Key Takeaways

• The U.S. turkey industry is recovering, with turkeys raised and production increasing for the first time since recent disease-related losses reduced supplies.
• Stronger domestic consumption, growing exports and lower cold storage inventories have improved returns for growers.
• Disease continues to challenge turkey growers, impacting flock performance and posing ongoing biosecurity risks.
• Higher feed costs and expanding turkey production could create headwinds for turkey growers in 2027 even as demand remains firm.

After two years of shrinking supplies, the U.S. turkey industry is showing signs of recovery. More birds are being raised, production is increasing and demand remains strong in both domestic and export markets. Those factors have helped support turkey markets and improve returns for growers. However, disease challenges and higher feed costs continue to create uncertainty as the industry works to rebuild.

Supplies & Production

USDA’s Turkeys Raised report estimates U.S. turkey farmers raised about 198.5 million turkeys in 2026, up 5 million birds, or about 3%, from 2025. This marks the first increase in the number of turkeys raised since 2023. Minnesota, North Carolina, Arkansas, Indiana and Missouri accounted for about 68% of all turkeys raised in 2026.

USDA’s October World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) projects 2026 federally inspected turkey meat production will be 5.13 billion pounds, up about 290 million pounds, or 6%, from 2025. Production for 2027 was estimated higher at 5.18 billion pounds, up 46 million pounds, or less than 1%, from USDA’s 2026 estimates. While production is recovering, it’s still lower than the 5.46 billion pounds produced in 2023, before multiple diseases issue began adding substantial challenges to the U.S. turkey industry.

Demand & Trade

Turkey demand remains firm in both domestic and international markets. USDA’s latest WASDE estimates 2026 turkey use is about 4.7 billion pounds, up about 4% from 4.59 billion pounds in 2025.

USDA’s October WASDE report also projects 2026 turkey exports will be about 461 million pounds, up 20 million pounds, or 4.5%, from last month’s estimate and up nearly 10% from last year.

As the world’s largest grower and exporter of turkey, the United States relies on export markets to balance supplies and add value to products with limited domestic demand. According to USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service, Mexico remains by far the largest market for U.S. turkey exports, importing nearly 40 times more turkey than Canada, the second-largest customer. Through August 2026, exports to Mexico were up 6.4% from a year earlier.

Growing domestic consumption and strong exports have reduced turkey inventories, despite rising production. USDA’s October Cold Storage report estimates there were nearly 360 million pounds of turkey in cold storage on Sept. 30, down about 4.5% from 2025 and down nearly 16% from 2024.

Prices

Strong demand and relatively tight inventories have helped support turkey prices despite rising production. USDA Economic Research Service’s (ERS) October Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook projects wholesale prices for turkey to remain strong through 2026. The annual average wholesale price for frozen whole hen turkeys is forecast at $1.76 per pound, up 30% from 2025 and nearly 88% above the 94 cents per pound average in 2024. This dramatic price increase over the last two years was largely driven by lower production due to the combined disease pressures of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) and avian metapneumovirus (aMPV). While wholesale turkey prices are expected to remain elevated in 2026 compared to recent years, USDA projects prices to moderate in 2027, with average wholesale prices at $1.45 per pound, roughly 18% below 2026 levels.

Wholesale turkey prices provide an important market signal, but they do not necessarily reflect what turkey growers are paid. Because the turkey industry is highly integrated, farm-level price data is limited. One of the few publicly available measures comes from USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, which reported growers received an average of $090 cents per pound in 2025, up 60% from 2024. Economists can use the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Producer Price Index for slaughter turkeys to gauge more recent trends. That index suggests growers received the equivalent of roughly $1.39 per pound in 2026, about 21% higher than 2025.

Available indicators suggest growers experienced some of the strongest returns since disease challenges began affecting the industry in 2022. However, those improvements in grower returns do not necessarily translate into higher prices at the grocery store. Grocery store turkey prices are influenced by retailer promotions and local market conditions, particularly during the Thanksgiving season. As a result, changes in wholesale and farm-level prices may not be fully reflected at the checkout counter.

What is Squeezing Margins?

Feed is the largest single cost of production. On average it takes about 75-80 pounds of feed to raise a 38-pound tom turkey, with feed accounting for roughly two-thirds of the total cost of raising a market bird.

Although ERS projects overall feed expenses to decline in 2026, feed markets remain volatile. USDA’s October WASDE estimates the average farm price of corn at $4.70 per bushel, up 13% from 2025, while soymeal is projected to average $340 per ton, up 4.5% from last year. While both commodities have come down from their September highs, prices remain above last year’s levels.

Higher feed costs are especially challenging when paired with disease pressures. Diseases like aMPV can reduce feed efficiency and slow weight gain, increasing the amount of feed and time required to raise birds to market weight. As a result, and even with improved turkey prices, growers continue to face pressure from both costs and these operational risks.

Disease Pressure

Disease pressure has been a major factor behind lower production in recent years and continues to create challenges for turkey growers.

Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza

Migratory birds are the primary carrier of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), making fall migration a period of heightened risk for poultry growers. Historically, turkeys have accounted for about 10% of commercial birds affected by the current HPAI outbreaks in the United States. Although the exact share varies from year to year, turkeys continue to be affected as the virus circulates among wild birds.

As of Oct. 27, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service reported 25 HPAI detections in poultry during October, including seven in commercial turkey flocks, 15 backyard poultry flocks, one table egg flock, and two other poultry flocks. More than 250,000 turkeys have been affected this month, highlighting the importance of biosecurity as fall migration progresses.

The current HPAI outbreak is not the first major avian influenza event to affect turkey growers. During the 2014-2015 HPAI outbreak, about 7.4 million turkeys were affected by the disease, contributing to production disruptions and economic losses across the entire industry.

Avian Metapneumovirus

While HPAI attracts much of the public’s attention, avian Metapneumovirus (aMPV) has emerged as one of the turkey industry’s most significant production challenges. The highly contagious respiratory disease can reduce weight gain, lower feed efficiency and increase production costs, making it particularly costly to growers at a time when feed already accounts for roughly two-thirds of the cost of raising a market turkey.

According to Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, aMPV became the most-reported turkey disease issue in 2024, affecting 60-80% of all U.S. turkey flocks. Researchers estimate the disease led to production declines in both 2024 and 2025 and reduced industry value by $2.88 billion in 2024.

Bottom Line: Looking ahead to 2027

Looking ahead to 2027, USDA expects turkey meat production to increase for a second straight year. The key question is whether demand continues to keep pace with larger supplies. While demand remains firm, USDA expects wholesale prices to moderate as production expands.

Disease is the industry’s biggest wild card. The turkey industry has faced economic losses relating to disease dating back over a decade. Additional HPAI outbreaks, continued challenges from aMPV or both could affect flock performance, production levels and profitability. Feed costs also remain elevated compared to last year, adding pressure to margins.

For turkey growers, profitability in 2027 will depend on maintaining flock health, controlling costs and sustaining demand both at home and abroad.

Read Article on FB.org

Active stewardship of the nation’s forests has a direct impact on many farms, ranches, and rural communities. Chad Smith has more on a bipartisan effort to properly maintain America’s forests.

Read Article on FB.org

Key Takeaways

• America’s forests need active management to maintain healthy, resilient ecosystems, reduce wildfire risk to communities, protect wildlife habitat and watersheds, and sustain multiple-use activities.

• Farmers, ranchers and foresters, the people who work on or among forestlands — both federally managed and privately owned — have the most at stake.

• Congress has the opportunity before the end of the year to provide more tools for land managers and improve the resiliency of America’s forests by passing the Fix Our Forests Act.

State of Play

For decades, federal policies and litigation have restricted timber harvest and other vegetation management activities on national forests. The scale of the problem is vast. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages over 193 million acres of forests and grasslands across the country and estimates indicate that almost half of that land is in some combination of a high wildfire hazard area, suffering from above-normal levels of insect and disease impacts, and needing other restoration treatment.

In addition to forestland maintained by the USFS, the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages nearly 60 million acres of forested land, primarily situated in the western United States.

The result is a landscape of densely overgrown forested federal lands with heavy fuel loads that in many parts of the West are also very dry due to ongoing drought and are at high risk for wildfires. When a fire starts on federal land, it spreads regardless of who owns neighboring property. Destruction of homes and grazing lands, loss of livestock and wildlife, destroyed recreation areas, damage to water infrastructure, and smoke drift all negatively impact rural communities. The damage results in income lost not just from the fire itself, but also from resulting barren landscapes that can take years or decades to recover when restoration activities are not prioritized.

Forest Fire Impacts

In the 2000s, annual acreage burned across the United States was nearly double than in the 1990s. Through late October, over 9 million acres have burned as a result of more than 65,000 fires. The Big Grass Fire along the Oregon-Idaho border burned nearly 580,000 acres, much of it grazing land. Fires in Utah impacted grazing lands for more than 22,000 head of livestock. And fires in Kansas, Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma burned more than a million acres of private and public land, displacing tens of thousands of cattle. After a fire, ranchers face additional costs as they must find alternative feed or pasture for livestock, replace fences, and lose access to federal grazing allotments while they recover. Those impacts last well after a fire is suppressed and crews move on.

Research has brought more understanding of the impact wildfire has on watersheds, as forested watersheds protect water supplies for both irrigated agriculture and communities — sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles away from the forest. Fire behavior that includes extreme heat can scorch the soil and change how water moves through forests and into streams and rivers. Instead of soaking into the ground as it moves, water rushes over burned earth and creates dangerous and fast-moving floods. Debris from fires like downed logs, brush and ash are pushed into nearby waters. This can damage water management infrastructure by collecting in reservoirs and degrading water quality, increasing costs and reducing water availability for both agriculture and rural communities.

Flash floods through fire debris scars are incredibly dangerous. Extreme and deadly fires burned the USFS-owned mountains around Ruidoso, New Mexico, in 2024, with floods following. The worst flood activity, however, did not occur until a year later, when a June 2025 storm brought heavy rainfall that washed right over burn scars and ran into the rapidly rising Rio Ruidoso. Three people were killed and significant damage resulted from this flooding over a year after the fire.

Active Forest Management

Timber harvest is a critical part of forest management but has declined on federal lands in recent decades. A 2025 executive order and harvest goals included in federal legislation have resulted in the National Active Forest Management Strategy, “aiming to grow timber volume by 25% and reach 4 billion board feet annually by the 2028 fiscal year.” From 2014-2023, USFS timber sales were about 3 billion board feet annually, so this represents a 33% increase and a welcome goal for both forest management and the U.S. timber industry. However, this could be undermined by continued regulatory and legal hurdles that require congressional action.

Fix Our Forests Act

It is time to provide federal agencies with the authority to meaningfully increase the pace and scale of forest treatments, enhance local partnerships and cross-boundary tools, and improve post-fire rehabilitation. This includes reducing unnecessary delays for projects that address wildfire risks, hazardous fuels, insects and disease. Provisions in the House and Senate versions of the Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA) would address these issues.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Fix Our Forests Act (H.R. 471) on a bipartisan vote in January 2025, and the Senate Agriculture Committee approved its version of the bill (S. 1462) also on a bipartisan vote in October 2025. It now awaits action in the full Senate. While the bills have some differences, the fundamental approach is the same: reviewing wildfire prevention at a landscape scale, expediting environmental assessments and deterring frivolous litigation, and expanding and strengthening local cooperative tools like Good Neighbor Authority and Stewardship Contracting. These programs allow the federal government to partner with states, counties and tribes to conduct projects on federal lands and also enter into long-term contracts with public or private entities to achieve local land management goals. Other provisions in these bills recognize the importance of protecting watersheds on both government and private lands and provide additional resources for management in these areas.

FOFA’s Cost Estimates

In late October, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its cost estimate for the Senate’s Fix Our Forests Act. CBO estimates that FOFA would cost $27 million over the next decade. Nearly all that direct spending comes from the new White Oak Initiative. Under the bill, USDA would use funds already available through the Natural Resources Conservation Service to help producers of white oak trees address wildfire risks through active forest management, hazardous fuels reduction and ecosystem restoration. 

The larger budgetary effects, however, would be in spending subject to the appropriators: 

• FOFA would authorize $80 million per year for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program through 2034, accounting for $551 million, or 53%, of estimated outlays. 

• The second-largest spending item subject to appropriations is the Joint Chiefs’ Landscape Restoration Partnership at $90 million per year through 2031, or $450 million.  

• The Source Water Protection Program, at $10 million per year, accounts for the remaining $45 million.

For farmers, ranchers and rural communities facing wildfire risk, passing FOFA and its new forest management authorities and spending authorizations is the first and most critical step, to be followed with additional appropriations.

Forest Management Is Critical

Almost three hundred years ago, Benjamin Franklin warned the citizens of Philadelphia that when it comes to fire, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” As America celebrates its 250th anniversary, that statement remains true. Forest management is critical to protecting farms, ranches and communities from the devastating impacts of wildfire. Farmers, ranchers and foresters encourage the House and Senate to reconcile their versions of the Fix Our Forests Act and send a bill to the president’s desk.

Read Article on FB.org

Fourteen farm and ranch women leaders graduated from the fall session of the American Farm Bureau Federation’s Women’s Communications Boot Camp. The participants completed an intensive four-day course featuring hands-on training in public speaking, media engagement and message development. Graduates will use their skills to advocate for farmers and ranchers, support issues important to rural communities and help tell agriculture’s story.

“Women are influential leaders in agriculture, driving progress through their commitment and engagement,” said Isabella Chism, an Indiana row crop farmer and chair of the AFB Women’s Leadership Committee. “As Boot Camp graduates strengthen their communications skills, they will be even better equipped to serve their communities and advance Farm Bureau’s mission at the local, state and national levels.”

Photo info –

Row 1 (L to R) – Toni Gaines, Georgia; Elizabeth Spruell, Alabama; Kelsey Grapperhaus, North Carolina

Row 2 (L to R) – Mindy Orschell, AFB Women’s Leadership Committee Midwestern representative, Indiana; Ashley Parker, North Carolina; Joy Tracey, Indiana; Cyndi Mackey, Oklahoma; Pamela Walker, North Carolina; Janille Baker, Nevada; Katie Saterbak, Minnesota; Sheila Newman, Virginia; Kelly Wilfert, Wisconsin; Jacey Fye, Oklahoma; Taylor Outlaw, Georgia; Bristol Peterson, Georgia; Isabella Chism, chair, AFB Women’s Leadership Committee, Indiana

Graduates are Elizabeth Spruell, Alabama; Toni Gaines, Taylor Outlaw and Bristol Peterson, Georgia; Joy Tracey, Indiana; Katie Saterbak, Minnesota; Janille Baker, Nevada; Kelsey Grapperhaus, Ashley Parker and Pamela Walker, North Carolina; Jacey Fye and Cyndi Mackey, Oklahoma; Sheila Newman, Virginia; and Kelly Wilfert, Wisconsin.

“Boot Camp graduates demonstrate a deep commitment to agriculture and their communities,” said AFBF President Zippy Duvall. “These Farm Bureau women have challenged themselves to grow as leaders and communicators, and the skills they have developed will help them strengthen Farm Bureau and agriculture for generations to come.”

This marks the 25th Women’s Communications Boot Camp hosted by AFBF. Since its inception, 367 women have graduated from the program, which is open to all women involved in Farm Bureau.

“Boot Camp has helped me polish my media skills and ability to communicate with consumers,” said Kelsey Grapperhaus of North Carolina, a wholesale seed supplier serving the Southeast. “It’s been a great opportunity to learn how to effectively share my perspective with people who may not have a direct connection to farming.”

The American Farm Bureau Women’s Leadership Committee, in partnership with AFBF staff, hosts and provides training for Women’s Communications Boot Camp twice each year. Applications open Dec. 10 for the spring 2027 Boot Camp session.

Photos from this event are available for download here.

Read Article on FB.org

Two inaccurate USDA reports negatively impacted December corn futures. Chad Smith has more on the errors and corrections to the National Agricultural Statistics Service estimates.

Read Article on FB.org

Key Takeaways

• Desalination may help expand municipal and industrial supplies, but its cost, energy and infrastructure requirements make it unfeasible as a direct replacement for large-scale agricultural irrigation.

• Estimates for new seawater desalination in California reach $3,400 to $3,700 per acre-foot — more than twice the roughly $1,444 in average gross farm revenue generated per acre-foot of applied water.

• Even at $3,000 per acre-foot, desalinated water would add roughly $6,900 to $11,250 per acre for representative lettuce, strawberry and almond operations already facing negative margins.

• Farm and household water are not the same product. City water must be treated to drinking-water standards and pumped through pressurized systems to homes and businesses, while irrigation water generally requires much less treatment and distribution infrastructure.

The Colorado River is one of the most economically important water systems in the West, supporting communities, businesses and some of the nation's most productive agricultural regions. It also underpins food supply chains Americans depend on most heavily during the winter, when areas such as Yuma, Arizona, and California's Imperial Valley become major sources of fresh vegetables.

At the same time, the basin faces a long-term imbalance between available water and existing demands, intensifying debate over conservation, infrastructure and potential new sources of supply. One option that regularly enters that discussion is ocean desalination.

The appeal is easy to understand. Rather than reallocating an existing water supply among users, desalination can create new, drought-resistant freshwater from the ocean. It is already used in communities around the world and could supplement municipal or industrial supplies in parts of the Western U.S.

For agriculture, however, the central question is not whether desalination works. It is whether the water it produces can be supplied at a price compatible with commercial food production. On that question, the economics are difficult to overcome.

Desalinated Water Comes at a Very Different Price

Most large ocean desalination plants use reverse osmosis, forcing seawater under high pressure through membranes that remove salts. The technology is well established, with roughly 16,000 to 17,000 desalination plants operating worldwide, but it has not experienced the dramatic cost declines seen in technologies such as solar and wind.

For California, the most relevant estimates are measured in thousands of dollars per acre-foot. The California State Water Resources Control Board cites projected seawater desalination costs of $3,400 to $3,700 per acre-foot in 2025. The Pacific Institute estimated roughly $2,100 per acre-foot for large California projects and $2,800 for smaller facilities, while water from the Carlsbad Desalination Plant is estimated at roughly $2,500 to $2,800 per acre-foot when adjusted for electricity prices.

Lower costs are often cited overseas. Israel’s Sorek B facility has contracted water near $505 per acre-foot, while Dubai’s Hassyan project reached roughly $450. Those projects show what desalination can achieve under favorable conditions, but differences in energy costs, scale, infrastructure, financing and regulation make them difficult to replicate in the American West.

The economic mismatch becomes clearer when those costs are compared with what agricultural water produces. California agriculture generated about $1,444 in gross farm revenue per acre-foot of applied water in 2020. Agricultural output per unit of water has nearly doubled since 1967, while total applied water increased only 8%.

Even after those efficiency gains, desalinated water costing $3,400 to $3,700 per acre-foot would cost more than twice the average gross farm revenue generated by an acre-foot of applied water — before labor, land, fertilizer, equipment and other production expenses are paid.

This is also not a simple comparison between what farmers and households pay for the same water. Drinking water must be treated to higher standards and delivered through pressurized systems to homes and businesses, while irrigation water generally requires much less treatment and distribution infrastructure. The relevant question is whether agricultural production can support a replacement water source costing several thousand dollars per acre-foot. For open-field production, the numbers suggest it cannot.

What $3,000 Water Means on the Farm

The statewide comparison is stark, but crop-level budgets show how quickly desalination costs would overwhelm farm economics.

Using UC Davis and University of California Cooperative Extension cost-of-production studies, Farm Bureau estimated that under 2025 market conditions California lettuce growers would lose about $2,533 per acre, strawberry growers about $4,525 per acre and almond growers about $2,658 per acre after accounting for production costs. These are not crops operating with large margins that could simply absorb a higher water bill.

Applying a desalination cost of $3,000 per acre-foot (below the State Water Resources Control Board’s $3,400 to $3,700 estimate) would translate into roughly $11,100 per acre for lettuce, $6,900 for strawberries and $11,250 for almonds based on their representative water needs.

Those figures represent the total cost of purchasing desalinated water before subtracting existing irrigation-water expenses. Farmers would no longer pay the water costs already included in their production budgets, but removing those smaller expenses does little to change the overall result. The replacement water bill alone would exceed or consume a substantial share of the value generated by crops already facing negative returns.

For open-field agriculture, the use of desalinated water would therefore do more than tighten margins. At current costs, it would make commercial-scale production economically unworkable.

Why Desalination Remains Expensive

The high cost of desalination is not tied to one piece of technology that can simply become cheaper over time. Producing freshwater from the ocean requires large amounts of electricity, major coastal infrastructure and systems to manage both seawater intake and the concentrated brine left behind.

Energy is a major part of the equation. Seawater reverse osmosis requires roughly 4,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per acre-foot of water produced, about twice the energy needed just to move an acre-foot of Colorado River water through the Colorado River Aqueduct to Southern California. The Carlsbad Desalination Plant alone uses about 38 megawatts of electricity continuously.

The facilities themselves are also expensive. Carlsbad cost roughly $1 billion to build and produces about 56,000 acre-feet of water per year. That price does not include the broader challenge of building pipelines, pumping systems and other infrastructure needed to move newly produced water to where it is ultimately used.

Then there is the ocean side of the equation. Desalination plants must pull in large quantities of seawater without causing excessive harm to marine life and safely discharge concentrated brine after the freshwater is removed. California requires projects to address those impacts through intake design, dilution, monitoring and other mitigation measures. Those protections can add both time and cost. In 2022, the California Coastal Commission rejected a proposed Huntington Beach desalination plant similar in size to Carlsbad, citing concerns that included marine-life impacts and environmental mitigation.

Despite decades of use around the world, desalination still supplies only about 1% of global freshwater needs, with total capacity of roughly 28 million acre-feet per year. That reflects the practical limits of scaling a process that requires substantial electricity, billion-dollar facilities, pipelines, pumping and environmental safeguards.

Technology can continue to improve, but many of desalination’s largest costs are tied to the basic physical task of turning seawater into a dependable freshwater supply.

Why This Matters for the Food Supply

The economics of desalination matter because Colorado River water supports some of the nation’s most important food-producing regions. Yuma, Arizona, and California’s Imperial Valley together produce roughly 90% of the leafy vegetables consumed in the U.S. from November through March. Across the broader basin and adjacent supply areas, irrigation supports more than $10 billion in annual agricultural production. A 2024 study also estimated that Colorado River irrigation supports 28% of U.S. milk production, 15.5% of beef production and 8.6% of egg production.

If production declines because replacement water is too expensive, it cannot simply be shifted elsewhere. Western growing regions combine climate, soils and irrigation infrastructure that are difficult to replicate at scale. Greater reliance on imports would likely fill part of the gap, but the U.S. already imports about 35% of its fresh vegetables and 59% of its fresh fruit, increasing exposure to transportation disruptions, extreme weather and policy decisions abroad.

Desalination can still add drought-resistant water to the West’s supply and may make sense for municipal, industrial and other higher-value uses. But water costing several thousand dollars per acre-foot is not an economically realistic substitute for the irrigation supplies supporting these major food-producing regions. The challenge is not simply creating more water but maintaining water supplies at a cost that allows domestic agriculture to keep producing.

Read Article on FB.org

Key Takeaways

• Two recent USDA reports were followed by some of the largest single-day declines in December corn futures during 2026, emphasizing estimates’ impacts on commodity prices.

• USDA corrected its September corn production estimates after identifying a processing error that affected plant populations, ear counts, yields and production in Kansas and Nebraska.

• The correction raised September’s national production forecast by 28.4 million bushels, shrinking the reported September-to-October production increase by about 12%.

• Accurate, timely USDA estimates are essential to market transparency, price discovery and the marketing decisions farmers make throughout the year.

USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) announced corrections to its September 2026 Crop Production report on Oct. 23 following concerns about differences between its September and October corn estimates. In a follow-up notice on Oct. 24, NASS explained that incorrect acreage weights had been used to combine irrigated and non-irrigated corn observations in Kansas and Nebraska. The error affected September plant populations and ear counts, resulting in revisions to state-level yields and production, as well as national estimates and 10-state objective-yield averages. The agency corrected the affected September estimates, reviewed its October calculations and confirmed that October forecasts remain unchanged.

USDA production estimates give farmers, grain buyers and other market participants a common source of information used for price discovery, marketing and risk management. Unfortunately, revisions, especially market-moving revisions, undermine trust in the accuracy of the reported data and may discourage future participation in these critical surveys.

Market Surprises Heighten Concerns

Two recent USDA reports were followed by some of the largest single-day declines in December corn futures during 2026. On Sept. 30, December corn futures declined 21.25 cents per bushel after USDA reported Sept. 1 corn stocks of 2.095 billion bushels, above market expectations of approximately 1.924 billion bushels. On Oct. 9, futures declined another 20.5 cents after USDA raised its national corn yield forecast to 181.2 bushels per acre, compared with market expectations near 177.7 bushels.

Together, these two trading sessions represented a decline of 41.75 cents per bushel. Actual farm revenue impacts depend on marketing arrangements, hedging decisions, basis, and the portion of production remaining unpriced. These price movements also reflected broader market expectations and are not all a result of the changes to the September report.

These developments are more significant for farmers already facing tight or negative margins. Lower commodity prices, combined with elevated fertilizer, fuel, interest and other expenses, continue to pressure farm viability. The September Grain Stocks report and October production estimates both exceeded market expectations, contributing to sharp price reactions. The subsequent correction to September's production data has added concern about the reliability of the information farmers use to evaluate supplies and make marketing decisions.

What Changed in the September Report?

NASS identified a processing error involving acreage weights used to combine irrigated and non-irrigated objective-yield observations in Kansas and Nebraska. The correction increased Nebraska's September corn yield estimate by 5 bushels per acre to 182 bushels and lowered Kansas' estimate by 3 bushels to 118 bushels per acre. Nationally, September's yield estimate increased from 178.5 to 178.8 bushels per acre. These revisions added approximately 48 million bushels to Nebraska's production forecast and reduced Kansas' by nearly 20 million bushels, resulting in a net increase of 28.4 million bushels in estimated U.S. production.

While the national production adjustment was relatively small at approximately 0.2%, the state-level changes were more substantial. Nebraska's September production forecast increased nearly 3%, while Kansas' decreased approximately 2.5%. These offsetting adjustments demonstrate how errors in individual state estimates can affect the national production outlook and the information available to market participants.

How do the Corrections Affect the October Comparison?

When USDA released its October Crop Production report on Oct. 9, the national corn production forecast increased by approximately 234 million bushels to 16.03 billion bushels. Part of that increase, however, reflected the September error, which the market forecasted at a lower production estimate.

The revised September production estimate increased from approximately 15.80 billion to 15.83 billion bushels. As a result, the September-to-October production increase narrowed from approximately 234 million bushels to 206 million bushels.

Looking back to August, USDA initially forecasted national corn production at 16.01 billion bushels before lowering its estimate to 15.83 billion bushels in corrected September figures. By October, production was forecast at 16.03 billion bushels, approximately 21 million bushels, or 0.13%, above August's estimate.

The correction also changes the comparison of corn yields between the two months. Nationally, the reported yield increase narrowed from 2.7 to 2.4 bushels per acre. The difference is especially noticeable in Nebraska, where the September error made October's yield increase appear to be 11 bushels per acre. With the corrected September estimate, that increase is 6 bushels per acre. In Kansas, the reported increase grows from 4 to 7 bushels per acre.

The broader comparison shows how September's lower production forecast influenced the apparent size of October's increase. USDA’s corrections narrowed the month-to-month change, although it still represents a large increase in production estimates from September to October.

Maintaining Confidence in Agricultural Statistics

USDA's decision to correct the September report and provide additional information about the error is an important step in maintaining confidence in its estimates. NASS has confirmed its October forecasts are accurate and announced additional checks of acreage weights and objective-yield calculations before future reports are published.

The September revisions demonstrate how errors in earlier estimates can affect markets and the interpretation of subsequent reports. Continued improvements to data processing, verification and quality-control procedures can help strengthen the accuracy and consistency of future estimates. USDA is also pursuing broader data modernization efforts, including an Oct. 24 agreement with NASA to explore how satellite observations, geospatial analysis and improved statistical methods can strengthen agricultural estimates.

Agricultural markets depend on reliable information to support transparent price discovery. Farmers make production, financing and marketing decisions based in part on the supply expectations reflected in USDA reports. As financial pressures across agriculture continue, maintaining accurate and timely agricultural statistics remains essential to allowing markets to function efficiently and helping farmers make informed business decisions.

Read Article on FB.org

The American Farm Bureau Federation, with support from Farm Credit, recognized James “Jim” Hartman, a former U.S. Army major from North Carolina, with the Veteran Farmer Award of Excellence during the Farmer Veteran Stakeholders Conference. The award honors veterans and service members who demonstrate excellence in agriculture while making a positive impact in their communities.

Hartman is the third recipient of the award and has dedicated his post-military career to helping veterans, beginning farmers and rural communities thrive.

Hartman served for 10 years as a paratrooper and bomb disposal technician, including two deployments to Iraq. He later spent 14 years as a defense contractor training soldiers to identify and avoid improvised explosive devices, helping save lives and enhance mission readiness.

After turning to beekeeping as a way to manage post-traumatic stress disorder, Hartman transformed a hobby into a thriving business. Founded in 2020, Secret Garden Bees has grown into a successful business with honey products distributed in 27 states at more than 180 stores. The farm also offers agritourism experiences, welcoming RV travelers who want to learn more about beekeeping and honey production.

Today, Secret Garden Bees employs three full-time staff members, including two disabled veterans enrolled in Department of Veterans Affairs-certified apprenticeship programs. The farm partners with local, state and federal agencies to introduce veterans to careers in agriculture and provide hands-on training opportunities.

“We’re proud to recognize this distinguished veteran for his service to our nation and his continued commitment to agriculture and his community,” said AFBF President Zippy Duvall. “Veterans and active-duty service members embody the values of dedication, leadership and sacrifice. We’re honored to celebrate Mr. Hartman’s contributions and the important role that military families play in strengthening American agriculture.”

Hartman’s farm is federally certified as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, allowing access to programs that provide government surplus equipment for agricultural use. He regularly shares his knowledge with fellow veterans to help them take advantage of similar opportunities.

“I speak and lead webinars at every opportunity to show other veterans how to use little-known resources to help them with their agricultural business,” Hartman said. “I am convinced there is enough success to go around if we all work together and share knowledge.”

Beyond his own operation, Hartman has become a leader in agricultural education and workforce development. Secret Garden Bees serves as a training site for Cumberland County’s Boots to Agriculture program, which connects veterans with opportunities in North Carolina agriculture, and hosts both The Veteran’s Farm of North Carolina training program and the state’s Upward Bound high school agricultural training initiative.

Hartman was also among the first farmers to partner with the North Carolina Department of Commerce to develop agricultural work-based learning programs. His leadership has helped dozens of participants gain valuable training and employment experience in the agricultural sector.

Throughout his career, Hartman has advocated for policies that create new opportunities for farmers, beekeepers and veterans. Those efforts helped secure recognition of honey production in state agricultural programs, expand agricultural-use property tax eligibility for commercial apiaries and improve farmers’ access to workforce training resources that offset hiring and training costs.

Hartman’s contributions to agriculture and rural communities have earned statewide and national recognition. In 2024, he was named AFBF’s Ag Innovation Challenge People’s Choice Award winner and North Carolina Small Farmer of the Year.

Through his service, mentorship and entrepreneurial leadership, Hartman continues to create opportunities for fellow veterans and strengthen agriculture in North Carolina and beyond.

Read Article on FB.org

The share of foreign-owned U.S. land continues to increase. Chad Smith tells us despite growing numbers, overall foreign-owned farmland remains a small percentage of total acreage.

Read Article on FB.org

Farm Bureau’s newest national Member Benefits partner has tools to help solve a longtime problem in rural America: reliable communications products that go the distance where cellular service may be limited. Kansas City, Missouri-based Midland is a leader  in two-way radio communication technology designed to improve safety, coordination and efficiency across agricultural operations.

Midland is the only communications company participating in the national Farm Bureau Member Benefits Program, providing access to reliable communication tools to help producers stay connected in the field. From managing crews across large properties to maintaining connectivity in remote areas, Midland radios meet the real-world demands of farm life.

Designed for environments where traditional connectivity may fall short, Midland’s portfolio of general mobile radio service (GMRS) radios and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather alert technology provide farmers with reliable, easy-to-use tools that enhance preparedness.

“We’re excited to welcome Midland Radio to our national Member Benefits portfolio of partners,” said Joanne Hogan Daugherty, director, member benefits at the American Farm Bureau Federation. “Communication is one of the most consistent challenges our members face every day, whether they’re coordinating across the fields or staying connected in areas where cell service simply isn't reliable. Midland’s radios are built for exactly those conditions. Adding a dependable, purpose-built communication tool to our lineup of member benefits gives members real value, and we're proud Midland has chosen Farm Bureau as its partner in serving the agricultural community.”

Matt Sirgo, who manages member benefits for Louisiana Farm Bureau, said Midland’s focus on addressing challenges on the farm and ranch is appreciated.

“Midland has been a great addition to our Member Benefits program here at Louisiana Farm Bureau. We have a bunch of great partners, but it’s always special to have a benefit geared toward the agricultural community,” Sirgo said.

Farm Bureau ® Member Benefits

It pays to be a Farm Bureau member. Farm Bureau is working to help members achieve their goals through savings on the products and services they need. On behalf of Farm Bureau’s nearly 5.5 million members, Farm Bureau is thankful for our national member benefit partners and the value they add to every membership.

In 2025, national Member Benefits programs saved members over $11 million*, creating over $1.4 million* in revenue to support the Farm Bureau mission. Learn more about Farm Bureau® Member Benefits here  or contact your state Farm Bureau.

* Based on available figures and estimated average prices.

Read Article on FB.org