Cooperative Involvement in Rural Food Systems



Rural food systems<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftn1">[1]</a>, including the local foods movement, have been a popular topic over the last twenty years and gained even more popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic.&nbsp;&nbsp;Did this movement also encourage more cooperatives?&nbsp;&nbsp;To hone in on this, a survey of twenty-two CooperationWorks!<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftn2">[2]</a>&nbsp;members was performed in 2025, representing every state except for Nevada, Arizona, and Utah.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Cooperative Involvement in Rural Food Systems by Purpose and Activity



Survey results hint at the prevalence of cooperatives in rural food systems and the purposes and activities they represent<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftn3">[3]</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;Figure 1 shows that cooperatives are mentioned more often in relation to local, specialty, and niche-based foods. In contrast, other organizations, such as non-profit organizations and NGOs, are more often mentioned in relation to efforts to address nutrition and food insecurity. Figure 2 shows the mentions of cooperative involvement by specific rural food system activities. Food production and distribution are the most frequently mentioned activities, followed by rural grocery stores, food processing, and multi-stakeholder firms<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftn4">[4]</a>.



The Importance of Cooperatives in Rural Food Systems



While this survey does not measure the magnitude of cooperative involvement in rural food systems, it suggests that cooperatives are an important ingredient. Open-ended survey responses suggest that cooperatives involved in rural food systems tend to be newer and smaller, unlike older and larger “legacy” commodity cooperatives.&nbsp;&nbsp;This makes sense, as many aspects of rural food systems, such as local food systems, are also small and new, accounting for about 3.2% of our nation’s food supply (USDA NASS, 2024).



Figure 1: Cooperatives Mentioned in Rural Food Systems by Purpose



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="603" height="365" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.5-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43898"/></figure>



Figure 2: Cooperatives Mentioned in Rural Food Systems by Activity



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="600" height="363" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.5-2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43899"/></figure>



The Cooperative Advantage



Many survey respondents expressed concerns about the continued availability of grant funding for rural food system efforts, as some have vanished amid shifting priorities away from COVID-era initiatives (e.g., LFPA grants). Cooperatives may have an advantage here, as cooperative members contribute equity to their organizations, potentially insulating them from changes in public funding priorities.&nbsp;



If you are part of a cooperative, stay engaged by attending meetings, voting in elections, and serving on the board.&nbsp;&nbsp;If you are looking to start a cooperative,&nbsp;<a href="https://cooperationworks.coop/">CooperationWorks!</a>&nbsp;and many&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/land-grant-university-website-directory">land-grant universities</a>&nbsp;have extension personnel and cooperative specialists available to assist.



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



<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;Rural food systems are largely synonymous with local and regional food systems: networks connecting food production, processing, distribution, and consumption within a specific region.&nbsp;&nbsp;



<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftnref2">[2]</a>&nbsp;CooperationWorks! is a national network of cooperative development organizations in the US.&nbsp;<a href="https://cooperationworks.coop/">https://cooperationworks.coop/</a>



<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftnref3">[3]</a>&nbsp;The survey questions record the number of responses that mention cooperatives being involved in these activities and purposes.&nbsp;&nbsp;These percentages should not be considered the number or percentage of cooperatives involved in these activities or with these purposes. This survey is simply a barometer of whether cooperatives are involved in rural food systems.&nbsp;



<a href="applewebdata://C3389DCF-F519-45EA-B7B8-25D1612E6B1B#_ftnref4">[4]</a>&nbsp;Multi-stakeholder firms are those with multiple membership types (e.g., producers and consumers), voting and investment options.&nbsp;&nbsp;Some states allow cooperatives to have these features, and some do not.&nbsp;



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



Richards, Steven. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/04/cooperative-involvement-in-rural-food-systems/">Cooperative Involvement in Rural Food Systems.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(19.5). May 8, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/04/cooperative-involvement-in-rural-food-systems/">Permalink</a>

Cooperative Involvement in Rural Food Systems

Authors: Luis Ribera and Landyn K. Young



The U.S. is highly competitive in agricultural production and the largest agricultural exporter in the world. In 2024, these exports were estimated to total $181.3 billion. Given that the world population is expected to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050, the U.S. is well positioned to be the source of agricultural products to feed the growing population.&nbsp;&nbsp;Moreover, global GDP is expected to grow between 2 and 4 percent through 2050. This means that not only will there be more people to feed, but also those people will have more purchasing power.



Of the top eight U.S. agricultural export commodities, the U.S. ranks first in global exports of corn and pork, and second in soybeans, cotton, and poultry (Table 1).&nbsp;&nbsp;Meanwhile, Brazil, another powerhouse in agricultural production with $144.4 billion in agricultural exports in 2024, ranks first in global exports of soybeans, beef and veal, cotton and chicken, and second in corn and soybean meal.&nbsp;&nbsp;Brazil’s ability to double crop, produce two crops in the same season, and its potential to double or even triple its cropland puts it in a very advantageous position to continue to increase its global food market share. On the other hand, U.S. productivity and agricultural infrastructure, i.e., roads, rail, waterways, and ports, help in remaining competitive globally.



One area that erodes U.S. competitiveness is the increase in government regulations.&nbsp;&nbsp;To illustrate, Figure 1 shows the total number of pages published in the Code of Federal Regulations, increasing from around 15,000 in 1950 to around 190,000.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If the cost of U.S. regulations were a country, it would be the fourth richest country in the world, just behind the U.S., China, and Japan. Moreover, a study by the National Association of Home Builders stated that 23.8 percent of the cost of a new single-family home, or an average of $93,870, is due to government regulations.&nbsp;&nbsp;Finally, regulatory costs, also known as societal hidden taxes, are equivalent to $14,684 or 22 percent of the 2020 annual household expense budget; more than any other expenses except housing, which is $22,624 (Figure 2).



Regulatory costs are an added source of concern to&nbsp;agricultural production as well.&nbsp;A study by Hamilton and McCullough (2025) showed that while production costs for a lettuce farmer in Salinas Valley, California, have increased significantly over the years, regulatory costs have increased exponentially from 2006 to 2024 (Table 2). In 2006, the cooperating lettuce grower reported regulatory costs totaling $109.15 per acre, increasing to $977.30 per acre in 2017, and growing to $1,600.12 per acre in 2024, which is a 63.7 percent increase from 2017 and a 1,366 percent increase since 2006. Regulatory costs comprised just 1.24 percent of production costs in 2006, then rose to 8.9 percent in 2017 and 12.6 percent of production costs in 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;Agriculture is a hard business to be in; producers deal with constant price volatility, increasing input costs, pests, and weather, among many other challenges outside of their control.&nbsp;&nbsp;On top of that are increasing regulatory costs, which add yet another barrier to remaining competitive in the global arena with countries that do not have such a burden.&nbsp;



Table 1. Ranking of Agricultural Exports for Selected Commodities, 2025



<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-center" data-align="center">United States</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Brazil</td></tr><tr><td>Corn</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2</td></tr><tr><td>Soybean</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1</td></tr><tr><td>Beef-Veal</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1</td></tr><tr><td>Pork</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">3</td></tr><tr><td>Wheat</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">10</td></tr><tr><td>Soybean Meal</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2</td></tr><tr><td>Cotton</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1</td></tr><tr><td>Poultry</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Production, Supply, Distribution (USDA/FAS)</figcaption></figure>



Figure 1. Total Pages Published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 1950-2023.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="551" height="397" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.4-F1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43906"/></figure>



Figure 2. U.S. Household Expense Budget of $66,928 Compared to Regulatory Costs



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="778" height="582" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.4-F2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43907" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.4-F2.jpg 778w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.4-F2-768x575.jpg 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 778px) 100vw, 778px" /></figure>



Table 2. Regulatory Costs for Salinas Valley Lettuce Grower, 2006, 2017, and 2024.



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>Regulatory Category</td><td>2006</td><td>2017</td><td>2024</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td colspan="3">Cost per acre</td></tr><tr><td>Education/Training for Regulatory Compliance</td><td>$1.27</td><td>$26.31</td><td>$25.60</td></tr><tr><td>Air Quality Requirements&nbsp;</td><td>$0.00</td><td>$5.31</td><td>$8.29</td></tr><tr><td>Water Quality/Quality Requirements&nbsp;</td><td>$4.30</td><td>$18.57</td><td>$29.72</td></tr><tr><td>Department of Pesticide Regulation</td><td>$22.98</td><td>$35.55</td><td>$47.59</td></tr><tr><td>Food Safety – LGMA Assessments</td><td>$0.64</td><td>$181.48</td><td>$244.15</td></tr><tr><td>Food Safety – PR Assessments</td><td>$19.66</td><td>$14.88</td><td>$13.18</td></tr><tr><td>Labor Health &amp; Safety Requirements</td><td>$0.00</td><td>$28.72</td><td>$43.71</td></tr><tr><td>Worker’s Compensation</td><td>$58.94</td><td>$336.23</td><td>$428.40</td></tr><tr><td>ACA Requirements</td><td>$0.00</td><td>$141.19</td><td>$334.47</td></tr><tr><td>Labor Wage Requirements</td><td>$1.36</td><td>$189.10</td><td>$425.00</td></tr><tr><td>Totals (per acre)</td><td>$109.16</td><td>$977.34</td><td>$1,600.12</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Hamilton &amp; McCullough, 2025</figcaption></figure>



References



Adcock Flynn,&nbsp;Luis A. Ribera, Yuri Calil, and Constanza Valdes.&nbsp;&nbsp;“Brazil at 2040: Customer and Competitor.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Center for North American Studies, Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&amp;M University.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CNAS Report 2018-02.&nbsp;&nbsp;October 2018.



Coffey, Bentley, Patrick A. McLaughlin, and Pietro Peretto.&nbsp;&nbsp;“The Cumulative Cost of Regulations.”&nbsp;&nbsp;April 2016



Crews Jr., Clyde Wayne.&nbsp;&nbsp;2026. “Ten Thousand Commandments, 2026: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State.”&nbsp;&nbsp;30th&nbsp;Anniversary Competitive Enterprise Institute Edition.



Calil, Yuri and Luis A. Ribera.&nbsp;&nbsp;2019. “Brazil’s Agricultural Production and Its Potential as Global Food Supplier.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Choices Magazine.&nbsp;&nbsp;Quarter 3.



Hamilton, Lynn and Michael McCullough. “A Decade of Change: A Case Study of Regulatory Compliance Costs in the Produce Industry.” Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. January 2025.



IMF World Economic Outlook (WEO). October 2015.



World Bank. “Global Economic Prospects.” January 2026.



World Trade Organization. “World Trade in Agriculture.” January 22, 2026.



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



Ribera, Luis, and Landyn K. Young. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/04/u-s-agricultural-competitiveness-and-regulation-costs/">&#8220;U.S. Agricultural Competitiveness and Regulation Costs.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(19.4). May 7, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/04/u-s-agricultural-competitiveness-and-regulation-costs/">Permalink</a>

U.S. Agricultural Competitiveness and Regulation Costs

In their April 8, 2026,&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/04/08/what-producers-need-to-know-about-futures-markets/">Southern Ag Today&nbsp;article</a>, Will Maples and Wendiam Sawadgo explained why futures markets matter for producers. Futures markets help farmers manage price risk, but speculators also play a useful role. Speculators add liquidity and take the “other side” of hedges, assuming price risk. But there is a second question worth asking. What happens when large amounts of financial capital enters agricultural futures markets?



Today&#8217;s agricultural commodity prices reflect more than local crop fundamentals. They also reflect money moving across asset classes. Economists call this “financialization”—the flow of capital into and out of agricultural futures by pension funds, index investors, exchange-traded funds, and managed money. Financial investors trade commodities for different reasons, including diversification and inflation protection. While stocks and bonds respond to interest rates, earnings, and Federal Reserve policy, agricultural commodities respond more directly to drought, exports, livestock cycles, biofuel demand, and global food demand. That difference makes commodities an attractive investment in a portfolio. As commodity index products have grown, agricultural futures markets have gained a larger and more persistent source of outside capital, contributing to price movements that may not always align with underlying crop fundamentals.&nbsp;



The extent to which financialization affects commodity prices remains debated. Fundamentals still dominate long-run agricultural prices, but financial participation can matter at the margin and add liquidity. It can also increase price volatility, moving with oil and other financial markets, as well as news from outside agriculture. Tang and Xiong (2012) found that after the growth of index investment, agricultural commodity futures became more correlated with broader financial markets, especially for commodities included in major indexes.



Using cotton markets as an example, Figure 1 plots the rolling 12-month correlation between monthly ICE cotton futures returns and monthly S&amp;P 500 returns from December 2012 through May 2026. The correlation is positive in most months, averaging about +0.25. It reached +0.91 in the summer of 2020, when cotton and equities rallied together during the pandemic-era policy response. It can also turn negative, such as what occurred in late 2021 and early 2026. Some of this co-movement is fundamental. Cotton is an industrial input for textiles, and apparel demand rises and falls with consumer spending. However, the swings suggest that broader financial conditions may have affected the cotton price signal alongside fundamentals.



Figure 2 helps explain the financial channel. Index trader positions are large and slow to change. Hedge fund positions swing more sharply. Nearby cotton futures prices often move with those swings, but that does not mean hedge funds determine cotton prices. Robinson (2021) estimated that hedge fund positioning contributed to the 2021 rally, while flagging that tightening fundamentals and index fund buying were also at work. The lesson is that speculative flows can amplify short-run price moves.



Financialization does not displace fundamentals. Drought, exports, livestock cycles, and global food demand still drive agricultural prices in the long run. But financial flows now also shape how prices move in the short run, and the strength of that influence varies with the macroeconomic environment. Commodity futures prices carry two signals: one from the field and one from Wall Street. The weight of each changes over time. Producers do not need to become Wall Street traders, but understanding how that signal is built is now part of marketing agricultural commodities.



Figure 1. Rolling 12-Month Correlation Between ICE Cotton No. 2 Futures and the S&amp;P 500, December 2012 Through May 2026. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1430" height="614" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.3-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43916" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.3-1.png 1430w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.3-1-1024x440.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.3-1-768x330.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1430px) 100vw, 1430px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Author&#8217;s calculations from ICE Cotton No. 2 and S&amp;P 500 monthly prices.</figcaption></figure>



Figure 2. Cotton Net Positions of Index Funds, Hedge Funds, vs Nearby Futures Prices. January 3, 2006, through April 28, 2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="624" height="358" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.3-2.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43917"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: The Cotton Marketing Planner (2026), Prof. John Robinson.&nbsp;</figcaption></figure>



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



References.



Maples, W., &amp; Sawadgo, W. (2026, April 8). What producers need to know about futures markets.&nbsp;Southern Ag Today.&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/04/08/what-producers-need-to-know-about-futures-markets/">https://southernagtoday.org/2026/04/08/what-producers-need-to-know-about-futures-markets/</a>



Robinson, J. (2021, November 1). Speculative influence on ICE cotton futures.&nbsp;Southern Ag Today. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2021/11/01/speculative-influence-on-ice-cotton-futures/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">https://southernagtoday.org/2021/11/01/speculative-influence-on-ice-cotton-futures/</a>



Robinson, J. (2026). Commitment of Traders: Net position of speculators.&nbsp;The Cotton Marketing Planner, Texas A&amp;M AgriLife Extension. <a href="https://cottonmarketing.tamu.edu/recent-price-patterns-and-short-term-influences/net-position-of-speculators/commitment-of-traders/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">https://cottonmarketing.tamu.edu/recent-price-patterns-and-short-term-influences/net-position-of-speculators/commitment-of-traders/</a>



Tang, K., &amp; Xiong, W. (2012). Index investment and the financialization of commodities.&nbsp;Financial Analysts Journal,&nbsp;68(6), 54–74.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v68.n6.5">https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v68.n6.5</a>



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



Calil, Yuri. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/how-financial-markets-shape-farm-price/">How Financial Markets Shape Farm Prices</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(19.3). May 6, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/how-financial-markets-shape-farm-price/">Permalink</a>

How Financial Markets Shape Farm Price

While calf and fed cattle prices have continued to set new record highs in the cash and futures market, cull cow prices have continued their slow ascent to new highs as lean beef prices keep pulling cow prices higher.&nbsp;&nbsp;Southern Plains cull cow auction prices increased to almost $180 per cwt in late April, up about $15 per cwt since January.&nbsp;&nbsp;The seasonal price increase has been smaller than normal this year.&nbsp;&nbsp;Cutter quality cows have increased about $30 per cwt, almost 25 percent, since the beginning of the year.&nbsp;&nbsp;



One overlooked boost to lean beef prices has been record large fed cattle dressed weights.&nbsp;&nbsp;Average federally inspected fed steer dressed weights have remained over 980 pounds per carcass since late 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;Larger carcasses produce additional fat that requires more lean beef for blending to boost its value as ground beef rather than just tallow entering the fats and oils market.&nbsp;



After exceeding slaughter of a year ago through the first 10 weeks of 2026, dairy cow culling pulled back to year-ago levels during April.&nbsp;&nbsp;Dairy cow culling typically peaks in January and February each year, then declines into mid-year.&nbsp;&nbsp;The decline in dairy cow slaughter has pulled down total cow culling as weekly beef cow slaughter has held at steady, but low levels.&nbsp;&nbsp;For the year, total dairy cow slaughter is reported up 6 percent compared to last year while total cow slaughter (beef and dairy) is down 5 percent.&nbsp;&nbsp;Beef and dairy cow slaughter is reported weekly by region of the U.S.&nbsp;&nbsp;In recent weeks, reported regional cow slaughter data has declined due to confidentiality rules that prevent publication if there are too few buyers to prevent revealing any one operation’s actions.&nbsp;&nbsp;The lack of reporting due to confidentiality concerns has been a problem in fed cattle reporting for many years.&nbsp;&nbsp;On the positive side, the weekly national cow slaughter data includes all of the regions, including those that could not be reported regionally.



Record high calf prices are likely keeping cows on the ranch or dairy that otherwise would have been culled to get one more calf out of them.&nbsp;&nbsp;As those calves are born and move to weaning, there may be an increase in culling as those cows come to market.&nbsp;&nbsp;Cull prices tend to peak mid-year, so there is room for cow prices to continue to increase over the next couple of months.&nbsp;&nbsp;Beyond just the seasonal pattern arguing for higher prices, cow culling should continue to be lower than last year, further supporting prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;Beef cow slaughter is expected to remain well below a year ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;Better milk prices should restrain dairy cow culling even though the herd remains large.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-1.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-43890" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-1.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-1-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-1-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-1-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-2.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-43891" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-2.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-2-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-2-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-2-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-3.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-43892" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-3.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-3-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-3-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-3-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-4.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-43893" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-4.jpeg 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-4-1024x768.jpeg 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-4-768x576.jpeg 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/6.19.2-4-1536x1152.jpeg 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



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



Anderson, David. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/cull-cow-prices-keep-climbing/">Cull Cow Prices Keep Climbing</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(19.2). May 5, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/cull-cow-prices-keep-climbing/">Permalink</a>

Cull Cow Prices Keep Climbing

By Gracen Briges, Kelli Russell, and Mykel Taylor



In the first article of this series, we explored how farmers describe their relationships with lenders, identifying three general types: trusting and collaborative, strained and tense, and transactional and unstable. In the second article, we discussed the challenges that can disrupt or strain the farmer lender relationship. In this final article,&nbsp;we address the question of what qualities farmers value most in a lender. Many farmers emphasized that strong lender relationships can influence farm management decisions and reduce stress.



Through 74 interviews with 98 farmers and ranchers across four states (Alabama, Kansas, Montana, and North Carolina), producers consistently described important traits associated with a strong lender relationship. Farmers often described their lenders as partners, advisors, and collaborators who understand agriculture and support their operations&#8217; success. Several key traits emerged:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Lenders as partners and advisors</li>



<li>Open, honest communication and trust</li>



<li>A strong understanding of agriculture</li>



<li>Long-term and personal relationships</li>
</ul>



Lenders as Partners and Advisors



“The specific loan officer that we have, it&#8217;s almost like a partnership. Like he is aware of what we&#8217;re trying to do here.” &#8211; Alabama livestock producer



Farmers consistently emphasized the importance of having a lender relationship that is more than transactional and business. Lenders were described as partners and advisors who were willing to participate in planning, provide advice, and, at times, even challenge decisions. This collaborative approach makes financial decisions feel less stressful and supports the idea that the lender is invested in the farm’s success.



Open Communication&nbsp;



“I want to know how he feels about it. And I want to trust him. I mean, he was hard on us when he needed to be hard on us.” &nbsp; &#8211; Kansas livestock, row crops, grain, and forage producer



Open and honest communication was a defining trait of a strong lender relationship. Farmers valued lenders who were transparent. For many, trust developed over years of consistent, transparent communication. When lenders are responsive and approachable, farmers feel more confident discussing concerns and questions.&nbsp;



Understanding Agriculture



“And he [our lender] was great. Yeah. Because he grew up in the industry. He understood it.” &#8211; Montana livestock, row crop/grains, oilseeds and pulses producer



A lender’s understanding of agriculture was another key trait farmers noted. Farming presents a unique set of financial challenges, including seasonal cash flow, production risks, and volatile markets. Lenders who understand the dynamics are better able to provide advice and suggest solutions. This knowledge of agriculture&nbsp;<a>helps align financi</a>al decisions with the realities of the farming operation.&nbsp;



Long-term and Personal Relationships



&nbsp;“He [our lender] used to date my sister a long time ago. Oh, but we&#8217;ve been with Southern Bank for as long as I can remember.” &#8211; North Carolina row crops, grain, and specialty producer



Strong lender relationships are often built over time. Many farmers described working with the same lender for years or even decades, creating a sense of trust and consistency. These long-term relationships allow lenders to develop a deeper understanding of the farm and its goals, making communication more efficient and allowing for more goal-focused decisions. For many producers, these relationships extended beyond business, with some becoming personal friends outside of work. This familiarity reflects a deeper level of trust that strengthens the relationship.&nbsp;



Conclusion



A strong lender relationship does more than provide access to capital; it helps reduce stress and supports better financial decision-making. Farmers consistently value lenders who communicate openly, understand agriculture, and invest in long-term relationships. These qualities create partnerships that strengthen operations and support the farm&#8217;s long-term success.&nbsp;



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



Briges, Gracen, Kelli Russell, and Mykel Taylor. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/challenges-in-the-farmer-lender-relationship/">What Makes a Good Agricultural Lender?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(19.1). May 4, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/challenges-in-the-farmer-lender-relationship/">Permalink</a>

What Makes a Good Agricultural Lender? 

Authors: Alicia Rihn, Melinda Knuth, Charlie Hall, Ariana Torres



The U.S. environmental horticulture industry, commonly referred to as the&nbsp;green industry, is an economically important sector that encompasses firms involved with the production and sales of horticultural products and services, including greenhouses, wholesale nurseries, turfgrass sod producers; landscape design, construction, and maintenance firms; and wholesale and retail distribution channels including garden centers, mass merchandisers, and allied trade suppliers. The Green Industry has been a consistent contributor to the U.S. economy, with national impact studies conducted since the 1980s documenting its employment, output, and GDP (gross domestic product) contributions using national surveys and IMPLAN input-output modeling (Hall et al. 2006; Hodges et al. 2011; Hodges et al. 2015; Hall et al. 2020). Between 2013 and 2018 alone, industry contributions grew by 16.2% in employment and 17.3% in output in inflation-adjusted terms (Hall et al. 2020), underscoring the sector’s resilience and economic footprint.



The present study extends this research to 2023, providing updated national estimates and a focused look at economic contributions across southern U.S. regions. In the U.S., the south includes key states involved with producing horticultural products. Eight regions were used for the analysis: Southeast, Southcentral, Appalachian, Northeast, Midwest, Great Plains, Mountain, and Pacific (Figure 1). The data presented here was collected by the Green Industry Research Consortium, which has collected data on industry-related topics for more than 30 years. The Consortium is a multi-state research project group of agricultural economists and horticulturists that conduct economic impact statements for the Green Industry in the U.S. every five years. Results from the latest data collected by the group are presented below and are based on Knuth et al. (2026). Understanding where economic activity is concentrated within the South has direct implications for resource allocation decisions, Extension programming priorities, and industry advocacy efforts at the state level.&nbsp;



<h1 class="wp-block-heading">Total U.S Green Industry Economic Impacts</h1>



In 2023, across industry sectors, the U.S. green industry supported approximately 2.9M jobs and generated $519.7B in total economic output (Table 1). Compared to 2018 estimates of 2.3M jobs and $348.1B in output (Hall et al. 2020), this represents roughly a 27% increase in employment and nearly 50% growth in output over five years, a notable trajectory for an industry that had been characterized as entering a mature, slow-growth phase in prior decades. These gains likely reflect post-pandemic rebounds in residential landscaping demand, increased consumer investment in outdoor living spaces, and growth in green infrastructure spending.&nbsp;



Value-added output, the industry’s direct contribution to GDP, reached $302.7B, with&nbsp;labor income accounting for $175.1B of that total. These figures underscore that the green industry is not only large in terms of sales volume but also generates substantial wages and benefits for millions of workers across production, services, and retail segments. The industry also contributed $69.1B in taxes across all levels of government, including $11.7B in local taxes, $15.2B in state taxes, and $42.1B in federal taxes. Federal taxes accounted for the largest proportion of the industry’s tax contribution, which is not surprising given the size of the green industry workforce.



<h1 class="wp-block-heading">Southern Region Green Industry Economic Impacts</h1>



Three regions will be focused on for this section, including the Southeast, Southcentral and Appalachian regions which consist of 15 states across the South. Collectively, these three regions accounted for roughly 35% of national green industry employment (1.0M jobs) in 2023, with the largest portion being in the Southeast region, followed by the Southcentral and Appalachian regions (Figure 2). The regions accounted for $174.8B in total economic output (34% of total economic output in 2023) with a similar trend where the Southeast region has the highest output ($75.9B), followed by the Southcentral and Appalachian regions. The Southeast region led all three southern regions across these economic indicators, more than the Southcentral and Appalachian regions combined. This is consistent with the concentration of nursery and floriculture production, landscaping services, and retail distribution in states like Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia, which have historically ranked among the top green industry states nationally (Hall et al. 2020).



Value-added output across the three regions totaled $103.0B, led by the Southeast region, then the Southcentral region, and the Appalachian region. The regions had $59.3B in labor income and $23.6B in total taxes. The federal taxes were $14.3B, while state taxes were $5.2B, and local taxes were $4.0B. The distribution of tax contributions mirrors the employment pattern, with the Southeast region generating the largest fiscal impact at all levels of government, followed by the Southcentral region and Appalachian region.



<h1 class="wp-block-heading">Summary</h1>



The U.S. green industry remains a major economic force, supporting approximately 2.9M jobs and generating $519.8B in output nationally in 2023—representing roughly 27% employment growth and nearly 50% output growth since 2018, demonstrating continued resilience despite broader economic disruptions. The industry&#8217;s $302.7B in value-added contributions and $175.1B in labor income reflect its deep integration into the broader U.S. economy, while its $69.1B in tax contributions across federal, state, and local levels underscore its fiscal significance. Southern states play a particularly prominent role, with the Southeast, Southcentral, and Appalachian regions collectively accounting for approximately one-third of national green industry employment and output. Among these, the Southeast region dominates across all economic indicators, driven by the concentration of nursery and floriculture production, landscaping services, and retail distribution in states such as Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia. These findings have direct implications for multiple stakeholders: green industry firms can use the data to inform investment decisions, business planning, and competitive positioning within their respective markets; Extension professionals can leverage regional economic profiles to prioritize programming efforts and tailor educational resources to areas of greatest industry concentration; and industry associations and advocacy groups can employ these economic impact figures to strengthen policy arguments, justify workforce development initiatives, and secure support for infrastructure investments that benefit the sector. Understanding where economic activity is concentrated also helps state and local governments recognize the green industry&#8217;s contributions to employment and tax revenues, potentially influencing decisions related to land use, water access, and labor policy.



Figure 1. U.S. Regions Used in the Economic Impact Analysis.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="756" height="324" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.5-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43848"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Note: Regions were adapted from USDA Farm Production Regions.</figcaption></figure>



Table 1. Economic Contributions of the U.S. Green Industry Nationally and By Region.



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>Region</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"># of States</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Employment (Jobs)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Output (M$)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Value Added (M$)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Labor Income (M$)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Local Tax (M$)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of State Tax (M$)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Federal Tax (M$)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Total Tax (M$)</td></tr><tr><td>Midwest</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">8</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">571,754</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">104,689</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">59,072</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">33,814</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,307</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,977</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">8,162</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">13,445</td></tr><tr><td>Northeast</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">12</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">555,189</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">103,312</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">60,233</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">35,097</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,348</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">3,035</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">8,417</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">13,800</td></tr><tr><td>Pacific</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">482,249</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">88,287</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">52,288</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">30,510</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,946</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,558</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">7,302</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">11,806</td></tr><tr><td>Southeast</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">466,054</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">75,930</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">44,932</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">25,987</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,712</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,230</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">6,241</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">10,183</td></tr><tr><td>Southcentral</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">293,549</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">50,565</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">29,895</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">17,194</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,227</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,557</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">4,140</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">6,924</td></tr><tr><td>Appalachian</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">288,232</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">48,307</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">28,179</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">16,204</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,131</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,446</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">3,903</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">6,480</td></tr><tr><td>Mountain</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">7</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">227,886</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">38,231</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">22,286</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">12,997</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">864</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,119</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">3,116</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">5,099</td></tr><tr><td>Great Plains</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">61,218</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">10,442</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">5,883</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">3,346</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">242</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">306</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">810</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,358</td></tr><tr><td>Grand Total</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">51</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,946,132</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">519,763</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">302,768</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">175,149</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">11,776</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">15,228</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">42,091</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">69,095</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Knuth et al. 2026</figcaption></figure>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities