Authors: John Park, Roy B. Davis Professor and Extension Specialist, Texas A&amp;M AgriLife Extension Service and Diane Friend, Associate Professor,Texas A&amp;M University – Kingsville



Election to your local cooperative’s board of directors can feel somewhat overwhelming. The duties of a director seem extensive. The board provides oversight of operations and performance. They guide management on a strategic path that helps the cooperative thrive and fulfill its mission. They establish policies, monitor and evaluate the cooperative, and determine the responsible distribution of net benefits. This requires a board of directors that understands internal operations of the firm as well as the nuances of their industry.



Yet knowledge or skills in these tasks does not differentiate the most effective directors from the rest. Instead, it is their capacity to influence others. As author Ken Blanchard notes, “the key to successful leadership today is influence, not authority.”



You can think of influence as your ability to affect or change someone or something in an indirect, but usually important way. It empowers you to develop the talents of others. Building this capacity within each of us leads to improved working environments, meaning board members will have improved relationships and greater happiness in their roles. It is through properly applied influence that companies and leaders earn the loyalty of those they work with and those they serve. Our research has identified three levels of influence within cooperative boards.



Level 1: Conscious Conduct



Level 1 influence suggests that directors first earn influence through their actions and character. It combines self-awareness, learning, and reflection with purposeful integrity, discipline, ethics, and accountability. Directors who exhibit level 1 influence are informed. They are willing to participate in continual training and education to stay current on cooperative operations and industry trends. They come on time and prepare for board meetings. They are open to change and show great respect when conflicts arise. They are open-minded and honest. Most of all they lead by example. These directors have learned that credibility comes before influence.



Level 2: Connected Interaction



Level 2 influence suggests that directors can build influence by strengthening relationships. It combines empathy, inclusion, and a sense of belonging with meaningful communication, active listening, and conflict management. Directors who exhibit level 2 influence create unity. They seek understanding of the positions of others and make them feel heard. They ask a lot of questions and encourage others to do the same. They are good listeners and will mentor future leaders on the board and among cooperative members. They care about others. They have learned that relationships create influence.



Level 3: Represented Cooperation



Level 3 influence suggests that true influence is not about the individual leader. It is realized through the advancement of the cooperative’s purpose. It combines convictions of stewardship, advocacy, and standing for others with collaboration and envisioning of aligned interests. Directors who exhibit level 3 influence seek value for cooperative members. They readily consider the needs of individual members without neglecting what is best for the cooperative. They support management as the ultimate authority for operations and help separate the individual roles of management and board. They can move directors from a focus on individual interests to cooperative interests. Importantly, a level 3 board speaks with one voice. They have learned that leadership is stewardship.



If you are seeking to develop your capacity for influence in your board service, start by asking three simple questions: Level 1 – Can I be trusted? Level 2 – Can I build productive relationships? Level 3 – Can I help the cooperative succeed collectively?



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



Park, John, and Diane Friend. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/what-the-best-cooperative-directors-do-differently/">What the Best Cooperative Directors Do Differently.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(43.5). October 23, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/what-the-best-cooperative-directors-do-differently/">Permalink</a>

What the Best Cooperative Directors Do Differently

Authors: Luis Ribera and Landyn Young 



Produce imports from Mexico are a major source of economic activity throughout the United States, but are particularly important to Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. Imports of produce from Mexico to the United States during 2025, including fresh, frozen, and processed fruits, vegetables, and nuts, totaled $18.1 billion.  Looking at the five-year average prior to 2025, imports averaged $1.48 billion per month, with January (Figure 1) having the highest monthly value at $1.78 billion and the lowest being August at $952 million. In 2025, imports started much higher, totaling $2.27 billion in January and continuing to stay above average through February, but falling below the remaining months with the exception of July, where $21 million more was imported in 2025 than the 2020-2024 monthly average. Overall, 2025 fresh produce import numbers were $478 million below the 2020-2024 average, which is an average monthly decrease of $39.9 million. In 2026, imports for January started at the lowest point since 2020 at $1.67 billion but grew, totaling over $2 billion for both March and April. Similar to past years, imports decreased in June and have fallen through August, with import values in July and August averaging $885 million, lower than any year since 2020. Overall, through August 2026 numbers are $470 million lower than 2025 and $335 million lower than the 2020-24 average.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="472" height="355" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44996"/></figure>



Just over 98 percent of produce imports entered the United States by land ports between Mexico and Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. When considering only fresh fruits and vegetables, which is 90.5 percent of the total, imports totaled $16.1 billion. These imports were shipped in 595,836 forty-thousand-pound truckloads. About 57 percent of U.S. fresh fruit and vegetable imports from Mexico entered through Texas land ports, arriving in 341,869 truckloads and worth $11.8 billion. The most active single port for fresh produce imports from Mexico in 2025 was Pharr, Texas, with 221,554 truckloads followed by Nogales, Arizona, with 142,578 truckloads. Laredo, Texas (74,319 truckloads) and Otay Mesa, California (71,857 truckloads) rounded out the top four. Monthly imports from 2020-2024 averaged 947 thousand metric tons (TMT) with the largest total being 1.19 million metric tons (MMT) in March and the lowest reaching 655 TMT in September. During 2025, this decreased to 939 TMT of average monthly imports (Figure 2). The only months where imports exceeded the average in 2025 were January and July-September. Meanwhile in 2026, import volume has also dipped below previous year’s average despite seeing March and April total some of the highest monthly imports since 2020. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="469" height="352" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.4-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44998"/></figure>



Any delays, disruptions, or related barriers to entry of fresh produce has the potential to cause ripple effects in the form of economic and employment losses across a wide spectrum of regional economies. For example, trade policy changes may have been a factor related to the lower import value in the latter part of 2025. Similarly, this downward trend in value is also evident in volume as the total import volume of fresh produce through August is 7.87 MMT in 2026, while in 2025 it was 7.97 MMT and from 2020-2024 it was 8 MMT.



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



Recommended citation format: Ribera, Luis, and Landyn Young. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/20/value-and-volume-of-fresh-produce-imports-from-mexico/">Value and Volume of Fresh Produce Imports from Mexico.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(43.4). October 22, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/20/value-and-volume-of-fresh-produce-imports-from-mexico/">Permalink</a>

Value and Volume of Fresh Produce Imports from Mexico

In the October WASDE (USDA-WAOB, 2026), USDA raised soybean yield expectations by 0.3 bushels to a record 53.1 bushels per acre, which lifts production by 27 million bushels to a record 4.56 billion. A bigger crop did not lower USDA’s season-average price projection. USDA also cut beginning stocks by 10 million bushels and raised exports by 10 million, so carryout rose only 5 million bushels to 315 million and the projection held at $12.00 per bushel. Prices have slipped since the report. November soybean futures closed up 4.5 cents at $12.92 on report day, then lower five days in a row, to $12.61 on October 16 (Barchart, 2026).



Figure 1 shows what USDA has usually projected for price at each carryout since 2010 (USDA-WAOB, 2026; BLS, 2026). At 315 million bushels, that is $11.21. This time USDA is projecting $12.00, which is $0.79 higher.



Part of the reason is biofuels. EPA’s final rule in March raised the 2026 and 2027 biomass-based diesel requirements to 67 and 70 percent above 2025 levels (Hubbs, 2026), and USDA now has 17.8 billion pounds of soybean oil going to biofuel, up from 14.8 billion last year. Crush is projected at a record 2.78 billion bushels, up 134 million (USDA-WAOB, 2026).



The other part is exports. USDA projects 1.695 billion bushels, up 180 million from last year, and sales back it up. Total sales, shipped and not yet shipped, were 23.4 million metric tons as of October 8, up 74 percent from a year ago (USDA-FAS, 2026). China holds 11.3 million metric tons of that, nearly half, after buying nothing at this point last year. The trade deal calls for China to buy at least 25 million metric tons a year in 2026, 2027, and 2028 (White House, 2025). Sales are at 51 percent of USDA’s export projection, a normal pace for this time of year (43 to 54 percent of final exports in 2022/23 through 2024/25).



Figure 1 also shows that price reacts more when carryout shrinks than when it grows. Going from 53 to 52 bushels per acre cuts carryout by 86 million bushels and adds $1.25 to the price. Going from 53 to 54 grows it by the same amount and takes off only $0.70. Demand works the same way, since 86 million bushels is about 5 percent of USDA’s export projection.



A gap this size is not proof that USDA is wrong. The shaded band is the range history has covered about 90 percent of the time, $9.25 to $13.20 at 53.1 bushels, and $12.00 is inside it. The chart also holds demand fixed, so real price swings would be smaller than shown.



The $12.00 projection depends on demand staying strong, and prices have already started to slip as the harvest hits full swing in northern states (USDA-NASS, 2026). Producers with unpriced beans may want to spread sales out and watch the weekly export sales reports for any sign that demand is weakening. The November 10th WASDE is the other date to watch. History suggests a smaller yield would add more to price than a bigger one would take off.



Figure 1. Implied 2026/27 season-average soybean price across a range of possible yields, holding the rest of the October WASDE fixed. ES is ending stocks, or carryout, in million bushels. The red point is USDA’s October projection; the shaded band is a 90 percent prediction interval.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1378" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.3soybean_yield_price_chart_exact-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44990" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.3soybean_yield_price_chart_exact-scaled.png 2560w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.3soybean_yield_price_chart_exact-1024x551.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.3soybean_yield_price_chart_exact-767x413.png 767w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.3soybean_yield_price_chart_exact-1536x827.png 1536w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.3soybean_yield_price_chart_exact-2048x1103.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA WASDE archive (ESMIS), BLS CPI-U.</figcaption></figure>



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



References



Barchart. “Soybean Nov ’26 (ZSX26) Price History.” Accessed October 19, 2026. https://www.barchart.com/futures/quotes/ZSX26/price-history/historical



Hubbs, Todd. “Strong RVO’s, Strong Crush: Biofuel Policy Tightens Soybean Oil Balance Sheet.” Southern Ag Today, May 27, 2026. https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/27/strong-rvos-strong-crush-biofuel-policy-tightens-soybean-oil-balance-sheet/



U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).” Accessed October 19, 2026. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS). “Export Sales Reporting.” Week ending October 8, 2026. Accessed October 19, 2026. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/opendatawebV2/



U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS). “Crop Progress.” October 13, 2026. https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/crop-progress



U.S. Department of Agriculture, World Agricultural Outlook Board (USDA-WAOB). “World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates.” WASDE-676, October 9, 2026. https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/world-agricultural-supply-and-demand-estimates



White House. “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Strikes Deal on Economic and Trade Relations with China.” November 1, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/11/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-strikes-deal-on-economic-and-trade-relations-with-china/



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



Recommended citation format: Gardner, Grant. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/20/can-soybean-demand-keep-prices-near-12/">Can Soybean Demand Keep Prices Near $12?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(43.3). October 21, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/20/can-soybean-demand-keep-prices-near-12/">Permalink</a>

Can Soybean Demand Keep Prices Near $12?

Authors: Josh Maples and David Anderson



Last Tuesday, Southern Ag Today examined Choice beef cutout and primal cut values, which led to an examination of wholesale boneless beef prices.&nbsp; Boneless beef, in various lean-fat ratios, makes up ground beef supplies.&nbsp; A significant portion of a carcass becomes ground beef, as well as more than half of beef imports are lean beef trimmings to mix with domestic ground beef supplies. The markets for 50 percent lean beef (which is produced domestically from fed cattle), and 90 percent lean beef (which is both produced domestically and imported) are important to analyze to understand the mix driving ground beef supplies.



The price of 50 percent lean beef has declined sharply since mid-year, from about $185 per cwt during May and June to $89 per cwt in mid-October.&nbsp; The price of this beef is 36 percent lower than the same time last year.&nbsp; Heavier dressed weights and more yield grade 4 and 5 cattle have boosted supplies of 50 percent lean beef, offsetting reduced cattle slaughter.&nbsp; Fed steer slaughter in recent weeks has been above a year ago, which may be further increasing supplies.



Some of the 50 percent lean price decline is seasonal and normal for this time of year.&nbsp; However, the magnitude of the decline is larger than normal. It is natural to think that larger imports could be a driver, but the connection with imports is different for the 50 percent lean beef market.&nbsp; &nbsp;Beef imports, which are most similar to domestic 90 percent lean production, normally provide some support for 50 percent lean prices since they allow for more 50 percent lean to be blended for ground beef. However, the 50 percent lean market has declined despite the additional imports under the “affordable beef” TRQ executive order.&nbsp; Available supplies of ground beef relative to current demand could be a factor. While the amount of boneless beef in cold storage is a small amount relative to consumption, the amount of boneless beef in cold storage is up 6 percent compared to last year, while the amount of beef cuts is down 3 percent.



90 percent lean boneless beef wholesale prices have also declined since mid-year, with most of the decline, from $449 to $392 per cwt, happening in the last 6 weeks since the TRQ executive order was announced.&nbsp; Lean beef prices normally decline this time of the year as cow culling picks up and we move into Fall consumer spending patterns.&nbsp; Beef cow culling began to increase, as usual, but then it has declined over the last 2 weeks.&nbsp; If the Fall run of cull beef cows is limited this year, some tighter supplies of lean beef may be felt.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1920" height="1440" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44977" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-1.png 1920w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-1-1024x768.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-1-768x576.png 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-1-1536x1152.png 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://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44978" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-2.png 1920w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-2-1024x768.png 1024w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-2-768x576.png 768w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.43.2-2-1536x1152.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



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



Recommended citation format: Maples, Josh, and David Anderson. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/50-lean-falls-out-of-bed/">50 Lean Falls Out of Bed</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(43.2). October 20, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/50-lean-falls-out-of-bed/">permalink</a>

50 Lean Falls Out of Bed

For most cow-calf operations, winter feed is the single largest cost and one of the biggest drivers of overall profitability. As we move through fall, hay feeding is becoming a major focus: some operations are preparing, some have just started, and some have been feeding hay for quite some time. The cost of winter feeding primarily depends on three things: the cost of producing or purchasing hay, the number of days hay is fed, and how efficiently that hay is stored and fed.



At this point in the year, most hay has already been produced or purchased. If an operator does feel they need to purchase additional hay, it likely makes sense to source that hay soon. Hay prices tend to climb through the winter in years when supplies are short. It is also wise to have a little extra hay on hand since no one can predict how hard the winter will be or how early cattle can get back on spring pastures.



The number of days hay is fed depends largely on pasture conditions, and those conditions are poor in many areas. Much of the country has been dealing with drought for several months, and pastures across the US are generally in unfavorable shape. Farmers who are fortunate enough to still have grazable forage should use it as efficiently as possible. Culling open cows and poor producers can also stretch available pasture a little further. However, with calf prices at historically strong levels, most producers will likely want to keep bred cows, and cows with calves, through the winter.



How efficiently hay is stored and fed also has a major impact on winter feed costs, even though those losses can be hard to see and measure. A ton of hay costs the same whether it is consumed or wasted. Practical steps to cut waste often include storing bales off the ground and under cover, using hay rings or feeders, and feeding hay in quantities that cattle will consume relatively quickly. The right mix depends on the operation, but even modest changes can reduce waste.



To show the value of reducing waste, the table at the end of this article estimates daily hay cost on a per cow basis. The estimates assume a 1,300-lb cow consumes 2.25% of her body weight each day, or a little over 29 pounds. It is the waste rate that determines how much hay must be fed for the cow to reach that level of intake. The table shows daily costs at hay values of $80, $100, and $120 per ton and at waste rates of 15%, 25%, and 35%. To estimate a cow&#8217;s total hay cost for the winter, multiply the daily cost by the number of days you expect to feed hay. For example, at $1.95 per day, total winter feed costs over 120 days would be $234 per cow.



While one can use the table below to examine the potential cost savings related to the cost of purchasing or producing hay, the savings related to storage and feeding losses are likely more relevant at this point in the year. With hay valued at $100 per ton, cutting the waste rate from 35% to 25% saves an estimated $0.30 per cow per day, and cutting it from 25% to 15% saves about $0.23 per cow per day. These numbers can add up quickly. As an illustration, a 50-cow herd feeding hay for 120 days per year would save about $1,800 over the winter by reducing waste from 35% to 25%.



What makes sense for one operation won’t necessarily make sense for another. Some large operations may be able to justify a significant investment in hay storage and feeding systems to drive waste rates down sharply. Smaller operations may need to focus on cheaper ways to achieve smaller reductions in losses. Regardless of size, every operation should know what it costs to carry its cowherd through the winter and look for ways to lower that cost by limiting storage and feeding losses.



Estimated Daily Winter Hay Cost Per Cow, by Hay Value and Waste Rate



<figure class="wp-block-table is-style-stripes has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td colspan="3">Hay Cost Per Ton</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>$80 per ton</td><td>$100 per ton</td><td>$120 per ton</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Storage and Feeding Losses</td><td>15%</td><td>$1.38</td><td>$1.72</td><td>$2.06</td></tr><tr><td>25%</td><td>$1.56</td><td>$1.95</td><td>$2.34</td></tr><tr><td>35%</td><td>$1.80</td><td>$2.25</td><td>$2.70</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5">Assumes 1300 lb. cow consumes 2.25% of body weight per day</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



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



Recommended citation format: Burdine, Kenny. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/the-most-expensive-days-are-near-managing-winter-hay-costs-for-cow-calf-operations/">The Most Expensive Days Are Near: Managing Winter Hay Costs for Cow-Calf Operations.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(43.1). October 19, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/the-most-expensive-days-are-near-managing-winter-hay-costs-for-cow-calf-operations/">Permalink</a>

The Most Expensive Days Are Near: Managing Winter Hay Costs for Cow-Calf Operations

Authors: Mariah Beverly, Kimberly L. Morgan, and Elizabeth Canales



As artificial intelligence (AI) technology becomes cheaper and more prevalent in everyday life, it is only a matter of time before the banking industry implements some type of AI to streamline workflows, if they have not already. AI technology is hailed as being faster, more efficient, and more accurate than your average human worker, and there are certainly cases where AI is welcomed and necessary. However, the implications of using AI for automatic underwriting and credit scoring should be carefully considered before being fully implemented.



The problem with using AI in underwriting is rooted in the fact that AI models are trained on historical data to predict an operation’s repayment capacity. Because the quality and representativeness of the data used could influence lending decisions, this can create significant problems for portions of the farming population, particularly when operational context is lacking from the data used or when little historical data are available.



Beginning farmers and ranchers, for example, can have little to no historic data for their own operations. Similarly, specialty crop producers, urban producers, or agritourism-reliant farms might have historical data for their operation, but AI models can lack sufficient training on the context of these types of operations due to little publicly available data for these segments of the agriculture industry to make comparisons. This matters, because typical financial metrics can vary greatly across size, scale, and scope of farm operations.



This lack of homogeneous data availability is of particular concern in southern states, which have a significant number of scale-dependent specialty crop operations as well as diverse grower demographics. Because these producers may be underrepresented in traditional credit data, important nuances could be lacking from the underwriting process, potentially reducing access to credit for producers in the region, particularly where inequalities in credit access have existed historically. For example, data from the FINBIN database shows that over the last 20 years, Minnesota dairy farms consistently held the least working capital as a percentage of gross revenue compared to other farm types. This can be expected due to dairy farms receiving monthly milk checks and the fact that most assets held by dairy farms are intermediate or long-term assets. But unless an AI underwriting model is trained using this type of historic data and provided context about the industries, it could unfairly penalize a dairy farm for having lower working capital as a percentage of gross revenue when comparing to other farm types or all farm types averaged together.



AI underwriting models can also unfairly penalize farms when they lack personal context. Consider a farm that had to temporarily scale back the operation because the main operator needed major health treatments, or crop farmers facing their third or fourth consecutive year of losses because of low commodity prices. The farms’ historic data could reflect poorer performance than usual and cutting off capital access for the farms in these temporary downturns could be disastrous. While AI can help identify patterns, it takes a relationship with a lender to understand the full story, not only of the operation but also of the local market conditions surrounding it and evaluate how these conditions realistically impact a credit decision.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="968" height="522" src="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.42.5.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44959" srcset="https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.42.5.png 968w, https://southernagtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/6.42.5-768x414.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 968px) 100vw, 968px" /></figure>



Agricultural lending has always been an art as much as it is a science. Numbers gathered from tax returns and income statements only tell part of the story. The introduction of AI in underwriting can make telling that story easier and more efficient for loan underwriters. However, AI cannot replace the relational aspect of lending that can provide context and insight where numbers cannot do justice in giving the whole picture of the farm and its financial situation.  It is important that policymakers take these considerations into account and recognize that AI may be most valuable as a decision support tool that assist human judgment rather than as an autonomous decision maker in credit underwriting in the agricultural sector. In conclusion, AI tools can be helpful, but the lending officer should be the one to fill in the context AI lacks to make the final decision on loan approval.



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



Recommended citation format: Beverly, Mariah, Kimberly L. Morgan, and Elizabeth Canales. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/the-role-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-agricultural-credit-underwriting-and-scoring/">The Role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Agricultural Credit Underwriting and Scoring.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(42.5). October 16, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/10/12/the-role-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-agricultural-credit-underwriting-and-scoring/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities