Cooperatives are member governed organizations, and the member’s major vehicle of control is through their elected board representatives. Helping those board members to be more effective as they meet and work together, therefore, is in the best interest of the cooperative. The board meeting is a key process that helps cooperative boards to achieve their goals. It is an essential means for helping your cooperative to thrive. It is the primary mechanism that we use to allocate resources to their intended use. It is how we oversee the cooperative and protect it from risk. But the phrase “board meeting” can stir up all sorts of feelings and thoughts. Have you ever been to a board meeting where you felt like you’d rather be anywhere else?&nbsp;



Board meetings often face challenges related to time management, preparation, director engagement, and personal interactions. Perhaps you have experienced some of these situations at your cooperative:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Meetings take too long</li>



<li>A lot of information is given with no discussion</li>



<li>Board members are not engaged in the discussion</li>



<li>Remote participants seem distracted</li>



<li>Your role and responsibility are not clear</li>



<li>Discussions are dominated by one individual</li>
</ul>



The frustrations from a lack of purpose, poor communication, and misunderstood expectations can be overwhelming. Here are three tools that can help make any board meeting even better.&nbsp;



Tool #1: the agenda



The primary tool for making board meetings better is the meeting agenda. Your agenda can set clear expectations for the meeting and guide directors in the task at hand. It can be a real asset when used properly. If your agenda doesn’t seem effective, consider some of the suggestions below.&nbsp;



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Label items according to their purpose (e.g. for information, for discussion, for decision).</li>



<li>Set time limits for each agenda item and stick to the schedule. </li>



<li>If board members tend to draw the meeting out with social interactions, consider scheduling social time as an official part of your agenda.</li>



<li>Don’t read out loud items that were sent to directors in preparation. Reinforce the need to come prepared.</li>



<li>Schedule time for training and education.</li>



<li>Schedule time for open discussion or the introduction of new business.</li>
</ul>



Your agenda will reflect the focus of the board. Leveraging the power of the board happens when it is looking forward and focused on outcomes. Take a look at your agenda and take note. Does it mostly look backwards (approving reports) or forwards (making decision on future operations)? Is it focused on executing programs, or achieving outcomes? A main duty of the board is to support the mission of the cooperative. Do your agenda items support your mission?



Tool #2: your personal influence



Influence is your ability to change someone or something in an indirect but usually important way. It does not rely on position or authority. We all have an inherent ability to influence the world around us, and especially the people we work with. Developed properly, your influence will build trust, commitment, and loyalty in your organization. Your peers have seen qualities of influence in you that has resulted in your election to the board. They trust you and need your leadership. “The key to successful leadership today” says noted author Ken Blanchard, “is influence, not authority.”&nbsp;



Proper influence begins within yourself. It is based on a foundation of self-awareness and self-regulation. This means that you are able to focus on the needs of the cooperative above your own when making board decision. Your influence builds through cultivating personal relationships and a careful consideration of personal interactions during board meetings. It is rounded out with concerted efforts toward inclusion of all those you serve and empathy for their needs. Although you may be elected from a specific region, your duty as a board member is to represent the needs of all members and make decisions that are in the best interest of the entire membership. Your ability to influence your board meeting will be developed as you consciously apply these concepts.&nbsp;



Tool #3: the bylaws



The third tool is to establish expectations for board member conduct. While some legal expectations or requirements may already be outlined in the cooperative’s bylaws, it’s equally crucial to describe the behaviors and ideals that will contribute to your board’s effectiveness. Your board’s expectations toward due diligence might include a set number of hours dedicated to board education, statements on confidentiality, and policies for attendance. A regular review of your bylaws can help put board members in the proper frame of mind for meetings. This is especially important for orienting new directors. Your bylaws can serve as an agreement between board members, outlining appropriate behaviors and aspirations both within and outside the boardroom.



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



Park, John. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/18/three-tools-for-better-cooperative-board-meetings/">Three Tools for Better Cooperative Board Meetings.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(25.5). June 19, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/18/three-tools-for-better-cooperative-board-meetings/">Permalink</a>

Three Tools for Better Cooperative Board Meetings

Prior to 2019, the United States consistently recorded an agricultural trade surplus, meaning exports exceeded imports in value terms. For example, in fiscal year (FY) 2014, U.S. agricultural exports totaled about $152 billion, while imports were roughly $109 billion, yielding a surplus of $43 billion. This surplus steadily narrowed in subsequent years, falling to less than $5 billion by 2019. Since then, the trend has reversed, with the United States posting agricultural trade deficits over the past three years, culminating in a record deficit of approximately $44 billion in FY 2025, a stark contrast to the surplus observed a decade earlier (USDA-ERS, 2020; 2026).



Given the current White House Administration’s emphasis on bilateral trade imbalances, leadership at the U.S. Department of Agriculture has followed suit, increasingly framing the reduction of the agricultural trade deficit as a key policy objective. However, focusing on the agricultural trade deficit as a target can be misleading, as it obscures the broader economic forces shaping trade flows—a point discussed in previous Southern Ag Today articles. For instance, rising U.S. imports of agricultural goods may reflect not declining competitiveness, but stronger consumer demand for a more diverse set of products, including off-season fruits and vegetables as well as higher-value items such as beer, wine, and spirits. Moreover, a narrow emphasis on the trade deficit ignores the highly integrated nature of modern agricultural supply chains. For instance, the recent import ban on Mexican feeder cattle may contribute to a reduction in the agricultural trade deficit, but it would be difficult to argue that the U.S. beef sector is necessarily better off as a result.



That said, it is still useful to examine the agricultural trade deficit more closely. Recent year-to-date trade data (January–April) suggest a narrowing of the deficit compared to the same period last year. As of April 2026, the agricultural trade deficit stood at $7.5 billion, down 62% from $19.7 billion over the same period in 2025. On the surface, this could be interpreted as evidence of improvement, or even as an indication that current trade policies are working. However, caution is warranted in drawing such conclusions.&nbsp;



Figure 1 presents year-to-date percentage changes in U.S. agricultural exports and imports, both in aggregate and across major export destinations and import suppliers.&nbsp;The data indicate that the narrowing of the deficit is driven more by declining imports than by strong export growth. Total U.S. exports increased modestly (+5.5%), while imports fell sharply (−11.5%), with particularly large declines in imports from the EU (−27.1%), Brazil (−24.6%), and Southeast Asia (−23.8%). What is driving these changes? The increase in exports is mostly China (+35.2%) due to a strong recovery in soybean and sorghum exports, both of which dropped to negligible levels in 2025. The decline in imports also appears to be concentrated in specific products, including beer, wine, spirits, and essential oils from the EU; coffee and beef fat from Brazil; and beverage sweeteners and cocoa products from Southeast Asia (USDA-FAS, 2026).



This raises an important question: are we truly better off if the narrowing deficit is driven primarily by declining imports rather than broad-based export growth across markets and products?



Figure 1. 2026 Year-To-Date (January–April) Percentage Changes in U.S. Agricultural Exports and Imports, Total and Major Partners



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="715" height="482" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.4-1-1-.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44162"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Note: The changes in this figure are based on nominal dollar values. U.S. imports from China and exports to Brazil are not shown due to their small contribution.  Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (2026)</figcaption></figure>



For more information:



U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA-ERS) (2020).&nbsp;Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade. Economic Research Service.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/10231/aes-111.pdf?v=93939">https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/10231/aes-111.pdf?v=93939</a>



U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA-ERS) (2026).&nbsp;Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Trade. Economic Research Service.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/20882/aes-136.pdf?v=85005">https://www.ers.usda.gov/media/20882/aes-136.pdf?v=85005</a>



U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA-FAS) (2026).&nbsp;Global Agricultural Trade System. Foreign Agricultural Service.&nbsp;<a href="https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx">https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx</a>



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



Muhammad, Andrew. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/18/a-narrowing-agricultural-trade-deficit-in-2026-but-are-we-better-off/">A Narrowing Agricultural Trade Deficit in 2026 – But Are We Better Off?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(25.4). June 18, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/18/a-narrowing-agricultural-trade-deficit-in-2026-but-are-we-better-off/">Permalink</a>

A Narrowing Agricultural Trade Deficit in 2026 – But Are We Better Off?

Joe Outlaw and Bart L. Fischer



It is no secret that over the last few years, U.S. agricultural producers have been hit with the combination of relatively low crop prices while most of their input prices have experienced all-time highs.&nbsp;&nbsp;At the same time, livestock agriculture, especially cow-calf and dairy producers, have experienced record cattle and calf prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;The number of farm bankruptcies are rising across the South, and much like previous downturns, producers are asking for advice on how to manage their way out of this&nbsp;hopefully&nbsp;short-term economic downturn.



Following a similar product that was developed during the most recent downturn (2014-2019), 36 Agricultural Economists from the Southern Extension Economics Committee developed 24 articles that provide valuable information to producers and landowners as they attempt to navigate the current downturn.&nbsp;&nbsp;Each article was double peer reviewed to ensure the publication—entitled “Surviving the Farm Economy Downturn:&nbsp;&nbsp;2026 Update”—provides the most up-to-date information and strategies possible.&nbsp;&nbsp;The papers were categorized into 6 distinct areas: Setting the Stage; Crop Market Outlooks; Livestock; Ag Lending/Credit/Crop Insurance; Strategies; and Resiliency.



The publication, <a href="https://afpc.tamu.edu/research/publications/735">available here</a>, was made possible by support from the Southern Extension Risk Management Education Center, under project award Nos. 2021-70027-34722 and 2025-70027-45397, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><a href="https://afpc.tamu.edu/research/publications/735" target="_blank" rel=" noreferrer noopener"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="3165" height="4096" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/farmdownturn2026-3165x4096.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44139" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/farmdownturn2026-3165x4096.png 3165w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/farmdownturn2026-791x1024.png 791w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/farmdownturn2026-768x994.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/farmdownturn2026-1187x1536.png 1187w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/farmdownturn2026-1583x2048.png 1583w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/farmdownturn2026-scaled.png 1978w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 3165px) 100vw, 3165px" /></a></figure>

Surviving the Farm Economy Downturn: 2026 Update

David Anderson and Josh Maples 



The amount of beef grading Prime has been increasing for a number of years.&nbsp;&nbsp;As Prime and Choice graded beef have increased, the amount grading Select has declined.&nbsp;&nbsp;Over the last two months the percent of beef grading Prime has been more than double the percent grading Select.&nbsp;&nbsp;More than 17 percent of beef graded, has graded Prime in 5 of the last 6 weeks.&nbsp;&nbsp;Select grade beef has averaged 8.2 percent of all beef graded over that same period.&nbsp;&nbsp;Over the same 6 week period last year, 13 percent of beef graded was Prime and 12 percent graded Select.&nbsp;&nbsp;The amount of beef grading Choice has experienced little change, 71.67 percent in 2026 compared to 71.64 percent in 2025.



Why more Prime?&nbsp;&nbsp;Because markets and incentives work!&nbsp;&nbsp;Value-based marketing has rewarded quality with premium prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;Important factors at work are more days on feed and heavier finished weights.&nbsp;&nbsp;Demand for higher USDA quality grade beef has fueled premiums and increased the percent grading Prime.



It’s worth remembering that there is a supply and demand for each beef grade.&nbsp;&nbsp;As the amount of Prime beef has increased, premiums as measured by Prime-Choice and Prime-Select price spreads have decreased.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Prime-Choice boxed beef cutout price spread averaged $13.16 over the last 6 weeks.&nbsp;&nbsp;Over the same period in 2025 it averaged $21.97.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Prime-Select cutout price spread has declined almost $20 per cwt, from $35.66 last year to $15.86 this year.&nbsp;&nbsp;The cutout value for Prime compared to branded beef, primarily certified angus beef, indicates a similar decline in the price spread, from $15.77 per cwt last year to $6.31 this year.&nbsp;&nbsp;The decline in the amount of beef grading Select has likely helped lead to a negative Choice-Select spread in recent weeks.Going forward it will be interesting to follow the percent grading in each category.&nbsp;&nbsp;Even though overall beef production is declining, the amount of beef available in a specific grade can exceed a year ago if enough of it grades in that category.&nbsp;&nbsp;For example, in March 2026 there was 20.5 percent more Prime beef available than in March 2025.&nbsp;&nbsp;Pounds of Choice and Select were down 8.7 and 35.5 percent, respectively.&nbsp;&nbsp;Changes in pounds available in each grade will impact premiums between grades that can dampen or exacerbate normal price seasonality.&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/2026/06/6.24.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44124" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-1.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-1-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-1-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-1-1536x1152.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/2026/06/6.24.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44125" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-2.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-2-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-2-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-2-1536x1152.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/2026/06/6.24.2-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44127" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-3.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-3-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-3-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.24.2-3-1536x1152.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px" /></figure>



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



Anderson, David, and Josh Maples. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/prime-doubles-up-select/">Prime Doubles Up Select</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(24.2). June 9, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/prime-doubles-up-select/">Permalink</a>

Prime Doubles Up Select

For tax years beginning after July 4, 2025, sellers may elect to pay the net income tax attributable to gain from the sale or exchange of qualified farmland property to a qualified farmer in four equal annual installments instead of paying the full amount in the year of sale.<a href="applewebdata://CFCDA7BD-6D6E-410F-8E0F-C626EB89AD96#_ftn1">[1]</a>&nbsp;The first payment is due in the year of the sale or exchange, with the remaining three installments due over the following three tax years.&nbsp;



This special provision does not change the character of the gain or reduce the total tax liability, including the Net Investment Income tax. Instead, it provides flexibility in the timing of tax payments and may improve cash flow for investment or operational needs.&nbsp;



Qualified Farmland Property



To qualify, the farmland must meet all of the following conditions:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Be located in the U.S.</li>



<li>Have been used substantially by the seller for farming purposes, or leased to a qualified farmer for farming purposes, during the 10-year period ending on the date of sale or exchange. </li>



<li>Be subject to a covenant or legal restriction prohibiting non-farming uses for at least 10 years beginning the day after the sale or exchange. </li>
</ul>



Essentially, the property must be used primarily for farming purposes for the 10 years before the sale and remain restricted to farming use for at least 10 years after the sale. In many parts of the U.S. South, eligibility for state property tax incentive programs requires land to remain in agricultural or forestry use. As a result, these programs are generally compatible with this federal income tax provision as long as the property continues to be used for agricultural or forestry uses.&nbsp;



For this provision, farming purposes are as defined under Section 2032A(e) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and include:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Cultivating soil or raising and harvesting any agricultural or horticultural commodities;</li>



<li>Raising, shearing, feeding, caring for, training, and managing animals on a farm;</li>



<li>Handling, drying, packing, grading, or storing agricultural or horticultural commodities in their unmanufactured state; and</li>



<li>Planting, cultivating, caring for, or cutting trees or preparing trees for market (other than milling).</li>
</ul>



Forestland used to grow timber qualifies as farmland property.&nbsp;



Qualified Farmer



A qualified farmer is an individual actively engaged in farming under 7 USC Section 1308-1(b) and (c), generally requiring significant contributions to the farming operation. Landowners are generally considered actively engaged on owned land. For additional details, see USDA Farm Service Agency guidance on actively engaged in farming:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/payment-eligibility/actively-engaged-farming">https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/payment-eligibility/actively-engaged-farming</a>.&nbsp;



Making the Election on Tax Return



&nbsp;Individuals and entities can make the election using IRS Form 1062,&nbsp;Deferral of Tax on Gain From the Sale or Exchange of Qualified Farmland Property to Qualified Farmers. Include a separate Schedule A (Form 1062) for each qualified farmland sale along with a copy of the covenant with your federal income tax return for the tax year of the sale. If any installment payment is missed, the remaining balance becomes due immediately.&nbsp;



Thoughts on Tax Planning Strategies



This provision provides farmers and forest landowners with another tax planning option when selling or exchanging land. Many landowners are familiar with the IRC Section 1031 like-kind exchange, which allows taxpayers to defer tax on gain from the exchange of like-kind property until the replacement property is sold or otherwise disposed of. If the property is held until death and transferred through inheritance, the deferred gain may be permanently avoided through the step-up in basis rule. However, Section 1031 exchanges have strict requirements regarding timing and the identification and acquisition of qualifying replacement property.&nbsp;



Additional Sources of Information&nbsp;



For more information, please refer to IRS Instructions for Form 1062,&nbsp;Deferral of Tax on Gain From the Sale or Exchange of Qualified Farmland Property to Qualified Farmers.&nbsp;



Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide financial, tax, or legal advice. Please consult your own tax advisor concerning your particular tax situation.



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



<a href="applewebdata://CFCDA7BD-6D6E-410F-8E0F-C626EB89AD96#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;Under IRC Section 1062.



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



Li, Yanshu. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/selling-farm-or-forest-land-a-new-tax-deferral-option/">Selling Farm or Forest Land? A New Tax Deferral Option</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(25.1). June 15, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/03/selling-farm-or-forest-land-a-new-tax-deferral-option/">Permalink</a>

Selling Farm or Forest Land? A New Tax Deferral Option

During the last decade, the specialty crop industry has faced multiple challenges alongside shifting consumer demand. While some commodities have experienced growth, others have declined due to labor constraints, disease pressures, and increasing import competition. Figures 1 and 2 show acreage trends by commodity group from 2014 to 2024. Over the last decade (2014-2024), harvested acreage for fresh and processed vegetables declined by 23%, while potato acreage decreased by 13%, representing compound annual growth rate (CAGR) declines of 2.5% and 1.4%, respectively (Figure 1). Production declines were smaller due to continued productivity and yield gains.



Figure 1. U.S. Harvested Vegetable Acreage, 2024-2024.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1582" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-1-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44080" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-1-scaled.png 2560w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-1-1024x633.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-1-768x475.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-1-1536x949.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-1-2048x1266.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: USDA ERS. Vegetables and Pulses Yearbook Tables.</figcaption></figure>



Combined fruit and nut acreage has increased steadily, driven almost entirely by tree nuts, where planted acreage expanded by 87% over the last decade (Figure 2). Growth has been led by almonds and pistachios, with additional increases in pecans and walnuts. These crops are generally less labor-intensive because harvesting in modern orchards is highly mechanized.



In contrast, fruit acreage has generally declined. Citrus acreage fell by 32%, while other major non-citrus fruit acreage declined by about 12%, representing CAGR declines of 3.7% and 1.3%, respectively. The citrus decline has been largely driven by citrus greening disease and lower orange juice consumption. Meanwhile, stronger consumer demand has supported growth in strawberry and blueberry acreage and production, although imports have increased faster than domestic output.



Figure 2. U.S. Bearing Fruit and Tree Nut Acreage, 2014-2024.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2560" height="1583" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-2-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44082" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-2-scaled.png 2560w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-2-1024x633.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-2-768x475.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-2-1536x950.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.25.5-2-2048x1267.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: USDA ERS. Fruit and Tree Nuts Yearbook.</figcaption></figure>



Economic pressures continue to challenge the specialty crop industry, particularly rising input and labor costs. Labor shortages remain one of the industry’s most significant concerns, especially for operations dependent on hand harvest. Adverse Effect Wage Rates (AEWR) for H-2A workers have increased steadily in recent years, adding pressure to labor-intensive operations. Recent changes implemented in October 2025 under the U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/02/2025-19365/adverse-effect-wage-rate-methodology-for-the-temporary-employment-of-h-2a-nonimmigrants-in-non-range">Department of Labor’s Interim Final Rule</a>&nbsp;modify how AEWR wages are calculated, specifically by adopting state-level wage data and adjustments tied to worker skill levels and housing cost adjustments for H-2A versus domestic workers. These changes have been received with optimism by much of the industry, as they are expected to result in significant wage savings relative to AEWR increases that occurred in previous years. However, projected savings vary by state depending on whether the new AEWR falls below the federal or state minimum wage, in which case employers must pay the applicable minimum wage per the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa">Fair Labor Standards Act</a>. For example,&nbsp;<a href="http://sa14.fl.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/2025-2026-FL-Min-Wage.pdf">Florida’s statewide minimum wage</a>&nbsp;will increase to $15.00 per hour on September 30, 2026, exceeding the&nbsp;<a href="https://flag.dol.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/DOL-OFLC_2025-2026_AEWRs_FINAL.xlsx">2025-2026 AEWR for Florida H-2A workers</a>&nbsp;of $10.18 per hour for Skill Level I workers and $12.77 per hour for Skill Level II workers. As a result, employers must pay the higher state minimum wage. Assuming 92% of H-2A workers are classified as Skill Level I and 8% as Skill Level II, estimated total wage bill savings in southern states range from 7.6% in Florida and 10.9% in Maryland to 41.6% in Louisiana and 39.3% in Mississippi (Rutledge et al., 2026).



A 2025 Specialty Ag Labor Survey conducted by Vegetable Grower News and Fruit Grower News found that more growers are responding to labor shortages by reducing acreage than by adopting automation. Although mechanization continues to advance, many fresh-market fruits and vegetables still require hand harvest to maintain quality standards. As a result, mechanization remains a longer-term solution for many specialty crop sectors.



Import competition is another major issue affecting the industry. Imports play an important role in supplying products during the off season, but in the case of southeastern growers, they also compete directly with domestic production. Lower labor and regulatory costs in competing countries, particularly Mexico, place additional pressure on U.S. producers. In 2024, nonsupervisory farmworkers in the United States earned an average of $18.13 per hour (USDA ERS, 2025), compared to substantially lower minimum wages ($2.08-2.76) for farmworkers in Mexico (CONASAMI, 2024). As the review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) approaches, specialty crop groups are seeking stronger seasonal protections during peak U.S. production periods to remain competitive. These efforts include support from southern commodity groups affected by increasing low-priced import competition, including the Florida Blueberry Growers Association, Florida Tomato Exchange, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, and Georgia Watermelon Association, among others.



Despite these challenges, consumer demand for specialty crops continues to grow, driven in part by increasing interest in healthier diets. For example, industry organizations such as the North Carolina Sweet Potato Commission have invested in marketing campaigns and influencer partnerships to encourage year-round consumption. Opportunities remain for southern producers through product differentiation, branding, improved flavor and quality, and direct-to-consumer marketing. Examples include regional branding initiatives such as Georgia Grown, Kentucky Proud, Pick Tennessee Products, and Genuine Mississippi, as well as breeding programs focused on enhancing flavor, quality, and consumer appeal. The Southeast has become a leading center for blueberry innovation and has also advanced cultivar development in crops such as sweet potatoes and watermelons. Research on emerging specialty crops, including passion fruit in Florida and Mississippi, further illustrates opportunities for diversification and value creation within the region. In addition, continued growth in farmers markets, local procurement programs, agritourism, and U-pick operations (particularly for crops such as blueberries) provides producers with opportunities to capture additional value and connect directly with consumers.



References



Comisión Nacional de los Salarios Mínimos (CONASAMI).&nbsp;Mexican Government. (2024). Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/873886/Tabla_de_Salarios_M_nimos_2024.pdf">https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/873886/Tabla_de_Salarios_M_nimos_2024.pdf</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). (2025a). Farm Labor. Available at: https://ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). (2025b).&nbsp;&nbsp;Vegetables and Pulses Yearbook Tables.&nbsp;&nbsp;Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/vegetables-and-pulses-data/vegetables-and-pulses-yearbook-tables">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/vegetables-and-pulses-data/vegetables-and-pulses-yearbook-tables</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). (2026). Fruit and Tree Nuts Yearbook.&nbsp;&nbsp;Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fruit-and-tree-nuts-data/fruit-and-tree-nuts-yearbook-tables">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fruit-and-tree-nuts-data/fruit-and-tree-nuts-yearbook-tables</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;



Rutledge Z., Martin P., Ayoub S., Hall M. 2026. Available online at &#8220;Potential Wage Bill Implications of the New AEWR Methodology for H-2A Workers.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/submitted-articles/potential-wage-bill-implications-of-the-new-aewr-methodology-for-h-2a-workers">https://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/submitted-articles/potential-wage-bill-implications-of-the-new-aewr-methodology-for-h-2a-workers</a>



Vegetable Grower News and Fruit Grower News. (2025). 2025 FGN Labor Survey Results. Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://fruitgrowersnews.com/catalogs/2025-fgn-labor-survey-results/">https://fruitgrowersnews.com/catalogs/2025-fgn-labor-survey-results/</a>



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



Canales, Elizabeth. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/settlement-approved-in-right-to-repair-litigation/">Key Challenges and Trends Shaping the Specialty Crop Industry.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(24.5). June 12, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/05/12/settlement-approved-in-right-to-repair-litigation/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities