Ohio Ag Net | Ohio's Country Journal Ohio Ag Net | Ohio's Country Journal 
By Raphael Galo
For those following soybeans and corn in South America, the most important read right now is not just the size of the crop, but the speed at which that crop turns into available supply, shipments, and cash flow. Aggregate volume remains large, but the market has entered a phase in which weather, agronomic planting windows, quality, logistics, and geopolitics are driving price and margins much more forcefully in the short term. That is why volatility remains high even in a robust production environment: the focus has shifted away from “how much” and toward “how” and “when.”
In Brazil, official figures continue to confirm a large cycle. In CONAB’s fifth survey, total grain production was estimated at 353.4 million metric tons. Within that total, soybeans are projected at 177.985 million metric tons, and total corn at 138.448 million metric tons, with year-over-year recovery and a meaningful contribution from the second crop to the final outcome. In the soybean balance sheet, CONAB projects domestic consumption at 64.619 million metric tons, exports at 112.190 million, and ending stocks at 11.866 million metric tons. For corn, estimated domestic consumption is 94.576 million metric tons, exports are 46.500 million, and ending stocks are 11.761 million metric tons. These numbers help explain a key point: Brazil remains a major exporter, but it also has strong enough domestic demand to prevent a simplistic reading of “big crop = linear price pressure.”
At the same time, crop progress has shown that projected volume does not eliminate operational noise. Soybean harvest moved forward in February and gained traction, but at an uneven pace across regions, with special attention on the Center-West. Field reporting highlighted the national soybean harvest at 32.3%, based on CONAB data, in an environment marked by delays in part of the producing areas and a market that has become more sensitive to weather and logistics. The most critical point emerged in Mato Grosso, where heavy rains—with reports of accumulations above 200 mm in producing areas—reduced machine operating windows, slowed soybean removal, and pressured the transition into the safrinha corn crop and other crops. In practice, this raised operational risk precisely when the market was expecting an acceleration in physical flows.
That soybean-corn connection is at the center of the second-crop discussion. In Brazil’s Center-South, safrinha planting advanced, but market readings showed a pace still below last year during part of February, with meaningful differences by state. That relative delay matters less because of the number itself and more because of its effect on the agronomic window: the more planting is pushed back, the greater the crop’s sensitivity to weather during the development phase. In other words, the market is not only debating whether there will be corn, but on what calendar it will be planted and harvested—and how that changes productivity risk and supply risk in the second half of the year.
IMEA data help add depth to this reading in Mato Grosso, which remains a key piece of Brazil’s price formation. In soybeans, the institute showed harvest progress and advancing commercialization in the 2025-26 crop and even into 2026-27, signaling that producers are selling, but in a selective and opportunistic way. In corn, commercialization percentages also advanced (the 2024-25 crop nearly completed, 2025-26 already at a meaningful level, and 2026-27 just beginning), while spot prices in the state found support during periods of stronger Chicago futures and a firmer U.S. dollar. This combination matters a lot: even with the prospect of solid supply, the physical market is still reacting to sales timing, logistics, and the producer’s cost structure.
In the domestic market, Cepea readings echoed in sector coverage reinforced exactly this behavior. Corn prices remained firm despite low liquidity across several regions, in an environment of more cautious sellers and buyers adjusting origination needs. In soybeans, support came from the combination of heated external demand, premiums, and support during rallies in Chicago, even as the market alternated between sessions with more trading paralysis due to FX moves and external noise. This is the typical pattern of a market that is “expensive to execute,” not necessarily “short of product.”
Logistics, meanwhile, has once again become a pricing variable. The episode of loaded truck lines in Miritituba, in the Northern Arc corridor, with significant congestion and lost time in grain movement, once again exposed a structural point: a big crop does not automatically translate into big margins. When flow gets stuck, costs keep running in the truck, freight, working capital turnover, and quality risk. The consequence shows up in local basis, premiums, pricing pace, and origination competitiveness. In years of high production, this type of bottleneck often explains a large share of the gap between projected results and actual results on the farm.
In foreign trade, export data help close that loop. The export radar shows a soybean complex already strong in January, with 3.889 million metric tons shipped and US$1.657 billion in revenue, along with an average price higher than a year earlier. Corn totaled 4.245 million metric tons in January and US$929 million, also with an improvement in average price. These figures show that the international market continues to absorb Brazilian product and help support domestic prices, but the correct reading is about flow and timing: soybeans and corn do not “move” the same way on the calendar, and that difference weighs on logistics and price formation at each stage of the crop cycle.
On the international side, the new February WASDE brought figures that help explain why the market remains sensitive even with high global supply. In soybeans, USDA raised world production to 428.18 million metric tons, with crush at 368.03 million and ending stocks at 125.5 million metric tons. The report also raised Brazil to 180.0 million metric tons and Paraguay to 11.5 million, reinforcing South America’s weight in global availability. In corn, USDA estimated world production at 1,295.91 million metric tons and global ending stocks at 288.98 million metric tons, while keeping Brazil at 131.0 million and Argentina at 53.0 million metric tons in its balance sheet. At the same time, the report included an adjustment that supported Chicago corn through demand, with stronger U.S. exports and tighter U.S. ending stocks than the market had been discussing at certain points. That directly aligns with headlines about corn rising in Chicago on stronger U.S. demand.
It is worth noting that the difference between Brazil figures from CONAB and USDA does not invalidate the analysis; it simply reflects different methodologies, timing, and assumptions. For those making commercial decisions, that means working with ranges and scenarios, not a single “fixed” number. And it is precisely in that band of uncertainty—combined with weather, logistics, and demand—that the market finds room to move.
Outside Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay add important layers to the regional reading. In Argentina, the normalization of port operations after the strike reduced immediate logistics risk, helping ease part of the short-term risk premium in export flows. At the same time, coverage in Argentina’s rural press reinforced an environment of improved crop prospects and greater attention to China as a soybean demand driver, without erasing agronomic and crop management concerns. Among them, corn “chicharrita” remains on the radar, with recommendations for continuous field monitoring to prevent population growth and reduce damage risk. This matters because it does not always show up immediately in aggregate numbers, but it can change perceptions of productivity and regional risk. In Paraguay, the final stretch of harvest with a record-crop bias reinforces the view of strong South American supply and confirms the direction captured by USDA when it revised Paraguayan production upward.
In the background, macro analyses and summaries converge on the same message: trade geopolitics, tariffs, China, oil, FX, and interest rates continue to influence Chicago sentiment, business pace, and decision-making by producers and trading houses. This helps explain why weeks with only minor changes in production figures can still see meaningful swings in prices, premiums, and basis. The market is reacting less to the “record crop” headline and more to the combination of demand, flow, and execution risk.
In short, South America continues to offer significant soybean and corn volume to the world, but a professional reading at this point requires going beyond the final crop number. What is at stake is the ability to turn production into commercial supply at the right time, with quality, manageable logistics costs, and a preserved agronomic window for second-crop corn. That difference—between a crop produced and a crop well executed—is what is driving volatility, spreads, and, ultimately, margins.
See you,
Raphael Galo
