In&nbsp;Wineries of the Old Mission Peninsula Association v. Peninsula Township&nbsp;(U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, 2025), a group of local wineries sued Peninsula Township, Michigan, claiming that the township’s zoning laws unfairly restricted their ability to operate and grow. The wineries are located on the Old Mission Peninsula, a picturesque region north of Traverse City known for vineyards, fruit farms, and views of Lake Michigan.&nbsp;



Many of the wineries are located on agricultural land, where the township allowed them as “special uses” under its zoning ordinance—but only under strict conditions. These included limits on hours, food service, events, and even the use of outdoor spaces. The township said the rules were meant to preserve rural character, reduce traffic and noise, and protect residents from excessive commercialization.



The wineries saw it differently, arguing that the rules were overly harsh and inconsistent with modern wine tourism. Some rules, like requiring that all wine be made from grapes grown within the township, or that officials pre-approve advertising and events, struck them as both unfair and unconstitutional. The wineries sued under several legal theories, including violations of the First Amendment (free speech and expression), the Commerce Clause (prohibiting discrimination against out-of-state goods), and the Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection).&nbsp;



After years of litigation and an 11-day trial, the federal court largely sided with the wineries. The judge found that the township’s rules on advertising and event approval unlawfully restricted free speech, and that the local-grape requirement violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against wines made with out-of-state fruit. While the township could still regulate land use to manage traffic and protect farmland, the court said it must do so in ways that respect constitutional rights and avoid economic protectionism.



The expert witness for the township, University of Pennsylvania Professor and nationally known writer on farmland preservation, Dr. Thomas Daniels, submitted an expert witness report that essentially argued that agritourism (in this case, wine tastings, weddings, and events) hindered farmland preservation by converting land to commercial operations. The court took the extraordinary step of finding Dr. Daniels’ testimony not credible.&nbsp;



The court particularly questioned the testimony that farmland preservation should keep the value of farmland low so that young farmers and others could easily enter the industry. The expert witness for the wineries challenged that principle, opining that land values need to be sufficient to fund the producers’ retirement.



The court also labeled an intervening group as a Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) group, and the motivations of the township as NIMBYism. The court granted the wineries $50 million in damages. The township’s insurance carrier has filed suit, denying coverage for the judgment.



The&nbsp;Wineries&nbsp;case carries national importance because it reflects a growing struggle across the country: how to balance local land-use control with modern agricultural and tourism economies. Communities across the country face similar tensions as small farms and wineries expand into venues for tastings, weddings, and events. In addition, Dr. Daniels’ position that agritourism hinders farmland preservation may become part of other litigation and policy discussions.



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



Richardson, Jesse, and Tiffany Lashmet. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/02/does-agritourism-hinder-or-promote-farmland-preservation/">Does Agritourism Hinder or Promote Farmland Preservation?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(49.5). December 5, 2025. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/02/does-agritourism-hinder-or-promote-farmland-preservation/">Permalink</a>

Does Agritourism Hinder or Promote Farmland Preservation?

Recently, the Trump administration announced tariff exceptions on some agricultural products, including beef, tea and coffee, fruit juice, cocoa, spices, bananas, oranges, tomatoes, and certain fertilizers. Imports account for over ninety percent of consumption for four of these products: bananas, tea, coffee, and cocoa. Spices, tomatoes, and fruit juice also have import shares surpassing 60 percent. Meanwhile, consumption of beef and oranges have not been as reliant on imports, with a dependency totaling less than 20 percent of U.S. consumption. In 2024, the beef industry produced 12.4 million metric tons (MMT) of carcass weight equivalent beef, and the citrus industry grew 3.33 MMT of oranges. Of the 1.52 MMT of beef imports in 2024, ground beef made up nearly two-thirds at 981 thousand metric tons (TMT).



Figure 1: U.S. Import Share of Agricultural Products Relieved of Reciprocal Tariffs, MT, Five-Year Average 2020-2024



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table class="has-fixed-layout"><tbody><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Import Share</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Production</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Imports</td></tr><tr><td>Beef*</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">12.68%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">12,472,000</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,810,400</td></tr><tr><td>Oranges</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">17.11%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">3,332,304</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">687,805</td></tr><tr><td>Fertilizer</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">23.84%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">39,150</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">12,257</td></tr><tr><td>Spices</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">60.00%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">427,003</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">640,505</td></tr><tr><td>Tomatoes</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">69.93%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">864,162</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,981,046</td></tr><tr><td>Fruit Juice**</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">69.77%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,097415</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">4,840,255</td></tr><tr><td>Cocoa</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">99.00%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">14,240</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,409,748</td></tr><tr><td>Coffee</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">99.82%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,736</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,502,760</td></tr><tr><td>Tea</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">99.99%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">29</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">205,456</td></tr><tr><td>Bananas</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">100.00%</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">&#8211;</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">5,121,292</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Sources: PS&amp;D, USDA/FAS; GATS, USDA/FAS, Fruit and Treenut Yearbook, USDA/ERS, Fertilizer Dashboard, USDA/FAS; Buzzanell, Peter. &#8220;The Spice Market in the United States: Recent Developments and Prospects.” *Beef is measured in carcass weight equivalent ** Fruit Juice Measured in kiloliters</figcaption></figure>



Canada is the largest source of imported cocoa products and fertilizer for the United States, amounting to $2.77 billion and $4.73 billion, respectively, in 2024. Brazil is the leader in fruit juice exports to the United States at $1.14 billion. Mexico is the source of 85 percent of imported tomatoes, worth $3.12 billion, in the United States. Vietnam and India rank as the two leading sources of U.S. spice imports, $472 million and $410 million, respectively. As for tea, China ($118 million), Japan ($115 million), Canada ($107 million), and India ($92 million) each account for around 10 percent of U.S. imports. Brazilian coffee exports totaled $2.13 billion, and 21.6 percent of U.S. imports.



Additionally, the Trump administration has announced framework agreements with Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Argentina, focusing on reciprocal trade and investment to boost market access and address non-tariff barriers. These agreements would remove the reciprocal tariff rate of 10 percent, 15 percent in the case of Ecuador, on the bulk of exported products to the United States from the respective country. In 2024, U.S. imports of agricultural products totaled $7.45 billion from the four countries. In 2024, imports from Ecuador totaled $3.78 billion with shellfish accounting for 35 percent of this total, with cut flowers, bananas, and cocoa each worth more than ten percent of the import value. Two products, bananas and coffee, made up more than half of the $2.9 billion imported from Guatemala. The $2.40 billion of imports from Argentina were mixed between a large group of items, with shellfish, beef, wine, and sugar making up 41 percent of the total. Finally, sugar and coffee were the leading products imported from El Salvador, together totaling $207 million of the $415 million in 2024.



Figure 2: U.S. Imports from Selected Countries, 2024



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1549" height="1164" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.4T2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43069" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.4T2.png 1549w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.4T2-1024x769.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.4T2-768x577.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.4T2-1536x1154.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1549px) 100vw, 1549px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: GATS, USDA/FAS</figcaption></figure>



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



Sources:



Buzzanell, Peter J. Rex Dull, &amp; Fred Gray. “The Spice Market in the United States: Recent Developments and Prospects.” July 3, 1995. https://ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=42049.



Economic Research Service (ERS). “Fruit and Tree Nuts Yearbook Tables.” Accessed November 2025. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fruit-and-tree-nuts- data/fruit-and-tree-nuts-yearbook-tables/. Published February 25, 2025.



Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). “Global Fertilizer Dashboard.” Online Database. https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/visualization-global-fertilizer-trade-dashboard. Online public database.



Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). Global Agricultural Trade System (GATS). Online database. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx. Online public database accessed November 2025.



Foreign Agricultural Services (FAS). Production Supply and Distribution (PS&amp;D). Online Database. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/advQuery. Online public database



The White House. “Fact Sheet: Following Trade Deal Announcements, President Donald J Trump Modifies the Scope of the Reciprocal Tariffs with Respect to Certain Agricultural Products.” November 14, 2025.



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



Ribera, Luis, and Landyn K. Young. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/02/recent-tariff-exceptions-and-trade-agreements-aimed-to-reduce-food-costs/">Recent Tariff Exceptions and Trade Agreements Aimed to Reduce Food Costs</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(49.4). December 4, 2025. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/12/02/recent-tariff-exceptions-and-trade-agreements-aimed-to-reduce-food-costs/">Permalink</a>

Recent Tariff Exceptions and Trade Agreements Aimed to Reduce Food Costs

Row-crop producers across the South faced another difficult year in 2025. Weather challenges led to wide yield variability across much of the region. Even where yields were strong, low commodity prices and persistently high input costs kept margins tight, leaving many operations near or below breakeven for a third straight year. Shifts in acreage were common, with corn gaining ground at the expense of cotton and, in some areas, soybeans.



Financial stress remains a major concern heading into 2026, as limited storage capacity, tighter credit conditions, and low prices continue to pressure farm profits. To capture conditions across the south, we asked Extension agricultural economists in each state to provide a brief summary of the 2025 season. Their state-by-state perspectives are below.



Alabama – Adam Rabinowitz, Max Runge, and Wendiam Sawadgo, Auburn University



Alabama’s row crop producers faced the wettest May on record statewide, leading to delayed or prevented crop planting across the state. Prevented plantings for upland cotton in 2025 totaled 62,000 acres, above the previous five-year average of 2,000 acres. Across all crops, prevented plantings totaled 122,000 acres, much higher than the 22,000-acre five-year average. Compounding issues during the season were a late drought that suppressed peanut and soybean performance and the cotton jassid (two-spotted leafhopper) that entered Alabama and spread to all cotton-producing parts of the state. Even with these challenges, corn and cotton yields are projected to exceed their five-year averages, whereas peanut and soybean yields are expected to finish near historical norms. Meanwhile, producers, lenders, and agribusinesses remain concerned about the ongoing price squeeze driven by low commodity prices and elevated production costs. For the year ahead, many are questioning the best direction for row crops with no positive change to prices or input costs expected, and the unknown future and impact of the cotton jassid (two-spotted leafhopper).



Arkansas – Ryan Loy, Hunter Biram, and Scott Stiles, University of Arkansas



Arkansas row crop producers entered the 2025 crop year in one of the most financially challenging environments of the past decade, as crop receipts fell by $465 million to $4.46 billion, marking the third consecutive annual decline. Corn led the downturn with a 31% year-over-year decline, followed by soybean and rice receipts, while cotton receipts remain soft due to acreage reductions. At the same time, production expenses remain elevated relative to historical averages, with fertilizer, seed, labor, and interest costs continuing to pressure operating margins. Across all principal crops, state-average net returns are projected to be negative, with breakeven prices and yields often 30–40% above expected levels; late planting from generational flooding in April further increased downside risk. Record ad hoc assistance through ECAP and SDRP is expected to exceed $1 billion and offset a portion of these losses. Yet, net farm income for the crop sector is still projected to remain negative even after accounting for program payments. The mounting financial strain facing Arkansas producers continues as they confront low commodity prices, persistently high input costs, and tighter credit conditions.



Florida – Kevin Athearn, Amanda Phillips, and Joel Love, University of Florida



Florida planted acres of peanuts were up 7% (175,000 acres), corn down 3% (85,000 acres), and cotton down 29% (62,000 acres) in 2025 relative to the 5-year average (USDA-NASS).&nbsp;&nbsp;Estimated yields for peanut were up 8% (3,900 lbs/acre) and cotton up 23% (800 lbs/acre) relative to the 5-year average (USDA-NASS). Anecdotally, irrigated corn yields were above average, but non-irrigated corn yields suffered from insufficient summer rainfall. Peanut contracts were offered on a relatively small portion of production at $500 to $525 per ton, but uncontracted peanuts reportedly were selling below $400 per ton at harvest. The local basis on grain corn forward contracts offered by three Florida buyers, April through July for August delivery, averaged $0.80 over Sep futures. Forward contracts on Florida cotton typically are tied to December futures, which averaged 66.83¢ per pound between April and November. Production costs, especially machinery, labor, and interest, have trended upward, and the local UAN28 price increased 30% in early 2025. Sample budgets for 2025 estimated contribution margins per acre (not including land or fixed costs) of about $300 for irrigated peanut, $50 for irrigated corn, negative $100 for irrigated cotton, and negative $50 for non-irrigated cotton. The estimated gross profit was negative for all three crops.



Georgia – Amanda Smith, University of Georgia



The 5-year average crop mix in Georgia consisted of 44% cotton, 28% peanuts, 16% corn, 7% wheat, and 5% soybeans. Row crop producers faced another tough year in 2025, after a difficult 2024 where they incurred negative to small margins and dealt with the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, which destroyed one-third of the cotton crop, delayed peanut harvest, and damaged infrastructure. Due to cotton prices below cost of production in 2025, producers made a major shift to their crop mix by planting more peanuts than cotton for the first time in three decades and significantly increasing corn acres. The 2025 crop year saw 35% of total acres planted to peanuts, 32% to cotton,&nbsp;&nbsp;21% to corn, and 6% each to soybeans and wheat. Despite some relief provided by government programs (ECAP and SDRP), producers continued to deplete their working capital and erode equity, making it necessary to rely on other sources of income to support their row crop operations. The 2025 crop year saw an additional challenge with the rapid spread of a new invasive pest to cotton, the Cotton Jassid (two-spotted leafhopper). Late-season drought made dryland peanut harvest difficult and created some concern about crop quality. For 2026, producers will be mindful of crop rotations and cost of production while hoping to hold on until improved agricultural policies provide needed financial relief.



Kentucky – Grant Gardner, University of Kentucky



Three consecutive years of lower prices have already put Kentucky producers in a difficult position, and this year’s extreme yield variability is adding even more pressure. Some areas will post record yields, while others will fall well below average—especially soybeans, which are currently rated in the worst condition of any state. A major concern right now is the lack of soybeans in storage. At harvest, many producers moved beans rather than storing them due to uncertainty surrounding the trade dispute, leaving most available storage filled with corn. That decision removed the opportunity to take advantage of last month’s rally in soybean futures, and many producers were unable to benefit from the price improvement when it finally arrived. While diversified operations with livestock may still be close to break-even, row-crop-focused farms are likely hovering at or below break-even for the third consecutive year, tightening cash reserves and leaving many operations increasingly vulnerable to financial stress or potential default.



Louisiana – Michael Deliberto, Louisiana State University



In Louisiana, corn acres increased by 330,000 acres (+75%) from 2024 to 2025. Most producers favored corn over cotton (and, to a lesser extent, soybeans) due to grain price competitiveness. Overall, yields were near the previous four-year average of 176 bushels per acre.&nbsp;&nbsp;Prices are finally becoming somewhat favorable for producers who elected to store their crop.&nbsp;



Like most of the mid-south region, cotton acres in Louisiana were down year-over-year. Producers planted only 90,000 acres in 2025. Despite the low acreage, yields were at record highs at 1,314 pounds per acre, nearly a 250-pound-per-acre increase from the previous year. While yields were excellent, prices remained low. The high cost of production, coupled with the narrow price movement within the 66-68 cents per pound range in the spring, was a main factor behind the reduced acreage in the state.&nbsp;



Soybean acres in Louisiana were down year-over-year. Acreage for the oilseed is typically between 1.1 and 1.2 million acres. However, the 2025 acreage was 790,000, mainly due to lackluster prices and trade uncertainty surrounding exports. Yields were the highest in five years, coming in at 54 bushels per acre.&nbsp;



Rice acres in Louisiana totaled 482,000 planted acres in 2025, the most since 2010. The yield per acre was 6,650 pounds, which is on par with the five-year average. High production costs and decreasing rice prices at harvest presented a major challenge for rice growers heading into the winter.&nbsp;



Mississippi – Will Maples, Mississippi State University



Weather played a major role in Mississippi’s 2025 crop. Frequent heavy rains delayed planting for many producers, and late-summer drought stressed crops, resulting in significant yield variability across the state. Soybeans remained the largest crop at 1.8 million acres, but growers shifted more toward corn than cotton, planting 900,000 acres of corn compared with 330,000 acres of cotton. Financial conditions remain difficult. The price environment is still unfavorable, and because Mississippi producers harvest early and lack the storage capacity common in other states, many were unable to capitalize on the recent soybean price rally. High production costs continue to squeeze margins, leaving most producers facing negative profits for the third consecutive year. Looking ahead to 2026, a growing number of producers have expressed equity concerns as they evaluate their farm financing options.



North Carolina – Nicholas Piggott, North Carolina State University



In North Carolina, 2025 row-crop outcomes were mixed. Corn yields rebounded sharply from last year’s drought-reduced crop, with NASS estimating 139 bu/acre, pushing corn production up about 75% from 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;Late-November cash bids for No. 2 yellow corn are mostly $4.60 at country elevators and around $4.80 at feed mills, with a firm basis of $0.40-$0.50. Soybean yields, by contrast, slipped to about 36 bu/acre, below last year’s 39 bu/acre, leaving statewide soybean production down roughly 6% from 2024. Cash soybean bids are currently in the $10.50–$11.10/bu range at elevators and $11.25 at processors, with basis typically -$0.30 at elevators and $0.02 at processors.&nbsp;&nbsp;On wheat, growers have responded to several years of weak prices and weather risk by cutting back acreage: NASS reports 2025 winter wheat seedings at about 350,000 acres, down from 410,000 acres last year and near the low end of the historical range for the state.&nbsp;&nbsp;Looking Ahead to 2026 – North Carolina growers should carefully pencil out expected corn and soybean margins when making planting decisions for 2026, and pay close attention to wheat growing conditions in the next few months since they will shape production levels, basis strength, and marketing opportunities for 2026.



Tennessee – Aaron Smith, University of Tennessee



In Tennessee, 2025 row production was highly variable. Drought during July and August reduced yields and contributed to a second consecutive season of losses for many corn, soybean, and cotton farmers. Cotton and soybean yields were hardest hit by the drought and will likely result in further downward revisions from current USDA yield estimates. High input costs, low commodity prices, and below trend yields resulted in per-acre losses between $100 and $250 for many producers. Before crop insurance and other government payments, Tennessee corn, cotton, soybean, and wheat farmers are projected to lose over $400 million in 2025. With substantial year-over-year losses, many producers will carry operating debt over into the next season for the second straight year. Obtaining credit for the 2026 crop will be challenging for many producers without ad hoc government payments. Canola acres in Tennessee and Kentucky continued to expand in the fall of 2025, providing producers with an alternative to more traditional double-cropping systems. Growth in canola acreage has been driven by contracted acres, primarily in Northwest Tennessee, to support a pilot program to produce sustainable aviation fuel.



Texas – Mark Welch and John Robinson, Texas A&amp;M University



Grain production across Texas in 2025 was generally an improvement from 2024. Overall, yields for wheat, corn, and grain sorghum were above their most recent 10-year averages.&nbsp; Cash grain prices for the year peaked in February and followed a decline throughout the growing season. &nbsp;A major feature of planning for 2026 will be changes to the farm safety net compared to the beginning of last year: a higher level of support in programs administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and increased cost-sharing for crop insurance products. This could make higher levels of revenue protection a viable consideration for the upcoming crop year.&nbsp;



Texas cotton production in 2025 benefited from favorable, timely moisture conditions.&nbsp; This is in contrast to the preceding three years, which suffered from excessive heat and dryness.&nbsp; Unfortunately, the 2025 cotton production still suffered from unprofitably low market prices. &nbsp;The upcoming 2026 cotton season is concerning with a return of dry conditions and an uncertain market outcome.

How Southern Row-Crop Producers Fared in 2025

This year, there have been several Southern Ag Today articles discussing the impacts of tight fed cattle supplies on prices, cattle on feed, slaughter weights, and total beef production (Anderson 2025a, Anderson 2025b, Maples 2025). On November 21, Tyson announced that they would be closing their Lexington, Nebraska plant in January 2026. Following the announcement, there have been a lot of questions revolving around the impact of the closure on national slaughter capacity utilization (CU).&nbsp;



The Lexington, Nebraska plant had an approximate daily capacity of 5,000 head. That equates to approximately 20% of Tyson’s daily capacity (25,800 head/day) as a company. In Martinez et al. (2023), we showed a measure of national slaughter capacity utilization, which measures the ratio of operational cattle slaughter capacity over total physical capacity. To estimate the impact of the closure on the national CU, we use 2025’s monthly slaughter with an adjusted 2025 slaughter CU. The adjusted CU is simply adjusting the national CU with the daily 5,000 head taken out. Figure 1 displays the monthly national federally inspected (FI) slaughter capacity utilization with the previous 5-year average (thick blue line), 2024 (orange dotted line), 2025 (grey thin line), and 2025-Adjusted (green dashed line).&nbsp;



Figure 1. Monthly National Federally Inspected Slaughter Capacity Utilization



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2158" height="1109" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43045" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.2.png 2158w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.2-1024x526.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.2-768x395.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.2-1536x789.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/5.49.2-2048x1052.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2158px) 100vw, 2158px" /></figure>



The adjusted capacity utilization is closer to the previous 5-year average. Evaluating data through November, the average for the 5-year average was 90.1% while the 2025 and 2025-adjusted average through November are 83.1% and 87.7%, respectively. In November, slaughter capacity utilization averaged 83.5%, which was lower than November 2024 (88.4%), the previous 5-year average (89.8%), and the 2025-adjusted (87.8%).Overall, 2025 has seen declining fed cattle numbers in the cattle on feed reports and higher fed cattle prices, leading to low or negative packer margins. While the supply chain is offsetting tight cattle supplies with larger carcasses, the closure of the Lexington plant certainly signals there is excess capacity at this time. This is the first large scale plant to close since 2013, when Cargill closed their Plainview, TX plant, which was also during a time when cattle supplies were tight.&nbsp;&nbsp;There have been reports that Tyson is looking to buy that Plainview plant. Additionally, there are some plants that are reported to come online in 2026 and 2027. It is fair to question if the adjusted capacity utilization is a new norm, or simply a short run adjustment by the supply chain.



References



Anderson, David. “Fewer Marketings, Tighter Beef Supplies.”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;5(26.2). June 24, 2025.&nbsp;



Anderson, David. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/05/15/working-less-on-friday/">Working Less on Friday!</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;5(21.2). May 20, 2025.



Maples, Josh. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/04/09/cattle-prices-hit-new-highs-and-carcass-grading-trends-over-time/">Cattle Prices Hit New Highs and Carcass Grading Trends Over Time.</a>”&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;5(19.2). May 6, 2025.



Martinez, C., Li, P., Boyer, C. N., Yu, T. E., &amp; Maples, J. G. (2023). Beef price spread relationship with processing capacity utilization.&nbsp;Journal of the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jaa2.48">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jaa2.48</a>



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



Martinez, Charley, and Parker Wyatt. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/11/20/the-impact-of-tysons-closure-on-beef-slaughter-capacity-utilization/">The Impact of Tyson’s Closure on Beef Slaughter Capacity Utilization.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(49.2). December 2, 2025. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/11/20/the-impact-of-tysons-closure-on-beef-slaughter-capacity-utilization/">Permalink</a>

The Impact of Tyson’s Closure on Beef Slaughter Capacity Utilization

The term ‘fair market value’ or (FMV) is often used in conversation or as part of a calculation. The term itself conveys some meaning, but what is the true definition? Fair market value is the price any asset (land, machinery, equipment, etc.) would sell for in an open market where the buyer and seller are knowledgeable about the facts and reach an agreed-upon price. It is also assumed that the seller is not under a strong compulsion to sell (i.e., that the seller is experiencing liquidity problems and is selling an asset quickly to get cash), which could lead to adverse outcomes. In those instances, it may be that the seller advertises the asset at a price to quickly attract a buyer that does not reflect the full value of the property. The same is true of the buyer, that they are not under an unnecessary compulsion to buy.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Fair market value appears in numerous contexts. It can arise in estate planning, tax preparation, contracts, or other legal situations. It can play an important role in all of these. Not always does a sale have to occur for FMV determination to be necessary. One example would be when a farm passes through an estate to heirs. The heirs can receive the farm assets at FMV (with what is known as a step-up in basis) without paying tax, but that means the FMV of the assets passing through must be determined.&nbsp;



Buyers and sellers often conduct some due diligence before engaging in the marketplace. They may check public records of sale, online listings, databases, or local markets to get an idea of what an assets value may be. These can all be examples of fair market value. In certain situations, it may be necessary for the fair market value to be a more ‘official’ number, which can be obtained through a qualified appraisal. Depending on the assets involved, specific appraisals may be required. For instance, an appraiser with experience in antiquities would not be the right person for valuing rural land. An appraiser will consider factors such as comparable assets or sales, the ability of the asset to generate income, and its current replacement cost. It is not an exact science, so results may vary, or the process may provide a range of values.&nbsp;



During such discussions, other terms such as&nbsp;original cost&nbsp;or&nbsp;basis&nbsp;may appear. At the time of purchase, the 1) original cost, 2) FMV, and 3) basis are all essentially the same. Usually, this is the only time that happens. That is because after acquiring the asset, the cost will stay the same, but the FMV of the asset in the marketplace can change (either higher or lower), and the asset (except for land) will be depreciated or expensed. An example would be a farmer purchases a field implement for $10,000, which on that day is the cost, the FMV, and the basis in the asset. After 5 years, they are planning to sell the implement. The original cost is still $10,000, but let’s assume the FMV of the asset has declined to $7,000 (what it would currently sell for in the marketplace between a willing buyer and seller), and they have fully depreciated the item, giving them a basis of $0. This shows that while sometimes these terms are connected, they are different and used for different purposes.&nbsp;



For farms, it is important to be able to understand and determine fair market values in the case of sales, purchases, transitions, negotiations, and planning. Farms can request help on these issues through trusted advisors such as lawyers, accountants, tax professionals, appraisers, and consultants.&nbsp;



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



Burkett, Kevin. “<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/11/20/no-lowballs-i-know-what-ive-got/">No lowballs, I know what I’ve got…”</a> Southern Ag Today 5(49.1). December 1, 2025. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/11/20/no-lowballs-i-know-what-ive-got/">Permalink</a>

“No lowballs, I know what I’ve got…”

The&nbsp;State of Georgia, according to the USDA’s 2022 Census of Agriculture, accounted for 39,264 farms, with a market value of roughly $13 billion in animal and plant products across poultry, peanut, cotton, pecan, fruit, and vegetable sectors. It is well known that small-scale farms are largely family owned and contribute significantly to the U.S. agricultural landscape, being of higher concentration in the south compared to other regions. Specifically, over 60% of U.S. farms in the southern region are small-scale (gross cash farm income under $350,000), and contribute significantly to the total farmland and food production. The specialized nature of Southern U.S. farmers’ markets makes them uniquely positioned with ever-increasing resilience, despite their economic struggles to sustain value-added products (Schupp, 2016). By consumer intervention and farm-vendor complexities, Woods and Wolff (2023) articulated agricultural commodities, climate adaptation, diverse needs of technical assistance, and (market) pricing confront U.S. South farmers’ markets opportunities. Consider the global picture of agrifood waste, estimated at roughly 1.3 billion tons (Adedeji, 2022), consumers in the U.S. are estimated to contribute 30-40% of this waste. This reported level, nearly 103 million tons, is more than any other country in the world. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, almost 14% of the world’s food production is&nbsp;lost before it reaches the retail stage, from roots, fruits and vegetables to cereals and pulses (FAO, 2011).&nbsp;



Figure 1 shows a global account of how major food production goes to waste. USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) estimated that16% total food waste across the U.S. occurs at the farm level. Such losses may be attributed to climatic conditions, improper logistics/transport, incorrect harvesting techniques/times, etc. (Buchholz, 2019). Moreover, agrifood waste levels of U.S. Southern states appear to be on the rise as a result of a range of farm- and non-farm-related challenges such as inefficient farm-to-plate systems and inadequate storage infrastructure. These issues have placed significant pressure on farmers’ markets and highlight the need for increased agrifood safety education. Strengthening hygiene, safety and quality practices in harvest and post- harvest handling practices can help alleviate this pressure and reduce waste across the supply chain. In line with farm quality management policies and procedures, all (farm) workers should understand why it is important for them to elevate their personal/self-hygiene levels, their continuous use of clean/sanitized (farm) facilities/tools, and their deliberate/intentional care/effort to ensure the lowest contamination levels.



&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Farmers’ markets in the U.S. South can play a role in reducing the agrifood waste that largely emanates from contaminated, poorly handled, including damaged food produce that can occur at any stage of the supply chain. Emphasizing the four well-known and established food safety key areas, namely: cleaning, separation, cooking, and chilling can support reductions in food waste. Key areas include regular washing of hands/surfaces, separating raw and cooked/processed agrifood produce, cooking to a safe (internal) temperature, and prompt/rapid refrigeration. Regardless of farm type, all farm workers require food safety training to strengthen their best practices and prevent/reduce microbial proliferation of farm food produce. Enhanced delivery of agrifood safety education would improve overall consumer protection as well as the empowerment of diverse farmers’ markets (Okpala &amp; Korzeniowska, 2023; Okpala, 2024).&nbsp;



&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is well-known that extension education, among other useful services, has been crucial in helping farmers improve their productivity and output quality by providing them with evidence-based research information. In fact, extension education, available across the land-grant institutions in the southern states, is well positioned to provide agrifood safety training to many farmers’ markets across diverse communities.&nbsp;For the farmers’ markets to thrive, a continuous and persistent implementation of agrifood safety education is paramount Prioritizing agrifood safety education would increasingly equip farmers’ markets towards achieving greater implementation of good practices, for example, good agricultural practices (GAP), good hygiene practices (GHP), good storage practices (GSP), good transport practices (GTP), good manufacturing practices (GMP), and others (Okpala &amp; Korzeniowska, 2023).&nbsp;



Figure 1: A global account of waste by major food category (FAO, 2016). 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="938" height="668" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.5.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43039" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.5.png 938w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.5-768x547.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 938px) 100vw, 938px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Buchholz, 2019</figcaption></figure>



References:



Adedeji, A.A. (2022). Agri-food waste reduction and utilization: A sustainability perspective.&nbsp;Journal of the ASABE, 65(2),&nbsp;471-479.



Buchholz, K. (2019). 14 Percent of Food Goes to Waste.&nbsp;In&nbsp;Food Loss/Food Waste in the US.&nbsp;Statistica&nbsp;(Published, 16 October 2019).&nbsp;https://www.statista.com/chart/19672/global-shares-of-different-agricultural-products-thrown-away/&nbsp;(Accessed 24 April 2025, 3.47 pm EST).



FAO (2011). Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. Rome, Italy: United Nations FAO. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/mb060e/mb060e02.pdf



Okpala, C. O. R., &amp; Korzeniowska, M. (2023). Understanding the relevance of quality management in agro-food product industry: From ethical considerations to assuring food hygiene quality safety standards and its associated processes.&nbsp;Food Reviews International,&nbsp;39(4), 1879-1952.



Okpala, C.O.R. (2024). Food safety activities for Augusta-Richmond County gardening community. Poster presented at Garden Club event in honor of Late Revd. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 15 January 2024.



Schupp, J.L. (2016). Just where does local food live? Assessing farmers’ markets in the United States.&nbsp;Agriculture and Human Values, 33(4), 827-841.



Woods T &amp; Wolff B. (2023). Farmers Markets and the South.&nbsp;Southern Ag Today. August 25, 2023. https://southernagtoday.org/2023/08/25/farmers-markets-and-the-south/.

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities