Recent Updates to the H-2A Program



The H-2A program is an important provider of agricultural labor in the United States. The H-2A program is jointly administered by three federal agencies – Department of State (“DOS”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and Department of Labor (“DOL”). DOS issues the H-2A visas to workers through embassies and consulates in the worker’s country of residence. DHS, through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), oversees the petition process. DOL provides H-2A certifications to employers and ensures that wage, housing, and other U.S. labor laws are followed. In 2025, there have been several changes to the H-2A program through federal agency actions and court injunctions.



Visa Updates



On September 18, 2025, the DOS&nbsp;<a href="https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/News/visas-news/interview-waiver-update-sept-18-2025.html">announced</a>&nbsp;that certain H-2A visa applicants would be exempt from the nonimmigrant visa interview requirement starting on October 1, 2025. According to the DOS’s announcement, “applicants renewing an H-2A visa within 12 months of the prior visa’s expiration when the prior visa was issued for full validity at the time of issuance” are exempt from the interview requirement if specified conditions are met:



<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>The applicant was at least 18 years old;</li>



<li>The applicant applied in his or her country of nationality or usual residence;</li>



<li>The applicant has never been refused a visa; and</li>



<li>The applicant has no apparent or potential ineligibility.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</li>
</ol>



Adverse Effect Wage Rate Rules



On August 25, 2025, a judge in the Western District of Louisiana issued a&nbsp;<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1855544350896142080&amp;q=teche+vermilion+v+chavez&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6,47">ruling</a>&nbsp;in&nbsp;Teche Vermilion Sugar Cane Growers Ass’n v. Chavez-Deremer, 6:23-CV-831, 2025 WL 2472461 (W.D. La. Aug. 25, 2025) granting a permanent injunction and vacating DOL’s 2023 Adverse Effect Wage Rate (“AEWR”) rule. In 2023, DOL issued a final rule amending the formula for calculating the AEWR for non-range agricultural occupations. The AEWR is the minimum hourly rate, determined for each state, that employers must pay H-2A workers. DOL&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/foreign-labor">announced</a>&nbsp;that it would be reverting back to utilizing the methodology to calculate the AEWR laid out in the 2010 rule until the department can promulgate new regulations.&nbsp;



On October 2, 2025, DOL issued an&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">interim final rule</a>&nbsp;amending how the AEWR is calculated. This rule replaces the methodology from the 2010 and 2023 rules. There are three major changes under the new rule. The first major change is that the rates set by the DOL will be based on the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) instead of the Farm Labor Survey, which USDA is&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/Notices/2025/08-28-2025.php">discontinuing</a>. The next major change is that DOL will set one AEWR for the five standard occupational class codes that comprise the “field and livestock workers (combined)” category and separate AEWRs for all other standard occupational class codes. The last major change is that the interim final rule implements AEWRs for two different skill levels – entry level and experienced. Skill level I, or entry-level, require no formal education or specialized training. Skill level II, or experienced-level, requires skills obtained through education, training, or experience to perform the job. This means that for each AEWR set, there will be a wage for skill level I jobs and a wage set for skill level II jobs. The interim final rule went into effect on October 2, 2025, and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/ETA_FRDOC_0001-0308">comments</a>&nbsp;are being accepted until December 1, 2025.



Filing of H-2A Petitions



On October 2, 2025, DHS issued a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/02/2025-19235/facilitating-earlier-filing-of-certain-electronically-submitted-h-2a-petitions">final rule</a>&nbsp;updating the timing to submit a temporary labor certification (“TLC”) for unnamed beneficiaries in order to reduce the time it takes to complete the H-2A program enrollment process for employers. Prior to the rule, employers were required to wait until DOL certified the TLC before submitting the required forms to USCIS. Under the new rule, employers can now submit the I-129H2A form after receiving a notice of acceptance from DOL and before the TLC is certified. This will allow the two agencies, USCIS and DOL, to concurrently process portions of the H-2A application process. However, USCIS will not approve the petition until DOL approves the TLC. It is important to note that the new rule only applies to electronic petitions with unnamed beneficiaries. For petitions with named beneficiaries or petitions filed by paper, the process remains unchanged.&nbsp;



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



Capaldo, Samantha. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/10/21/recent-updates-to-the-h-2a-program/">Recent Updates to the H-2A Program</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(43.5). October 24, 2025. <a href="http://recent-updates-to-the-h-2a-program">Permalink</a>

Recent Updates to the H-2A Program

We often use Farm Policy Thursdays at Southern Ag Today to address questions we’ve been hearing, either from producers or from the general public. Today is no exception. With all the talk about low crop prices and high input costs, we increasingly are getting questions like these: “If farmers are projected to lose money this year, then why plant anything?&nbsp;&nbsp;And, isn’t the market telling them there’s too much supply and they should plant less?”&nbsp;&nbsp;



On the surface, those are pretty simple and relatable questions.&nbsp;&nbsp;But, as with most things in agriculture, the answer is much more complex.



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>If a farmer has sufficient cash on which to live and no debt to service, that might work.  But, unless that applies to you or you have a job off the farm that provides supplemental income, shutting down would be guaranteeing no income for the farm/family for the year.</li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>U.S. farmers must also contend with the fact that they operate in a global market. If U.S. farmers were to simply sit out this growing season, how would the rest of the world respond? Would they also idle their operations, allowing prices to rise so that everyone could enjoy higher prices together? Of course not. While we could fill pages on this topic, the bottom line is that prices would certainly rise, but other countries would likely ratchet up their production to take advantage of those prices at the expense of U.S. farmers. </li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Perhaps the most important factor is that farmers are eternal optimists. After all, they are putting a seed in the ground in hopes that sufficient rain will fall for the seed to germinate. They then spend months tending to plants to ensure that weeds and insects don’t choke the plant out. Many spend the rest of the time praying that hail, floods, snow, and hurricanes—you name the disaster—won’t leave the crop in tatters. With that same spirit, they also plant that crop in hopes that the market will turn around by harvest time so they can make enough money to pay off the banker and have enough left over to feed their families and start over again next year.</li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Most farmers we know and work with have chosen that profession—in spite of all the risks and historically low returns—because they want to help their fellow man. Farming isn’t a job…it’s part of who they are. Simply sitting out a crop isn’t really in their DNA.</li>
</ul>



We suspect those answers would be followed by this question: “Okay, I understand they can’t totally idle their farm, but can’t they just shift from one crop to another that makes more economic sense?”



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>We would argue that farmers are always considering that option, but that generally only works if those opportunities exist.  At this point, most crops are facing negative returns, and it’s not remotely clear that one crop would be preferred over any other, especially after accounting for all of the things farmers can’t control. </li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Most farmers that grow multiple crops have a carefully crafted, multi-year rotation that they want to maintain for a variety of reasons (e.g., controlling weeds, maintaining fertility and soil health, controlling erosion, etc). </li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Often equipment and supporting infrastructure is crop specific, limiting the ability for farmers to substitute crops (or at least serving as a consideration). For example, the only thing you will accomplish by running a cotton picker through a corn field is creating a giant mess.</li>
</ul>



In summary, simply not planting a crop is just not a viable option for most farmers, and shifting the crop mix—while always under consideration by farmers—comes with its own set of considerations and challenges. It’s for these reasons, in part, that each Congress and successive Administrations have repeatedly supported farmers when things do not turn out as they planned or hoped.



Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/10/15/if-crop-returns-are-so-bad-why-do-farmers-keep-planting/">If Crop Returns are so Bad, Why Do Farmers Keep Planting?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(43.4). October 23, 2025. <a href="http://if-crop-returns-are-so-bad-why-do-farmers-keep-planting">Permalink</a>

If Crop Returns are so Bad, Why Do Farmers Keep Planting?

Throughout this growing season, much of the conversation has centered around expectations for a historically large U.S. corn crop. In its September report, USDA projected production at 16.8 billion bushels, nearly 1.5 billion more than the previous record set in 2023. As noted in last week’s&nbsp;Southern Ag Today&nbsp;article,&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/10/15/potential-market-impacts-of-missing-a-wasde-report-during-government-shutdowns/">Potential Market Impacts of Missing a WASDE Report During Government Shutdowns</a>, the October WASDE was canceled due to the government shutdown, leaving producers without updated yield or demand estimates. Now that harvest is well underway and yields are coming in, USDA may trim its yield estimate slightly, but even with a small adjustment, we are still looking at a massive crop. The key question moving forward is simple: what are we going to do with all of it?



Most U.S. corn is used for three primary purposes: livestock feed, ethanol production, and exports, which together account for roughly 97 percent of total use. The remaining share goes toward food and seed. Figure 1 shows annual corn consumption since 2010.&nbsp;&nbsp;Corn used for feed is currently projected at 6.1 billion bushels, the highest level since at least 2000. The projected grain-consuming animal units (GCAUs), a USDA measure of animals on feed, are estimated at 100.8 for 2025. Even with a smaller cattle supply, this is higher than the 2024 measure of 99.9, driven by increases in hogs, layers, and broilers. Lower corn prices make it a more competitive feed ingredient that will continue to support feed demand in the year ahead.



Corn use for ethanol production is projected at 5.6 billion bushels for the 2025 marketing year, up from 5.4 billion bushels last year. Although ethanol use has leveled off since the rapid expansion seen during the 2010s, it remains a steady and reliable source of demand for U.S. corn. Recent policy discussions around allowing year-round sales of E15 could provide an additional boost to corn demand through expanded ethanol use.&nbsp;



While other commodities have faced headwinds, exports have been a bright spot for corn demand this year. Export sales have moved at a blistering pace, with the current forecast calling for a record 3 billion bushels of U.S. corn exports. Notably, this surge has occurred without purchases from China, which has remained absent from the U.S. corn market since the 2023/24 marketing year. Instead, sales to traditional trading partners have been strong, led by Mexico, followed by Japan and Colombia. Due to the government shutdown, USDA has not updated its weekly export sales report since the week of September 18. When reporting resumes, the next update will be closely watched to see whether corn export sales have maintained their rapid pace.



Given the elevated demand projections for corn, it is hard to see a significant price boost coming from the demand side throughout the rest of the year. Large supplies will continue to weigh on the market, and all eyes will be on the final production numbers. In this environment, managing price risk becomes critical. Producers with unpriced grain should consider setting clear marketing targets and evaluating tools such as forward contracts, futures, or options to lock in favorable opportunities when they arise. A disciplined approach to marketing can help balance downside risk while keeping flexibility for potential rallies later in the year.    



Figure 1. U.S. Corn Consumption by Category, 2010-2025. Source: USDA



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2145" height="1370" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/5.43.3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-42816" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/5.43.3.png 2145w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/5.43.3-1024x654.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/5.43.3-768x491.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/5.43.3-1536x981.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/5.43.3-2048x1308.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2145px) 100vw, 2145px" /></figure>



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



Maples, Will. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/10/15/demand-outlook-for-a-record-u-s-corn-crop/">Demand Outlook for a Record U.S. Corn Crop</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(43.3). October 22, 2025. <a href="http://demand-outlook-for-a-record-u-s-corn-crop">Permalink</a>

Demand Outlook for a Record U.S. Corn Crop

Could beef imports from Argentina reduce beef prices in the U.S.?



Argentina is the sixth largest beef producing country and the fifth largest beef exporting country, accounting for roughly 6 percent of global beef exports. Argentine beef production is about 27 percent of total U.S. production. In recent years, Argentine beef exports have been growing with the majority of beef exports going to China along with Israel, the E.U. and the U.S.



Argentina is the ninth largest source of beef imports in the U.S., accounting for about 2.1 percent of total U.S. beef imports thus far in 2025.&nbsp;U.S. imports of Argentine beef have been growing in recent years (recovery in Argentina) and were up 41.7 percent year over year through July&nbsp;(the latest data available since the shutdown).&nbsp;&nbsp;



How much more beef can the U.S. import from Argentina?



It&#8217;s not clear how much capacity to increase beef exports exists currently in Argentina.&nbsp; Domestic beef consumption in Argentina uses 70-75 percent of total beef production in the country.&nbsp; If, for example, the U.S. doubled imports over 2024 levels, it would likely mostly be at the expense of domestic consumption in Argentina or other export markets for Argentine beef.&nbsp; Such an increase in imports from Argentina would have a negligible impact on the total supply of beef in the U.S. market.&nbsp; &nbsp;In fact, if the U.S. took all of the projected 2025 Argentine beef exports (not likely), it would represent less than 2.5 percent of the total U.S. beef supply.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The Impact in U.S. beef markets



The majority of Argentine beef imports are lean processing beef used for ground beef production.&nbsp; This beef is quite similar to beef imported from Brazil (and most other import sources).&nbsp; &nbsp;Imports from Argentina are less than 10 percent of the imports from Brazil.&nbsp; Increasing imports from Argentina would have a very slight impact in offsetting the reduction in imports from Brazil expected because of the sharp increase in tariffs on Brazil.&nbsp; The impacts on beef imports from Brazil are not evident in the January -July import data and we have not had any updates since then. The August data should have been released in early October.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Record high cattle and beef prices are occurring despite record beef imports.&nbsp; Increased beef imports (mostly lean processing beef) partially offsets decreased nonfed beef production in the U.S., helping to moderate sharply higher ground beef prices and increasing utilization of fatty trimmings from U.S. fed cattle.&nbsp; Argentina is a relatively minor source of beef imports and potential increases would not significantly change the overall supply of beef in the U.S. In short, it does not appear that increasing beef imports from Argentina would have any significant impacts on U.S. beef prices. At most, it might have a very slight (and probably undetectable) impact of moderating expected future increases in U.S. ground beef prices.&nbsp;



This article originally appeared in Oklahoma State University Extension’s Cow-Calf Corner Newsletter.&nbsp;



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

Beef Imports to the Rescue?

As high-speed broadband reaches more rural communities, it is important to explore how farms are utilizing the internet and advanced technologies in their operations. Every two years since 1997, the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service has conducted a survey to get an overview of technology use on farms (USDA, 2025). The survey asks producers about what devices they own, whether or not they can access the internet (and if so, if their services are through fiber, cable, etc.), and how they use the internet for business-related purposes. The most recent survey’s findings were released in August 2025 and include comparisons, where applicable, to responses from the 2023 survey.&nbsp;



Table 1 shows the 2025 response rates for the percentage of farms that purchase agricultural inputs over the internet, conduct agricultural marketing activities over the internet, and use precision agriculture to manage crops or livestock for states in the Southern Region. The values in parentheses are percentage changes in response rates between the 2023 and 2025 surveys. Looking at changes in the percentage of farms purchasing agricultural inputs over the internet, all southern states saw increased use of the internet to purchase inputs between 2023 and 2025. Notably, four states (Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas) saw over a 100% increase in the percentage of farms reporting that they buy inputs online. Given the farm financial situation over the last couple of years, farmers could be exploring non-traditional ways of buying inputs to find better deals. With 50% of respondents across the U.S. saying they used the internet to purchase inputs in 2025, it also shows the importance that reliable internet access has on agriculture.&nbsp;



For the percentage of farms stating that they conduct agricultural marketing activities online, the average across southern states in 2025 was about 25% compared to an average of 29% across the entire United States. The majority of southern states had positive increases in the percentage of farms reporting that they engaged in agricultural marketing online from 2023 to 2025. Georgia (-23%) and Missouri (-8%) being the only exceptions.&nbsp;&nbsp;However, the survey did not reveal the specific type of marketing activities they conduct online. It could be that most are simply getting crop/livestock price information.&nbsp;&nbsp;Either way, it is an indication of the growing importance of online engagement.



The column to the far right in Table 1 is for the percentage of farms using precision agriculture. Between 2023 and 2025, the percentage of farms that use precision agriculture for their crops or livestock decreased in seven southern states, with the largest decreases occurring in Tennessee, North Carolina, and Alabama. The percentage of farms that use precision agriculture increased in the other seven southern states over the same time period. For the U.S. as a whole, the use of precision ag technologies decreased by 19% from 2023 to 2025. This finding could signal that precision ag technologies are not viewed as cost savers, and producers are cutting these technologies to save costs.&nbsp;



Producers are finding different ways of using the internet to help with their businesses, including buying inputs and finding marketing information. These are relatively low-cost ways of gaining cost savings or information. Conversely, higher cost technologies, like precision agriculture, may see their use decreased in times of financial stress. Regardless, these results show that having reliable internet access is an essential tool for farmers.



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>State</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Percentage of Farms that Purchase Agricultural Inputs over Internet</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Percentage of Farms that Conduct Agricultural Marketing Activities over Internet</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Percentage of Farms Using Precision Agriculture Practices to Manage Crops or Livestock</td></tr><tr><td>Alabama</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">44% (100%)&nbsp;*</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">19% (111%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">15% (-32%)</td></tr><tr><td>Arkansas</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">45% (55%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">28% (8%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">20% (-26%)</td></tr><tr><td>Florida</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">57% (84%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">24% (50%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">17% (42%)</td></tr><tr><td>Georgia</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">51% (11%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">23% (-23%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">18% (38%)</td></tr><tr><td>Kentucky</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">49% (69%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">27% (69%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">13% (18%)</td></tr><tr><td>Louisiana</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">53% (130%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">27% (125%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">22% (-29%)</td></tr><tr><td>Mississippi</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">48% (140%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">26% (271%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">19% (-5%)</td></tr><tr><td>Missouri</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">43% (59%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">24% (-8%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">22% (-4%)</td></tr><tr><td>North Carolina</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">58% (66%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">29% (-9%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">17% (-37%)</td></tr><tr><td>Oklahoma</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">51% (89%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">29% (45%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">22% (22%)</td></tr><tr><td>South Carolina</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">57% (159%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">25% (47%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">17% (21%)</td></tr><tr><td>Tennessee</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">47% (88%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">22% (22%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">12% (-61%)</td></tr><tr><td>Texas</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">51% (143%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">23% (130%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">14% (8%)</td></tr><tr><td>Virginia</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">48% (23%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">28% (87%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">14% (27%)</td></tr><tr><td>United States</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">50% (56%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">29% (26%)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">22% (-19%)</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">*  Values in parentheses represent percentage changes in responses from 2023 to 2025</figcaption></figure>



Source: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2025. Technology Use (Farm Computer Usage and Ownership). Available at: <a href="https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/technology-use-farm-computer-usage-and-ownership">https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/publication/technology-use-farm-computer-usage-and-ownership</a>. 



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



Mills, Devon, and Brian E. Mills. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/10/15/tracking-technology-adoption-on-southern-farms/">Tracking Technology Adoption on Southern Farms.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(43.1). October 20, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42807">Permalink</a>

Tracking Technology Adoption on Southern Farms

Fruit and vegetable sectors are important contributors to the U.S. agriculture economy. At the same time, they are particularly vulnerable to import competition and recorded a positive annual trade balance in just 18 of the 63 years between 1961 and 2023 (Figure 1). 



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full is-resized"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="460" height="385" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/5.42.5-1-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-42801" style="width:645px;height:auto"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data Source: FAO Stat</figcaption></figure>



From an economic perspective, sustainable market competitiveness (whether domestic or international) is driven by a combination of: (1) lower cost throughout the supply chain; (2) prioritized market access – earlier entrance to a market or better market intelligence; and (3) increased value to buyers &#8211; differentiated products that consumers can identify, want, and purchase.&nbsp;



The Southeastern specialty crop sector comprises hundreds of unique crops and growing situations, with the emergence of new or differentiated crops ongoing. While this creates opportunities for market development and response to consumers, it can create challenges for the development and commercialization of innovative technologies to lower costs. Technology development for specialty crops must either target a relatively small number of potential users or be adaptable over differentiated use cases. Agricultural research and manufacturing interests are more likely to focus on the needs of the almost 300,000 U.S. farms (80.6 million acres) growing corn for grain in 2022 than the needs of the less than 8,500 U.S. farms (73,500 acres) growing strawberries. Additive manufacturing technologies may eventually expand solutions for small-volume agricultural needs as they have in manufacturing sectors of the economy (Lu et al., 2024).



There is widespread recognition that the cost and availability of labor are one of the leading challenges (IFPA, 2023; Martin 2024). Mechanized solutions such as precision agriculture, remote sensing, mechanical harvesters, and labor-aids offer potential benefits as labor-saving technologies. Concerns over labor availability and affordability are not new, and neither are attempts to develop mechanization. Yet the adoption of such technologies has been uneven, over time and across commodities. Recent policy changes are aimed at the affordability of workers. On October 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued an Interim Final Rule establishing a new, skill-based methodology for calculating the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) for H-2A agricultural workers in non-range occupations, aiming to lower costs for farmers.



Unique needs among the myriads of commodities, markets, and supply chains that comprise specialty crops makes shifting sector competitiveness challenging, even within seasonal markets. Technologies compatible with large-scale systems may not be feasible on a smaller-scale and vice versa. It is critical to assess technology and information needs for small-scale and regional challenges as well as large commercial farms.&nbsp;



References



International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA). 2023.&nbsp;Future Trends Report. Available online:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.freshproduce.com/resources/consumer-trends/2023-future-trends-report/">https://www.freshproduce.com/resources/consumer-trends/2023-future-trends-report/</a>



Lu, Y., W. Xu, J. Leng, X. Liu, H. Xu, H. Ding, J. Zhou, and L. Cui. 2024. “Review and Research Prospects on Additive Manufacturing Technology for Agricultural Manufacturing.”&nbsp;Agriculture&nbsp;14(8):1207.



Martin, P. 2024.&nbsp;Bracero 2.0: Mexican Workers in North American Agriculture. Oxford University Press.&nbsp;



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



Thirnsbury, Suzanne. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/10/15/southeastern-u-s-specialty-crop-sector-competitiveness-moving-the-needle/">Southeastern U.S. Specialty Crop Sector Competitiveness: Moving the Needle.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 5(42.5). October 17, 2025. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=42799">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities