noting that whole milk is a key part of a balanced diet for students.

“Whole milk is an essential building block for a well-rounded and balanced diet, and students should have the option to choose the milk they love. I am proud that my bill, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, passed the House today and now heads to President Trump’s desk for his signature,” Thompson added.

The move has drawn praise from industry leaders, who say it reflects both the importance of milk in children’s diets and the power of sustained advocacy.

“It’s hard to overstate the significance of congressional passage of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, not only because it represents major progress in improving the nourishment of American schoolkids, but also because of what it says about how persistent, long-term effort can still bring bipartisan success in Congress,” says National Milk Producers Federation President and CEO, Gregg Doud.

If signed by the president, schools would once again have the option to serve whole and reduced-fat milk alongside the fat-free and 1% varieties currently allowed. Supporters say the added flexibility would better reflect what families purchase at home and align school offerings with current nutrition science.

A Long Road Back for Whole Milk
Whole and reduced-fat milk were removed from school menus in 2012 under nutrition standards set by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which aimed to reduce childhood obesity. Schools were limited to fat-free and 1% milk, and flavored milk was required to be fat-free. While intended to improve student health, the change coincided with a decline in school milk consumption and reduced choice for students.

Over the past decade, a growing body of research has shown that milk fat has a neutral or even positive effect on health outcomes. That evolving science, combined with changing consumer preferences, helped build bipartisan support for restoring flexibility in school milk offerings.

The bill’s passage represents the culmination of more than a decade of effort by dairy advocates, lawmakers and industry stakeholders.

“And now the day has arrived. We thank Chairman Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson of Pennsylvania and Representative Kim Schrier of Washington for their critical roles in championing the most recent version of this important legislation to the finish line and the many other congressional leaders who preceded them in their efforts to protect access to nutritious milk in schools,” Doud says.

A similar measure passed the House overwhelmingly in 2023 but stalled in the Senate. With Senate approval now secured, the legislation clears its final congressional hurdle.

Restored Choice for Schools and Students
The dairy industry emphasizes the collaborative nature of the effort.

“Dairy doesn’t succeed without tireless advocates on Capitol Hill, and it’s been an honor to work with these members and their staffs in this effort,” Doud adds.

With the bill now awaiting the president’s signature, attention turns to implementation.

“The next step, after a presidential signature, is implementation. We pledge our fullest support to federal officials and school districts across the nation to help with implementation of this important legislation. Congress made a positive difference today. We are thrilled to be a part of it,” Doud says.

While the bill does not mandate whole milk, it restores flexibility schools have not had in more than a decade. For students, it means access to the same range of milk options their families choose at home. For dairy farmers, it reopens a significant market, as school meal programs account for nearly 8% of all fluid milk sales.

Schools could begin offering whole and 2% milk as soon as the next school year.

The Death of DEF? Trump Says He’ll Roll Back Environmental Requirements to Cut Farm Equipment Costs

Tue, 09 Dec 2025 16:41:03 GMT

During a White House roundtable on Monday tied to a new $12 billion “bridge payment” plan , President Donald Trump said his administration will move quickly to ease environmental requirements affecting tractors and other farm machinery, arguing the changes will lower sticker prices and simplify repairs.

While the headline of the event was to announce the payments, which Trump says will be funded by tariff revenue, the roundtable discussion with farmers also revealed other actions the Trump administration is working on to reduce regulations. Trump told farmers Monday his administration plans to scale back environmental requirements on tractors and other farm equipment, framing the move as a way to bring down machinery costs that have climbed in recent years.

President Trump said that farming equipment has gotten too expensive and his administration would help tractor companies by removing some environmental rules that affect them https://t.co/nKzE5ACyBp pic.twitter.com/oexiZnfxgf
— Reuters (@Reuters) December 9, 2025

“The other thing I’d like to add … we’re going to also give the tractor companies, John Deere and all of the companies that make the equipment … we’re going to take off a lot of the environmental restrictions that they have on machinery,” Trump said. “It’s ridiculous.”

While Trump didn’t provide specifics on how the details of that plan will come together, Trump said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin would be involved in carrying out the effort. There’s speculation on if that will be removing diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) requirements on tractors or also addressing the long-standing right-to-repair issue.

Earlier this year, EPA announced guidance to change, not eliminate, DEF requirements, allowing for softer power loss in new trucks (from model year 2027) when DEF runs low, preventing sudden shutdowns and enabling software fixes for existing vehicles, easing burdens on truckers and farmers. This guidance removed what EPA called “red tape,” allowing manufacturers to develop less disruptive fixes for performance issues caused by emissions systems, though it doesn’t legalize “deleting” emissions equipment.

EPA Says DEF Is “Unacceptable”

While Trump didn’t outline exactly what EPA plans to roll back, he hinted toward DEF being the target. Farm Journal reached out to EPA for clarification and comment, and EPA’s press secretary confirmed rolling back DEF requirements is the target for this administration.

“EPA has heard loud and clear from truckers and farmers across the United States that the Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) system was unacceptable and cost millions of dollars in lost productivity,” Brigit Hirsch, EPA press secretary, told Farm Journal. “This summer, Administrator Zeldin issued clear guidance urging engine and equipment manufacturers to revise DEF system software in existing vehicles and equipment to prevent sudden shutdowns. It is essential manufacturers give operators more time to repair faults without impacting their livelihoods or safety. EPA will continue to evaluate ways to expand the work the agency has already done on DEF and looks forward to working across the administration to do so.”

She also pointed farmers toward EPA’s website dedicated to actions on Diesel Exhaust Fluid .

Trump Says “It Makes the Equipment Much More Expensive”

Trump argued added systems meant to meet environmental rules have driven up price tags and made equipment harder to operate and repair.

“You buy it, it’s got so much equipment on it for the environmental, it doesn’t do anything except it makes the equipment much more expensive and much more complicated to work,” he said, adding, “it’s not as good as the old days.”

Trump said the administration’s goal is to remove what he called “nonsense” and require manufacturers to pass savings along to farmers.

“And we’re going to do it, and we’re going to say: ‘You’re going to reduce the prices.’ We’re not going to do it, and they’re not going to reduce. They’re going to have to reduce their prices because farming equipment has gotten too expensive,” Trump said during the roundtable. “A lot of the reason is because they put these environmental excesses on the equipment which don’t do a damn thing except make it complicated, make it impractical.”

Trump Claims Modern Equipment is Overly Complex and Difficult to Service

Trump also described modern equipment as overly complex and more difficult for farmers to service themselves.

“For you really have to be, in many cases, you need about 185 IQ to turn on a lawn mower,” he said. “So we’re going to take that … off … that they put on Biden mostly.”

Trump claimed the changes would quickly impact costs, bringing down equipment prices and saying: “We’re going to do that immediately.”

“The machines, they’re always under repair because they’re so complicated that you can’t fix them,” “he said. The old days you used to fix it yourself. Now you can’t do that. You have to be a Ph.D. from, let’s say, MIT.”

Comments Came During Event Announcing $12 Billion in Bridge Payments

Trump made the remarks during a roundtable discussion with farmers at the White House that coincided with an announcement by the White House and USDA of $12 billion in bridge payments for farmers.

Up to $11 billion will go toward a newly designed Farmer Bridge Assistance (FBA) program targeted toward row crop farmers hit hardest by trade disruptions. Those payments will be sent by the end of February, according to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins. The remaining $1 billion will be set aside and is designated for other crops affected by the ongoing disputes.

USDA says the bulk of the funding will run through the new FBA program, administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and funded under the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Rollins framed the package as near-term help while trade and farm-safety-net updates ramp up.

John Deere Reacts

In a post on X following the announcement, John Deere commended the Trump administration’s announcement of relief and bridge payments for farmers saying: “The timely assistance will protect this essential industry, help rural communities and support critical long-term investments in the future of U.S. agriculture and manufacturing.”

Hat’s off to those who feed and fuel America pic.twitter.com/UWBvmAus20
— John Deere USA (@JohnDeere) December 8, 2025

John Deere also said it shares the administration’s focus on reducing costs for both producers and consumers.

“We are doing all we can to help U.S. farmers reduce input costs,” according to the post. “The equipment and technologies Deere makes here in the U.S. are giving American farmers new tools and technologies that can substantially reduce their input costs and labor costs while increasing yields, boosting margins.”

Those comments are drawing backlash from farmers and others online. Some argue if John Deere truly wants to help farmers, then they can start by lowering the price of their equipment. While others Deere will be one of the beneficiaries of farmers receiving these payments.

https://cms.farmjournal.com/cms/content/edit.jsp?id=0000019b-0351-d956-a5ff-8bdf58620000&typeId=c2a98712-61fa-35ef-bd5d-e0bfe394c8b6

Of course you commend relief and bridge payments, you make more financing tractors than you do selling them 🤣
— Drake (@silvopasturist) December 9, 2025

Why EPA Says Farmers and Ranchers Won't Need a Lawyer to Understand the Newly Proposed WOTUS Rule

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 16:10:31 GMT

Agricultural groups have been asking for a new WOTUS rule that eliminates red tape and clears up confusion for farmers and ranchers. As EPA unveiled its latest proposed Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule this week , Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi says the agency’s goal was simple: clarity, consistency and fewer regulatory headaches for farmers and ranchers.

Fotouhi joined “U.S. Farm Report” for an exclusive interview to break down what this new rule means and why EPA believes it hits the mark.

A Rule He Says Brings Clarity and Certainty

Fotouhi says the agency’s top priority is eliminating uncertainty farmers have faced under previous interpretations of WOTUS.

“We really emphasize the need for farmers, ranchers and all stakeholders to have clarity in terms of how broad or narrow federal regulation of waters is in this country,” he says. “From Day 1, we start working on a proposed rule to bring that clarity and certainty to landowners across the country. On Monday, we are able to announce a proposal that is consistent with the law, that provides needed clarity on the extent of federal regulation, and that recognizes the primary jurisdiction of states and localities because they know their resources best.”

He adds that the proposal strikes what he calls a good balance.

“We think we really strike a good balance between protecting our nation’s waters and making sure farmers and ranchers can do the work that feeds Americans and produces the fuel this country relies on — without adding unnecessary regulatory burden to their day-to-day life,” he says.

EPA Says Farmers “Won’t Need a Lawyer” to Understand the New Rule

Fotouhi stresses one of EPA’s biggest priorities in rewriting WOTUS was ensuring farmers no longer need legal help just to determine whether they can work their own ground. He says the agency intentionally crafted the language to be plain, practical and rooted in the realities producers face every day.

“We take a fresh look at the Supreme Court’s direction and try to apply that in language that is easily understandable. Producers should not need a lawyer to understand how this rule applies to their property. We write it in a way that lets farmers look at their land and have a clear sense of whether federal permits are required.”

Fotouhi explains past WOTUS rules often included terminology that was vague, overly technical or open to interpretation, something EPA heard repeatedly during outreach with farm groups.

He says the agency makes a conscious effort to eliminate that ambiguity.

“We listen to farmers tell us repeatedly that the rule has to be understandable,” he says. “So instead of broad definitions that leave too much room for interpretation, we focus on concrete, workable language. We take geographic differences into account, we remove subjective criteria and we make exclusions, like the groundwater exemption, explicit so there’s no second-guessing.”

Fotouhi says that level of clarity is a direct response to years of frustration in rural America.

“We know farmers need certainty,” he says. “They need to know what they can and can’t do without waiting months for an answer. That’s why we put so much effort into making this rule clear, transparent and grounded in what the Supreme Court actually tells us to do.”

EPA Pushes Back on Claims the Proposal Overpromises

Some critics argue the agency risks overpromising. Fotouhi strongly rejects that idea.

“We take a fresh look at all the critical issues the Supreme Court lays out in the Sackett decision,” he says. “We think the previous administration does not faithfully implement that decision when they revise the rule, so we come back, reassess everything and come up with a definition that fully implements what the Court tells EPA and the Army Corps to do.”

He notes the agency made readability a priority.

“We try to apply the Court’s direction in language that is easily understandable, that takes geographic differences into account, and that doesn’t impose unnecessary burdens on farmers when they’re trying to decide if they need a permit,” he says.

Groundwater Exclusion: “We Want It Crystal Clear”

One standout change is the explicit exclusion of groundwater — language EPA says is included to eliminate confusion.

“Groundwater has never been part of the Waters of the United States, but we think it is absolutely necessary to make that exemption clear as day so there is no confusion about whether someone would need a permit for a discharge that may impact groundwater,” Fotouhi says.

He says repeated questions from stakeholders and newer case law convinced the agency to spell it out directly.

“Based on the case law that’s come out in the last few years and the general confusion we hear from stakeholders, we think it is incumbent on us to clarify this as clearly as we can,” he adds.

Final Rule Expected in Early 2026

EPA filed the proposal with the Federal Register , which means the rule’s comment period is officially underway.

“We publish the rule today, and it will be out for public comment for 45 days,” he says. “We know there is an absolute need for certainty and clarity and one nationwide standard, so we move quickly. We are hopeful that in the first few months of 2026, we can have a final rule out for the public.”

RFS: EPA Reviewing Comments, Aims for Certainty

Fotouhi also discusses EPA’s proposed Renewable Fuel Standard volumes, including record-setting biomass-based diesel levels.

“We understand how important it is to get this exactly right. From day one, Administrator Zeldin is laser-focused on ensuring the RFS strikes the right balance,” he says. “We know farmers and all stakeholders implicated by this program need certainty. We are working as quickly as we can to take final action.”

EPA’s Deregulatory Push: More Actions to Come

Fotouhi says the agency’s deregulatory actions announced earlier this year will have significant impact on agriculture.

“Reducing the cost of energy is one of our biggest focuses,” he says. “Many of the actions we identify are aimed at reducing energy prices for farmers, ranchers and manufacturers so we can reduce input costs and ultimately reduce the cost of the products they produce.”

This is evident through their efforts on WOTUS.

“The WOTUS proposal is a prime example; it’s designed to reduce unnecessary and illegal regulatory burden, and we are undertaking a score of additional actions across offices, working with USDA, the Department of Energy and the Interior Department, to identify ways to reduce input costs for agriculture,” Fotouhi says. “A thriving agricultural sector is a priority for the president, and lowering consumer prices is something we have to achieve.”

U.S. Drops 40% Tariff on Brazilian Beef in New White House Executive Order

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 01:31:42 GMT

A White House Executive Order issued Thursday modifies the scope of earlier tariffs placed on products from Brazil, effectively removing the additional 40% duty applied to Brazilian beef. The change reverses part of a July trade action that had imposed elevated import duties on multiple categories of Brazilian goods. It’s the latest effort by the Trump administration to bring food prices down for Americans.

Brazil is the world’s largest beef exporter, and its product plays a key role in filling U.S. demand, especially in processing beef and manufacturing trim. The tariff increase earlier this year had raised costs for processors and food manufacturers, tightening supply availability and contributing to price pressure.

This latest move follows an Executive Order signed on Friday that modified the scope of the reciprocal tariffs he first announced on April 2, 2025. The Friday EO exempted several agricultural products from tariffs , including fruit, coffee and fertilizer.

What Thursday’s Executive Order Does

According to the new order, certain agricultural imports from Brazil are now exempt from the extra ad valorem tariff that had been layered on top of existing duties. Beef is among the commodities specifically impacted — meaning importers will no longer pay the higher tariff rate that had been in effect since mid-summer.

A complete list of the products that will no longer face the 40% tariff was posted online. That list includes the following beef products:

Fresh or chilled beef
Frozen beef
Edible bovine offal, fresh or chilled
Edible bovine offal, frozen
Salted, dried, smoked or brined beef

Read More: What Does Talk of $10 Ground Beef Mean to Producers?

Why the White House Lifted the Tariff

In the Executive Order, President Donald Trump specifically referenced the call he had with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Oct. 6, which he said addressed concerns in the previous Executive Order that added the additional tariffs.

“These negotiations are ongoing. I also have received additional information and recommendations from various officials who, pursuant to my direction, have been monitoring the circumstances involving the emergency declared in Executive Order 14323,” said Trump in the Executive Order. “For example, in their opinion, certain agricultural imports from Brazil should no longer be subject to the additional ad valorem rate of duty imposed under Executive Order 14323 because, among other relevant considerations, there has been initial progress in negotiations with the Government of Brazil.”

The Executive Order went on to say: “after considering the information and recommendations these officials have provided to me and the status of negotiations with the Government of Brazil, among other things, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to modify the scope of products subject to the additional ad valorem rate of duty imposed under Executive Order 14323. Specifically, I have determined that certain agricultural products shall not be subject to the additional ad valorem rate of duty imposed under Executive Order 14323.”

Accordingly, an updated version of Annex I to Executive Order 14323 is attached to this order, which shall be effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern standard time on Nov. 13, 2025. In my judgment, these modifications are necessary and appropriate to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 14323.

Background on Tariffs on Brazilian Beef

The Trump administration issued an executive order on July 30, 2025, instituting an additional ad valorem duty of 40 % on many products of Brazilian origin. That 40% duty was in addition to an existing 10% tariff under a separate “reciprocal tariff” measure —bringing the total effective tariff to about 50% on most affected Brazilian goods.

Fear of Trump Dumping Tariffs Caused Selloff in Cattle Earlier This Week

Even the fear of Trump removing the steep tariff on Brazilin beef caused cattle prices to tank earlier this week.

Brad Kooima with Kooima Kooima Varilek told Michelle Rook on Monday that concerns of the tariff being lowered was part of the selloff in the cattle futures last week and why the market started off lower Monday.

Kooima said futures stabilized after it was confirmed the 50% tariff on Brazil beef was only lowered 10%.

Looking ahead, Rook reports the other major issue hanging over the cattle market is when the Trump administration will reopen the Mexican border to live cattle import. Some reports say the Trump administration is pushing for that to happen in January.

Read More: Did the Administration’s Plan to Lower Beef Prices Wreck the Bull Run in the Cattle Market?