POLICY  •  NEWS  •  MARKETS

AG POLICY & MARKETS DAILY

THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 2026   |   SPECIAL REPORT & ANALYSIS

FARM POLICY  |  BASE ACRES

The $18 Billion Divide: Farm Bureau Puts a Price on the Corn Growers’ Base Acre Rewrite

A new AFBF analysis finds a mandatory base acre update would drain $2.24 billion a year from the farm safety net and leave every state a net loser — but NCGA is counting covered farmers, not federal dollars, and the gap between those two yardsticks now defines the fight.

Analysis  ·  August 6, 2026

The American Farm Bureau Federation this week attached a hard number to one of farm policy’s longest-running family arguments. In a Market Intel analysis published Aug. 5 (link; link to our special report), AFBF economist Faith Parum estimates that a mandatory, one-time rewrite of commodity program base acres — the policy the National Corn Growers Association has championed since 2023 — would cut projected commodity program benefits by roughly $2.24 billion a year, an $18 billion net reduction in farm safety net support over the FY 2029-2036 budget window. By Farm Bureau’s math, not a single state comes out ahead.

The timing is no accident. Landowners are in the final weeks of the sign-up window — it closes Aug. 31 — to claim a share of the up to 30 million new base acres Congress authorized in HR 1, the budget reconciliation law’s voluntary, additive answer to the same underlying problem. With that alternative now on the books and NCGA still carrying a mandatory-update resolution in its policy portfolio, Farm Bureau’s study reads less like an academic exercise and more like a pre-emptive strike in the next farm bill debate.

Note: We have asked both Farm Bureau and NCGA about the issues discussed in this special report. Thus far, crickets from both groups. 

HR 1 settled whether under-based farmers deserve coverage. The question left standing is whether redrawing a decades-old map is worth pulling $18 billion out of the safety net — and Farm Bureau just handed opponents of a mandatory update their answer.

What Farm Bureau found

Base acres — the fixed historical plantings on which Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) payments are calculated — date largely to allocations set decades ago. A mandatory update would re-derive them from recent planting history. Using USDA Farm Service Agency acreage data and CBO’s 2026 baseline for mandatory farm programs, AFBF modeled what that reallocation would do to projected ARC and PLC outlays against current law, which already includes HR 1’s 30-million-acre expansion.

The commodity-level results are stark. Wheat loses $6.5 billion over eight years, corn $4 billion, rice $3.4 billion, and cotton and peanuts about $2.5 billion each. Soybeans are the lone aggregate winner, gaining roughly $2.4 billion in projected benefits.

Figure 1. Projected eight-year change in ARC/PLC benefits by commodity under a mandatory base acre update. Source: AFBF Market Intel, Aug. 5, 2026; CBO 2026 baseline.

The geography is just as lopsided. Texas absorbs the largest hit at about $2.3 billion, followed by Arkansas and Louisiana at $1.2 billion each, Mississippi at $1.1 billion, California at $937 million, Montana at $934 million and North Dakota at $810 million. The Mid-South rice and cotton belt, the southern Plains wheat and cotton country, and the northern Plains wheat states carry the heaviest losses — but AFBF’s critical finding is that every state shows a net decline in projected support once the reallocation washes through.

Figure 2. States with the largest projected eight-year losses. Every state shows a net decline. Source: AFBF Market Intel, Aug. 5, 2026.

Why the dollars disappear

The $18 billion is not a modeling quirk; it is baked into the arithmetic of the proposal. A mandatory update would shift base away from crops with relatively high expected per-acre payments under the baseline — wheat, rice, cotton, peanuts and a share of corn — and toward soybeans, which carry much lower projected ARC and PLC payments. It would also eliminate some existing base outright rather than merely reassigning it, since farms whose recent plantings fall short of their legacy base would see base disappear.

Replace high-payment base with low-payment base and shrink the total, and projected spending falls — necessarily. The decline in the safety net is not a side effect of the formula; it is the formula. That is also, as budget hawks have long noticed, part of the proposal’s quiet appeal: the savings from a mandatory update have been floated for years as a pay-for that could offset higher reference prices or a stronger ARC in a future farm bill.

NCGA is measuring something else

Farm Bureau counts dollars. NCGA counts farmers. The corn growers’ case — adopted at Corn Congress in 2023 on a resolution driven by South Dakota delegates — is that base acres frozen decades ago no longer match where program crops are actually grown. Corn acreage has marched north and west over two decades, leaving producers in the Dakotas and other expansion areas farming substantial acreage with little or no base, and therefore little or no Title I protection, while legacy base rides along on land that may no longer grow the crop at all. USDA counts roughly 274 million base acres across program commodities, with corn holding about 100.7 million — 37% of the total — and nine states holding nearly two-thirds of all base.

On its own terms, that argument survives the Farm Bureau study. AFBF’s analysis measures aggregate projected payments by commodity and state; it does not count how many individual producers would gain or lose eligibility. The study therefore does not establish that only soybean farmers would benefit. Individual corn growers on under-based land in newer production regions could gain meaningful coverage even as corn growers collectively lose $4 billion in projected payments. Some counties would gain even as every state nets out negative.

Table 1. Two yardsticks for the same policy: why AFBF and NCGA reach opposite conclusions. Source: AFBF Market Intel; NCGA policy resolutions.

The rest of the commodity coalition has never been persuaded. The American Soybean Association has favored voluntary approaches, warning that forcing farmers to trade better-supported base for lower-supported soybean base would be deeply controversial in the countryside — a prescient objection, given that soybeans’ aggregate gain in the AFBF analysis comes precisely at wheat, rice, cotton and peanut country’s expense.

HR 1 changed the politics

What has really weakened NCGA’s hand, though, is that Congress already acted — additively. HR 1 authorized up to 30 million new base acres for farms whose recent plantings exceed their base, allocated from 2019-2023 planted and prevented-planted history reported to FSA. The decision belongs to landowners, existing base is untouched, and if requests exceed the 30-million-acre national cap, every allocation is prorated down proportionally. New base is effective for the 2026 crop year, with the first payments, if triggered, arriving after Oct. 1, 2027. FSA’s projected allocations put North Dakota first at more than 2.8 million new acres, with Texas, Minnesota and South Dakota each above 2 million — precisely the under-based expansion geography NCGA has been arguing for.

Table 2. Additive vs. redistributive: the two routes to updating base. Sources: HR 1; USDA FSA; AFBF; NCGA.

That leaves NCGA effectively arguing that correcting historical inequities is worth creating new losers and shrinking aggregate support — a much harder sell than the 2023 version of the argument, when under-based farmers had no remedy at all. NCGA’s counter is that the 30 million acres add coverage without correcting the existing allocation: legacy base still sits where crops no longer grow, and the cap means expansion-area farmers may be prorated well short of their actual plantings. Fairness, accessibility and alignment with real planting — not budget savings — remain the growers’ public case.

The stakes for the next farm bill

Farm Bureau’s deeper worry is coalition management. Title I has always been held together by a delicate regional logrolling — rice and peanuts in the South, wheat on the Plains, corn and soybeans in the Midwest. A mandatory update would set those regions directly against each other, with the Mid-South and southern Plains financing gains for the western Corn Belt. Fracture that coalition, AFBF argues, and the votes for any future farm bill — including the reference price increases NCGA itself wants — get harder to find, at exactly the moment a multi-year downturn in crop prices has made the safety net’s adequacy the central question in farm country.

The $18 billion also cuts both ways politically. To safety-net defenders it is a warning label; to deficit hawks it is a pay-for. If the next farm bill needs offsets to buy higher reference prices or a richer ARC, a mandatory base update generating $2.24 billion a year in scoreable savings will tempt someone on the budget committees — which is why an idea with this much organized opposition refuses to die.

Bottom line

Farm Bureau’s study does not prove that no corn farmer would benefit from a mandatory update — it proves that soybeans are the only commodity gaining in aggregate and that every state’s total support shrinks. NCGA’s fairness case for under-based producers is real, but HR 1’s voluntary 30-million-acre expansion has already delivered a no-losers version of the remedy, and the Aug. 31 sign-up deadline will provide the first hard evidence of how much pent-up demand for base actually exists. Watch the oversubscription question: if requests blow far past 30 million acres and get prorated down, NCGA gains a concrete argument that the voluntary fix is too small. If they don’t, the Farm Bureau analysis leaves opponents of a mandatory rewrite holding the strongest economic case in the debate — keep the update additive, voluntary and paid for.

AG POLICY & MARKETS DAILY   |   FARM POLICY  |  BASE ACRES — THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 2026