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/.

Reiterating Agrifood Safety Education to Further Reduce Southern U.S. Farm Markets’ Product Waste

Thanksgiving is a time to slow down, gather with the people who matter most, and enjoy the dishes that feel like home. For many Southern families, no holiday table feels complete without one standout ingredient: the sweet potato. Whether baked, mashed, candied, or topped with toasted marshmallows, this humble crop has become a Thanksgiving staple across the country. Each year, the United States (U.S.) plants more than 150,000 acres of sweet potatoes, making it a major commercial crop, especially in states across the South.



Sweet potato production is largely centered in three states: North Carolina, Mississippi, and California. North Carolina is the clear leader, planting 87,000 acres in 2024, which accounted for 58 percent of all U.S. sweet potato acreage (NASS). Mississippi ranked second with 32,000 acres, followed by California with 18,000. Together, North Carolina and Mississippi produced roughly 80 percent of the nation’s planted acres. In Mississippi, production is clustered in the north central region around Vardaman, often celebrated as “The Sweet Potato Capital of the World.” In North Carolina, Wilson, Nash, and Johnston counties anchor the state’s industry.



Louisiana, while still an important producer, has experienced a significant decline over the past decade. In 2011, producers planted 13,000 acres, but by 2024 that number had fallen to just over 5,000 (LSU AgCenter). High production costs, persistent pest pressure from the sugarcane beetle, and an aging grower population have all contributed to this downward trend.



Of all U.S. sweet potatoes produced, about 70 percent are made available for domestic consumption. In recent decades, however, U.S. sweet potatoes have also seen strong growth in export demand. In 2000, exports accounted for only 3 percent of total use, but by 2022 that share had increased to 21 percent. Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands are the top three destinations for U.S. sweet potatoes. While Canada has steadily increased its imports and remains the largest buyer, most of the export growth since 2000 has come from expanding markets in Europe.&nbsp;



Sweet potato producers face unique marketing challenges compared to traditional row crops. Not every sweet potato is the same, and roots are graded based on size. U.S. No. 1s are considered the premium grade, preferred for the fresh market, and command the highest price. U.S. No. 2s include smaller roots, known as canners, and larger roots, known as jumbos, which are typically used by the processing industry. However, jumbos and canners bring lower prices, and depending on market conditions, canners may not be economical to harvest. This season, Mississippi growers have faced particular challenges with a higher share of smaller roots, resulting in lower overall economic returns.



Sweet potatoes remain a key crop in the Southeast, and producers continue to navigate significant challenges to deliver them to your Thanksgiving table. If you haven’t planned to include sweet potatoes in your meal tomorrow, there is still time. To make it easier, I am happy to share the best way to enjoy sweet potatoes for a Thanksgiving meal. This recipe comes straight from my wife’s Mimi, who grew up in the heart of Mississippi sweet potato country. Her sweet potato casserole has been a family staple for generations, and I hope your family enjoys it just as much as ours does. Happy Thanksgiving!



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="624" height="416" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/mimi.png" alt="Mimi's Sweet Potato casserole
4.5 lbs sweet potatoes
1 cup granulated sugar
.5 cup butter softened
.25 cup milk
2 large eggs
1 tsp salt 
1.5 cups mini marshmallows 
Preheat oven to 400 degrees. Bake sweet potatoes for 1 hour until cool to the touch. Peel and mash sweet potatoes. Reduce oven temperature to 350. 
Beat Mashed sweet potatoes sugar and next 4 ingredients until smooth. Spoon mixture intogreaded 11x17 inch baking dish. 
Bake at 350 for 30 minutes. Remove from oven and let stand for 10 minutes. Sprinkle marshmallows all over the top of casserole; bake 10 minutes and let stand another 10 minutes before serving! " class="wp-image-43029"/></figure>



References&nbsp;



LSU AgCenter. (n.d.). Research station profile: Sweet Potato Research Station. https://www.lsuagcenter.com/portals/our_offices/research_stations/sweetpotato/features/profile



USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS). (2025). Quick Stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/



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



Maples, Will. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/11/20/sweet-potatoes-a-southern-crop-for-thanksgiving/">Sweet Potatoes: A Southern Crop for Thanksgiving</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(48.3). November 26, 2025. <a href="http://sweet-potatoes-a-southern-crop-for-thanksgiving">Permalink</a>

Sweet Potatoes: A Southern Crop for Thanksgiving

Amid the drumbeat of bad news in the cattle market over the last month, including on-again, off-again tariffs, jawboning for lower beef prices, and now Tyson’s announcement that they will close their beef packing plant in Lexington, NE, in January, USDA released a cattle on feed report.&nbsp;&nbsp;(We’ll look at the impact of the plant closure on packing capacity in a future SAT).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;USDA caught up on cattle on feed following the shutdown when they released the COF report on Friday, November 21st.



The report did not contain many surprises.&nbsp;&nbsp;Placements and marketings were down 10 percent and 8 percent, compared to October 2024.&nbsp;&nbsp;The combination left the number of cattle on feed down 1.6 percent compared to November 1, 2024.&nbsp;



The most interesting, and important, number in the report was the number of heifers on feed.&nbsp;&nbsp;Heifers on feed is normally reported in the October report, but that was delayed due to the shutdown.&nbsp;&nbsp;There were 4.355 million heifers on feed on October 1, 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;That was 245,000 fewer than October 1, 2024, and the fewest heifers on feed for an October since 2018.&nbsp;&nbsp;It also represented the 5th&nbsp;consecutive quarter of year-over-year declines in the number of heifers on feed.&nbsp;&nbsp;That would seem to be positive news if looking for evidence of herd expansion.&nbsp;



But the heifer data on feed for October 2024 would have included spayed heifers imported from Mexico.&nbsp;&nbsp;Over the April-September 2024 period, 266,559 spayed heifers were imported.&nbsp;&nbsp;So, the decline in heifers on feed reflects no imported heifers from Mexico this year and any decline in domestic heifer feedlot placement.&nbsp;&nbsp;The expectation is that fewer spayed heifers would have been imported this year compared to last year, but considering imports, the report doesn’t indicate a lot of heifer retention.



The report included a rare event with Texas slipping to number 2, reporting 10,000 fewer cattle on feed than Nebraska, 2.63 million head versus 2.64 million head.&nbsp;&nbsp;The last time Nebraska had more cattle in feedyards than Texas was May 2018.&nbsp;&nbsp;The lack of Mexican feeder cattle imports is the most important factor in this ranking reversal.&nbsp;&nbsp;



There were a couple of other interesting numbers to think about.&nbsp;&nbsp;More steers were reported on feed than a year ago.&nbsp;&nbsp;At first glance, we might think that seems surprising given the decline in cow numbers, but days on feed is boosting total cattle on feed inventories, given overall declines in cattle numbers.



All of us livestock economists at Southern Ag Today wish you all a blessed Thanksgiving with as many of your family and friends as possible!



<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/2025/11/5.48.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43022" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.2-1.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.2-1-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.2-1-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.2-1-1536x1152.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://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43023" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.2-2.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.2-2-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.2-2-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.2-2-1536x1152.png 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/2025/11/20/a-cof-report-comes-out-among-other-headlines/">A COF Report Comes Out Among Other Headlines.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(48.2). November 25, 2025. <a href="http://a-cof-report-comes-out-among-other-headlines">Permalink</a>

A COF Report Comes Out Among Other Headlines

Cash leases have grown in favor relative to crop share leases in the Mid-South. Eastern Arkansas still has a high proportion of cropland rented under crop share leases (ASFMRA, 2024). In contrast, other regions in the Mid-South have a higher proportion of cropland rented under cash leases (Paulson and Schnitkey, 2016). Much of the impetus for choosing cash leases stems from their simplicity. Crop share arrangements are perceived by some landowners, particularly absentee landlords or non-farm operators, as more difficult to monitor or manage, while tenants may find it easier to bid for additional tracts of land using cash bids. (Bigelow et al., 2016).&nbsp;



The amount of cash rent paid for cropland is affected by many factors, including: land productivity, the presence of land improvements (in particular, precision leveling and field typography that allow for greater ease of water flow and drainage for Mid-South crop production), access to groundwater for irrigation, and the ability to grow several different cash crops (or crop diversification). Higher commodity prices and inflation also tend to push cash rents upward, as these have an upward impact on cropland value.&nbsp;



This article compares cash rents for irrigated cropland across the Mid-South region, as most Mid-South crops (rice, soybeans, corn, and cotton) are grown with irrigation. County-level irrigated cropland cash rents are obtained for seven Mid-South subregions for the period 2019 &#8211; 2025 from the USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA, NASS, 2025). Cash rents are averaged across counties within each subregion by year. Figure 1 illustrates the average 2025 irrigated cropland cash rent by subregion.



Cash rents vary greatly by subregion, largely due to differences in land&nbsp;<a>productivity, irrigation infrastructure, and groundwater availability&nbsp;</a>observed throughout the Mid-South. Average irrigated cropland cash rents in 2025 ranged from $146/acre in East Central Arkansas to $228/acre in Southeast Missouri. The lower average irrigated cropland cash rent in East Central Arkansas reflects a greater proportion of unimproved irrigated cropland in this region relative to Southeast Missouri. Unimproved irrigated cropland is land not conducive to precision leveling because of undulating or rolling terrain with varying slopes (ASFMRA, 2024).



Nominal annual average irrigated cropland cash rents are presented by Mid-South subregion from 2019 through 2025 in Figure 2. Nominal cash rents significantly increased for all seven subregions during this period (+9% for Southeast Arkansas, +17% for the Mississippi Lower Delta, + 20% for East Central Arkansas, +21% for Northeast Arkansas, +24% for the Mississippi Upper Delta, +25% for Southeast Missouri, and +27% for Northeast Louisiana). Sorting out the cause of rising rental rates is challenging with the combination of increasing crop prices and increasing input costs resulting from market disruptions (the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine during 2021 and 2022) followed by general inflation across the economy after 2022.&nbsp;



Real annual average irrigated cropland cash rents are presented by Mid-South subregion from 2019 through 2025 in Figure 3. Cash rents are adjusted to 2025 dollars using the Gross Domestic Product Price Index (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2025). Figure 3 reveals that when adjusting for inflation, cash rents have remained relatively steady since 2019. Thus, the escalation in nominal cash rents observed since 2019 is mostly explained by inflation.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="945" height="762" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43007" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.1-1.png 945w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.1-1-768x619.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 945px) 100vw, 945px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="756" height="456" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.1-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43009"/></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="756" height="456" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.48.1-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43010"/></figure>



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



References and Resources



ASFMRA (2024). 2024 Mid-South Land Values and Lease Trends Report. American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, Mid-South Chapter.&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/Conferences/2024-Mid-South-ASFMRA-Land-Values-and-Lease-Trends-Report.pdf">https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads//assets/Conferences/2024-Mid-South-ASFMRA-Land-Values-and-Lease-Trends-Report.pdf</a>



Bigelow, D., A. Borchers, and T. Hubbs. U.S. Farmland Ownership, Tenure, and Transfer (2016). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin No. 161.&nbsp;<a href="https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/74672/EIB-161.pdf?v=75942">https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/74672/EIB-161.pdf?v=75942</a>



Paulson, N., G. Schnitkey (2016). Farmland Leasing: Where are We Going? Farmland in Perspective. Volume 34, No. 3&nbsp;<a href="https://www.glaubfm.com/sites/default/files/u5/Farmland%20in%20Perspective%20Vol.37%2C%20No.3.pdf">https://www.glaubfm.com/sites/default/files/u5/Farmland%20in%20Perspective%20Vol.37%2C%20No.3.pdf</a>



USDA-NASS (2025). United States Department of Agriculture, Quick-Stats.&nbsp;<a href="https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/">https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/</a>



U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2025). Gross Domestic Product: Chain-type Price Index [GDPCTPI], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.&nbsp;<a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPCTPI">https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPCTPI</a>



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



Watkins, Brad. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/11/20/cash-rents-for-irrigated-cropland-across-the-mid-south/">Cash Rents for Irrigated Cropland Across the Mid-South.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(48.1). November 24, 2025. <a href="http://cash-rents-for-irrigated-cropland-across-the-mid-south">Permalink</a>

Cash Rents for Irrigated Cropland Across the Mid-South

Why do some cooperatives flourish while others continually struggle? The factors of success are not entirely obvious when the weather is great, crops are bountiful, and prices are favorable, because all cooperatives can thrive in such conditions. However, as economic and competitive pressures mount, small difficulties in board behavior can lead to poor firm performance.



I suggest that the very best board of directors typically share five important practices. An excellent board will:



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>Represent both the members and the cooperative</li>



<li>Provide examples of personal and organizational integrity</li>



<li>Promote loyalty among board members and the members</li>



<li>Develop a culture of continual learning</li>



<li>Establish a vision and strategy to guide management</li>
</ol>



Your board’s adherence to these practices will help develop a quality of resilience that will see you through turbulent economic circumstances.&nbsp;



1. Represent both the members and the cooperative



An exceptional cooperative board represents the interests of the members while simultaneously protecting the assets of the cooperative.&nbsp;



Your cooperative was initially formed to fill an economic need of the members. Perhaps it was cost savings from economies of scale, the provision of needed market services, or to combat unfair market power. Regardless, your cooperative exists to meet the needs of the members. But it must first exist if it is to help them. Your cooperative is a business, and like any business its continued existence is based on its ability to extract economic value from its competitive advantages. In short, it must be profitable. Members need to be reminded at times that they are investors in a business, and not participants in a discount club. Investors receive a share of profits, but only when profits have been made. When a board chooses to redeem member investments without the use of current year profits, they are essentially deciding to liquidate a portion of cooperative equity. It is the responsibility of the board to represent the members’ interests as both customer and investor. The cooperative comes first in performance, and members come first in purpose.



2. Provide examples of personal and organizational integrity&nbsp;&nbsp;



An exceptional cooperative board adheres to a code of ethics that promotes a diverse culture where all can be heard without fear of punishment or retribution.&nbsp;



A cooperative is one-part business and one-part social group. Therefore, it is not surprising that each cooperative has a different culture or manifestation of its customs, attitudes and behaviors. At the most basic level, this culture reflects the needs and desires of the members, but it won’t flow through the company if the directors fail to define this for management and employees. In this light, the board can greatly influence the ethical behavior of employees by modeling integrity in the boardroom. Ethical behavior of board members includes standards of honesty, integrity, dependability, and confidentiality. Board conversations are not to be shared outside of the boardroom. A good rule of thumb is that when items from board meetings are shared with the public, it should be done collectively by the entire board or by the chairman speaking on behalf of the board. Additionally, a characteristic of a flourishing cooperative is diversity. The cooperative must recognize the value and importance of all its members regardless of gender, age, ethnicity, or size of operation. Differences in personalities and backgrounds provide new perspectives that will drive creativity and ultimately, better strategy. A board that is trying to grow membership among a certain type of producer, would be aided by having that group represented on the board.&nbsp;



3. Promote loyalty among board members and the members



An exceptional cooperative board fosters loyalty to the cooperative through accountability to one another, transparency to the members, and their personal business transactions.&nbsp;



Meetings of the board of directors should be focused on providing direction to management, setting policy, establishing strategy, and overseeing the proper and effective use of assets. Each meeting should add to the progress of ones that came before. A thoughtfully prepared agenda helps the board to focus their limited time on director responsibilities and avoid the temptation to spend time on managerial decisions. Meeting minutes and agendas help board members to be accountable to one another through follow up on assignments and effective use of their time.&nbsp;



Loyalty thrives on trust. For a board to be viewed as trustworthy to its members, it must be candid, both among board members and (to the extent possible) with the public. An exceptional board treats boardroom discussions with strict adherence to confidentiality. It is possible to be both transparent (by sharing what you are doing) and confidential (by not sharing intimate details of discussions and decisions). Members will respect the honest answer “I can’t talk about that.” Sensitive issues that need to be shared with members or the public should be done by the board as a whole or by the chairperson speaking on behalf of the board. Finally, board members themselves need to be prime examples of loyalty by doing as much business as possible with the cooperative.&nbsp;



4. Develop a culture of continual learning&nbsp;



An exceptional cooperative board is continually learning about board duties, the operation of their business, and the trends impacting their industry.&nbsp;



Profitability is found through sustained competitive advantage. Competitive advantage is found by individuals who are constantly improving their understanding of their business and the industry in which it operates.&nbsp;&nbsp;The very bestcooperative boards make it a high priority to receive continuing education to stay current with business skills, strategies, and industry trends. A board can set itself apart from others by devoting time for training at each board meeting. Outside experts can offer a few minutes of thought-provoking discussion that may lead to breakthrough strategies. The review of internal documents like employee handbooks, bylaws, and corporate policies may lead to best practices that protect the cooperative from legal liabilities. Continual efforts focused on board education will demonstrate to members and legal authorities that the board is striving to fulfill its fiduciary duties.&nbsp;



5. Establish a vision and strategy to guide management



An exceptional board of directors provides vision and strategy while letting the manager manage.&nbsp;



Sometimes, the most difficult task for directors is to step aside and let management do their job.&nbsp;It is the duty of a director to establish the vision and mission of the firm, to determine strategy to achieve that mission, to set objectives and goals dictated by that strategy, to oversee the acquisition and use of assets, and to monitor the performance of the firm.&nbsp;



To do this, the board hires a general manager or CEO and contracts professional services (like auditors and lawyers) related to the monitoring and administration of the firm. That is where the operational duties of the board stop. Managers have the responsibility to establish budgets, use the firm’s assets to achieve stated objectives, monitor day-to-day operations, set short-term goals, hire and fire employees, and establish levels of pay and bonuses. In other words, decisions on the operation of the cooperative or the use of its employees are the sole responsibility of the manager. If the board is making these decisions for the manager, they not only put the cooperative at risk by ignoring the hired expertise, but they also take time away from their fiduciary and strategic responsibilities.&nbsp;



Directors, then, have the responsibility to establish strategy. An exceptional board of directors will discuss strategic issues in every board meeting and periodically dedicate themselves to more intense strategic planning.&nbsp;



Representation, integrity, loyalty, education, and vision are the hallmarks of an excellent cooperative board. By adhering to these qualities and being true to the role of directors, a truly exceptional board will be poised to lead their cooperative to achieve sustained competitive advantages and new heights of profitability.



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



Park, John. &#8220;<a href="http://the-5-practices-of-boardroom-excellence">The 5 Practices of Boardroom Excellence.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(47.5). November 21, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=43000">Permalink</a>

The 5 Practices of Boardroom Excellence

We think we can all agree on one thing: we’re all sick of talking about the state of the farm economy. After 8 years of ad hoc disaster assistance propping up the farm economy, most producers we know are desperate for market prices to return to levels that will at least cover their costs of production which have exploded over the last several years. They want to move on from ad hoc assistance, in part, because there are growing concerns that much of that assistance is simply finding its way into even higher land values (or higher cash rents) or higher input costs. Further, while the&nbsp;One Big Beautiful Billmade a significant down payment on improving the standing farm safety net beginning with the 2025 crop year, most of that assistance will not arrive until October 2026. Even then, once that assistance arrives, it will still fall far short of the losses currently facing producers. The trade discussion has injected even more uncertainty into the markets, although the recent agreement with China has provided somewhat of a reprieve (even if it’s not yet clear how and when China will fulfill the commitments they’ve made).



While all of these issues were reaching a fever pitch earlier this fall, the government shutdown over the past 2 months sucked most of the oxygen from the room. Congress recently reached an agreement to open the government, including passing a few of the appropriations bills, but that deal did not address impending losses for the 2025 crop year or uncertainty going into the 2026 crop year.&nbsp;



We are growing increasingly concerned that too little attention is being paid to the challenges growers continue to face. Yes, there is some talk about trade aid, but that is just one element of the challenges facing growers. Last year, Congress provided $30.78 billion for economic ($10 billion) and natural disaster ($20.78 billion) losses. As noted in Figure 1, the losses facing producers (on prices and costs of production alone) in 2025 eclipse those from 2024—yet Washington has been eerily quiet on the topic, having committed $0 at this point for 2025 losses.&nbsp;



In examining Figure 1, soybeans is the only crop to see an improvement in projected losses from 2024 to 2025, owing largely to the announced agreement with China and the projected $0.50 per bushel rebound in prices in USDA’s latest World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates. Even then, soybean producers are still projected to lose in excess of $100 per acre this year. In fact, all of the major commodities for which USDA reports costs of production are expected to face losses in excess of $100 per acre, with some crops like rice seeing losses double the amount of last year. And, Figure 1 is only covering losses for those crops for which USDA tracks cost of production. Other crops—for example, sugar—are also facing enormous losses. In virtually all cases, chronically low commodity prices—exacerbated by trade uncertainty—coupled with stubbornly high costs of production are the main culprits.



With news of thawing tensions on trade, the hope is that policymakers in Washington will be able to turn their attention to the huge issues facing row crop producers as they work to wrap up 2025 and prepare for the 2026 crop year. And, while growers may be growing wary of ad hoc assistance, we see little alternative in the short run. Ideally, efforts to craft a Farm Bill 2.0 will eventually make additional needed improvements to the farm safety net so we can close this nearly decade-long chapter on ad hoc assistance.



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="940" height="646" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.47.4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42997" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.47.4.png 940w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/5.47.4-768x528.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 940px) 100vw, 940px" /></figure>



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



Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/11/20/disaster-assistance-for-2025-is-it-coming-or-not/">Disaster Assistance for 2025: Is it Coming or Not?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(47.4). November 20, 2025. <a href="http://disaster-assistance-for-2025-is-it-coming-or-not">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities