The Community Capitals Framework (CCF), developed by Jan L. Flora and Cornelia B. Flora (2004), provides a framework and tool for understanding community development initiatives through a systems lens. “The CCF offers a way to analyze community and economic development efforts from a systems perspective by identifying the assets in each capital (stock), the types of capital invested (flow), the interaction among the capitals, and the resulting impacts across capitals” (Emery and Flora, 2020). The CCF draws on seven areas of existing stock (assets) in communities: human, social, political, financial, built, natural, and cultural capital (Graphic 1).



Additionally, Asset Based Community Development (ABCD), grounded in the work of Dr. John McMcKnight and Dr. Jody Kretzman as well as global practitioners, sees communities and individuals as having assets and capacities that grow and strengthen their communities. ABCD focuses on what is strong and not what is wrong in the community as a place to foster and build local leadership for positive, collective change.&nbsp;<a href="https://abcdinstitute.org/">The Asset Based Community Development Institute</a>utilizes six core assets: individuals and skills, local associations, institutions, economic resources, physical (natural plus built assets), and culture, traditions, and stories.



Using the CCF as a framework and tool for measurement and ABCD as an applied tool for community members,&nbsp;the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture (UADA) teaches a&nbsp;&nbsp;Capacity Building through Grant Writing course for communities, hosted by the county Extension office in partnership with the local Community Foundation as well as the planning and economic development district. Since 2022, 793 workshops have been held in 48 counties throughout Arkansas. The data herein focuses on a specific time period of October 2024-September 2025 (Graphic 2).&nbsp;



The Capacity Building through Grant Writing course delivers content focused on the fundamentals of grant writing practice. However, at the heart of the course is an investment in human and social capital. The course begins with a focus on the individual as the best storyteller for their institution or organization. While grant writing is about successfully receiving funds, it is about effective story telling combined with following all guidelines and priorities for the funder. The curriculum also emphasizes an investment in social capital by exploring, understanding, and defining partnerships that currently exist as well as those that should exist through a win-win approach of both organizations gaining from the project and relationship.&nbsp;



Using the Spiraling of Community Assets model (Emery &amp; Flora, 2020, see Graphic 3), the Capacity Building through Grant Writing course invests in human capital through the training. Short-term and medium-term results show a strong result in knowledge gained by participants. With a focus on partnership cultivation, relationship building, and social capital investment, the course is designed to increase the ability for a county to spiral up its assets for collective investment. Through an applied ABCD lens, participants explore how putting people in the center of local investment and decision making creates a shared plan for action and investment.&nbsp;



As identified in the Spiraling of Community Assets model (Emery &amp; Flora, 2020), the course bridges social capital by connecting outside knowledge of Extension professionals with the internal wisdom of community. The course is open to all members of the community regardless of experience level or community position. Participants range from youth, church leaders, parents, and nonprofit organizations to mayors and county officials, fire departments and local. As Emery and Flora (2020) notes, the building of social capital with the engagement of youth to entrepreneurs leads to greater cultural capital and understanding of how local connections strengthen connected investments across sectors. Participants explore a clearer, more interconnected plan of how their requests for funding are tied to philanthropic and federal investment. The spiraling up model of investment in people and their relationship leads to potential investment rather than disinvestment in the community.&nbsp;



Utilizing a grant writing curriculum developed in partnership with the Southern Rural Development Center (SRDC) and adapted for an Arkansas context, institutions and individuals came together for a six-hour workshop. Participants gain an understanding of mission and focus relative to their funding goals, develop a SMART goal (Heathfield, S.M. (2011)&nbsp;outlining the proposed grant-funded project, define win-win partnerships and relationship development, navigate ways to finding a grant opportunity, explore components of writing the narrative, create a logic model for the proposed project, and understand budget development and financial management. From the beginning of the course, participants outline funding goals that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-framed (SMART). This outline of setting a clear goal for funding carries through the course to include measurable outcomes using a logic model framework. For new grant writers, it can be tempting to focus on the need for funds first. However, participants need to focus on the purpose of the funding relative to their organization’s mission.&nbsp;



Grant writing is not a solo endeavor. With a clear sense of direction (SMART goal and logic model) and understanding of existing assets, particularly through the lens of human and social capital, participants determine the gap that can be improved through external funding. Using an ABCD lens, the curriculum explores grant writing as building the capacity of human capacity through opportunities and connections that exist amongst all six assets. While grant writing can be seen through a needs-based perspective, looking at the problem to be addressed, the ABCD lens looks at funds, partnerships, and goals as investment in the community.&nbsp;



While the Community Capitals model emphasizes the existing stock in a community that can grow with investments in its assets, the ABCD lens on community development places people at the center through the lens of its community’s strengths. Through connecting the assets and strengths in the community of individuals, associations, institutions, physical assets, marketplace, and culture, stories and traditions, we empower people to create local change. Both the Community Capitals model and ABCD lens allow us to fully understand and explore the impacts of a program invested in the human passion and social, interconnected systems operating locally.&nbsp;



Graphic 1:&nbsp;Community Capitals Framework



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="733" height="733" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.5-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-44216" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.5-1.jpg 733w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.5-1-150x150.jpg 150w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 733px) 100vw, 733px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Microsoft Co-Pilot (2026)</figcaption></figure>



Graphic 2: University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Capacity Building through Grant Writing Workshop Results 2024-2025. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1620" height="1070" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.5-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44217" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.5-2.png 1620w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.5-2-1024x676.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.5-2-768x507.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.5-2-1536x1015.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1620px) 100vw, 1620px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Microsoft Co-Pilot (2026)</figcaption></figure>



Graphic 3: The Spiraling of Capital Assets.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1406" height="1100" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.5-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44218" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.5-3.png 1406w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.5-3-1024x801.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.5-3-768x601.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1406px) 100vw, 1406px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Emery, M., &amp; Flora, C. (2020)</figcaption></figure>



References



Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a SMART way to write management’s goals and objectives.&nbsp;Journal of Management Review, 70, 35–36.



Beaulieu, L.J. (2006). Promoting community vitality and sustainability: The community capitals framework. Fact Sheet: Purdue University Extension. https://cdextlibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/resource-media/2020/12/Promoting_Community_VitalitySustainability_ADA2026.pdf



Emery, M., &amp; Flora, C. (2020). Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with community capitals framework. In&nbsp;50 Years of Community Development Vol I&nbsp;(pp. 163-179). Routledge.



Flora, C. B., &amp; Flora, J.L. (2008).&nbsp;A paradigm for community development: The Floras’ community capitals. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin–Madison.



Flora, C.B. and J.L. Flora. 2013. Rural Communities: Legacy and Change, 4th Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.



Heathfield, S. M. (2011). Beyond smart goals.&nbsp;About.com Human Resources. Retrieved from http://humanresources.about.com/cs/performancemanage/a/goalsetting.htm&nbsp;



Kretzmann, J. P., &amp; McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community&#8217;s assets. Asset-Based Community Development Institute, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.



Microsoft Co-Pilot (2026). A graphic image of University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Capacity Building through Grant Writing workshop results 2024-2025.&nbsp;



Microsoft Co-Pilot (2026). A graphic image of the Community Capitals Framework.&nbsp;



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



Goodman, Hunter P. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/exploring-human-and-social-capital-capacity-building-through-grant-writing/">Exploring Human and Social Capital: Capacity Building through Grant Writing</a>&#8220;. Southern Ag Today 6(26.5). June 26, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/exploring-human-and-social-capital-capacity-building-through-grant-writing/">Permalink</a>

Exploring Human and Social Capital: Capacity Building through Grant Writing

Authors: Bart L. Fischer and Joe Outlaw



While you will never find us using this platform to attack other regions of the country—as it turns out, we want farmers and ranchers across the entire country to be successful—our colleagues at FarmDoc seemingly never miss a chance to take swipes at Southern agriculture. Typically, their arguments center on some narrow way that federal policy is supposedly disproportionately benefiting producers in the South. We won’t re-plow that ground here, as you can find several other articles where we have taken them to task in response.&nbsp;



But, in one of the latest FarmDoc articles (<a href="https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2026/06/the-evolving-us-southern-crop-problem.html?utm_source=newsletter&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=Tue+Jun+23+2026&amp;utm_campaign=The+Evolving+US+Southern+Crop+Problem">The Evolving US Southern Crop Problem</a>), they take a new approach. Carl Zulauf from Ohio State University argues that Southern harvested acres are declining…and suggests that is proof that Southern agriculture is actually being harmed by the farm safety net. Before we go any further, we can’t help but offer a quick lesson on spurious correlation—the idea that two variables can move together mathematically but not be causally connected. A quick Google search will yield all manner of outstanding examples.<a href="applewebdata://D280121D-C0E4-4574-9841-BFEFCFA071BB#_ftn1">[1]</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;One of our favorites: the popularity of the first name Brooklyn is highly correlated with UFO sightings in Kentucky. Are they correlated? Yes. Are they causally related? Umm….no.



To prove his point, he highlights changing acreage in the South, using cotton, peanuts, and rice as his evidence.&nbsp;&nbsp;Oops…peanut and rice acreage are actually fairly stable (just look at Zulauf’s Figure 2).&nbsp;&nbsp;But, not cotton!&nbsp;&nbsp;He notes that cotton harvested acreage has declined significantly if you look at his random groupings of 1927-1929, 1978-1980, and 2023-2025. Then, if you close your eyes and disengage your brain—and just take at face value his oft-repeated argument that Southern crops have disproportionately benefited from the farm safety net—for him that prompts a “rarely asked question” of whether the support for these crops have hurt Southern crop agriculture in total. We tell our students all the time that there’s no such thing as a dumb question. We may have finally found the exception.&nbsp;&nbsp;



While we could spill gallons of ink addressing this nonsense, we will simply offer three key observations. In the article, he argues that changes in&nbsp;planted&nbsp;acres are the “ultimate” indicator of crop competitiveness…yet he uses&nbsp;harvested&nbsp;acres in his analysis (alongside his arbitrary grouping of years).&nbsp;&nbsp;The problem: he fails to acknowledge significant abandonment in cotton acres (i.e., a large divergence between planted and harvested acres) due to prolonged drought over the last few years in the cotton belt that have nothing to do with competitiveness.&nbsp;&nbsp;



While cotton acres have declined in the group of Southern states used by Zulauf (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia)—with cotton planted acres reaching their low in 1967—they have averaged 9.97 million acres over the 58 years since then (and 10.47 million acres over the last 10 years) as reflected in Figure 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;So, while Zulauf makes considerable noise over the decline in harvested cotton acres since 1927 (and you can find a number of academic articles that describe the reasons behind that decline through 1967 that are beyond the scope of this article), the reality is that cotton planted acres have been relatively stable for the last 60 years.



Figure 1: Planted Acres of Select Crops in the Southern United States, 1909-1925.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2475" height="1498" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.4-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44210" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.4-1.png 2475w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.4-1-1024x620.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.4-1-768x465.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.4-1-1536x930.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.4-1-2048x1240.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2475px) 100vw, 2475px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: NASS-QuickStats</figcaption></figure>



Perhaps more importantly, his article completely ignores the fact that payment acres for Title 1 of the farm safety net have been completely decoupled from production since 1996.&nbsp;&nbsp;While he and some of his colleagues write incessantly about the amount of support for cotton, peanuts, and rice, the reality is that since Freedom to Farm was implemented in 1996, farmers could plant whatever they want (with some restrictions—largely to prevent overplanting of specialty crops) and remain eligible for the farm safety net.&nbsp;&nbsp;You see that dynamic playing out as intended in Figure 2.&nbsp;&nbsp;Over those last 30 years (1996 to 2025), cotton and soybeans have jockeyed for top billing in terms of planted acres in the South.&nbsp;&nbsp;In fact, in 14 of the last 30 years (or 46% of the time), soybean acreage exceeded cotton acreage.&nbsp;&nbsp;While corn and wheat have generally jockeyed for the 3rd&nbsp;and 4th&nbsp;spots, corn overtook cotton in 2025. In other words, farmers have the freedom to plant what commodity markets are indicating will be their most profitable alternative—and the data indicates they do. Profitability is one of many factors that farmers have to consider when making planting decisions, many of which were discussed in a previous&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/10/23/if-crop-returns-are-so-bad-why-do-farmers-keep-planting/">article</a>.



Figure 2: Planted Acres of Select Crops in the Southern United States, 1996-1925.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2520" height="1530" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.4-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44211" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.4-2.png 2520w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.4-2-1024x622.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.4-2-768x466.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.4-2-1536x933.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.4-2-2048x1243.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2520px) 100vw, 2520px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: NASS-QuickStats</figcaption></figure>



While we agree that overall planted acres have gone down in the South, we would argue that this has had absolutely nothing to do with the decoupled support provided in Title 1 of the farm bill.&nbsp;&nbsp;Since the 1970s, we’ve seen a considerable amount of land go into grasslands for conservation (e.g., Conservation Reserve Program) or in support of the cow-calf sector.&nbsp;&nbsp;We’ve also seen land being used for forestry.&nbsp;&nbsp;The point: landowners have the freedom to decide how they want to use their land, and they have done so accordingly.&nbsp;&nbsp;



We save what is perhaps the most egregious point for last.&nbsp;&nbsp;Zulauf argues that part of the harm being done is that it is “inhibiting diversification.” This seems to be a strange statement from someone who comes from a region that predominantly plants two crops. As noted in Figure 1, at one point in history the South planted 30 million acres of corn. Is that the sort of diversification he’s after…the South should plant more corn? As for other crops that have lost acres, there are a litany of reasons why and none of them have anything to do with ARC and PLC either. As we noted above and as reinforced in Figure 2, Southern growers take a number of factors into consideration when deciding what to plant—none of which are ARC or PLC since they are decoupled from production.



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



<a href="applewebdata://D280121D-C0E4-4574-9841-BFEFCFA071BB#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations



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



Fischer, Bart L., and Joe Outlaw. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/farmdoc-continues-to-sow-regional-discord/">FarmDoc Continues to Sow Regional Discord.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(26.4). June 25, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/farmdoc-continues-to-sow-regional-discord/">Permalink</a>

FarmDoc Continues to Sow Regional Discord

Authors: Yuan Zhang, Andrew Anderson, and Ryan Loy



When drought pushed the Mississippi River level to historic lows in late 2022, barge freight rates jumped far above their usual levels. However, those costs do not stop at the river. They are disseminated throughout the grain marketing system and show up at the farmgate as weaker basis.



For corn and soybeans moving from interior elevators to Gulf export terminals, barge transportation helps determine the grain’s local value. When barge rates rise, the cost of moving grain to export markets also rises. Elevators then face a wider gap between what they can pay farmers and the grain’s value at the Gulf. Part of that transportation shock is passed back to producers in the form of lower cash bids.



The size of that pass-through depends heavily on where farmers sell their grain. River transportation conditions, local grain demand, and competition among buyers all influence how much of a change in barge freight costs reaches the farmgate. Low river levels can restrict navigation and raise transportation costs, while differences in local marketing opportunities can either amplify or reduce the resulting impact on basis. As a result, the impact of higher barge rates varies considerably across regions and crops.



Recent research by Zhang et al. (2026) finds evidence that barge freight shocks are passed back to farmers through weaker local corn and soybean basis. Higher barge rates weaken basis for both crops, but the effect is not uniform. Figures 1 and 2 identify areas where barge rate increases had the most severe impact on local basis. Lighter yellow areas indicate larger basis declines from the same increase in barge rates. The strongest impacts are concentrated in southern river states, especially along the lower Mississippi and Ohio River corridors. In the most exposed corn counties, including parts of Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee, more than half of a barge rate increase reaches the farmgate as weaker basis. In the most exposed counties, a $1.00 per bushel increase in barge rates reduced corn basis by roughly 60 to 71 cents and soybean basis by roughly 49 to 53 cents. The crop differences reflect different marketing channels. For corn, the smallest basis impacts tend to occur in areas with more local buying competition and nearby processing alternatives. For soybeans, the smallest impacts tend to occur farther from river ports, reflecting soybeans&#8217; stronger connection to export-oriented barge movement. For southern river states, however, the main result is the same for both crops: higher barge rates lead to substantially weaker local basis.



Figure 1. Estimated Effects of Barge Freight Rate Increases on Local Corn Basis.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1454" height="971" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.3-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44204" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.3-1.png 1454w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.3-1-1024x684.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.3-1-768x513.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1454px) 100vw, 1454px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Estimates are from Zhang et al. (2026), using weekly elevator cash bids from DTN ProphetX, futures prices from Barchart cmdtyView</figcaption></figure>



Figure 2. Estimated Effects of Barge Freight Rate Increases on Local Soybean Basis.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1481" height="990" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.3-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44205" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.3-2.png 1481w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.3-2-1024x685.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.3-2-768x513.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1481px) 100vw, 1481px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Estimates are from Zhang et al. (2026), using weekly elevator cash bids from DTN ProphetX, futures prices from Barchart cmdtyView.</figcaption></figure>



Futures and options can protect farmers against changes in broad commodity prices, but they do not hedge local basis risk. Farmers in highly exposed areas have fewer tools when river disruptions weaken local cash bids, making reliable river navigation especially important for farm profitability. Investments that reduce navigation disruptions can help protect farm revenues, particularly in counties along the lower Mississippi River, where transportation shocks are strongly passed through. Local competition also matters. When farms have fewer elevator options, more of the transportation shock is reflected in their cash bids. Practical responses include diversifying buyers, selling to nearby processors when possible, and using owned or leased storage to wait out short-term navigation problems. Together, these findings highlight how transportation infrastructure and local marketing opportunities influence the extent to which farmers absorb river-related transportation shocks.



References



Zhang, Y., A. E. Anderson, N. J. Pates, and E. Park. 2026. “When the River Runs Low: Heterogeneous Impacts of Transportation Disruptions on Local Grain Basis.”&nbsp;Agribusiness. doi: 10.1002/agr.70108.



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



Zhang, Yuan, Andrew Anderson, and Ryan Loy. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/22/when-the-river-runs-low-southern-grain-farmers-pay-the-most/">When the River Runs Low, Southern Grain Farmers Pay the Most.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(26.3). June 24, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/22/when-the-river-runs-low-southern-grain-farmers-pay-the-most/">Permalink</a>

When the River Runs Low, Southern Grain Farmers Pay the Most

The latest USDA Cattle on Feed report was released on Thursday, June 18th.&nbsp;&nbsp;While there weren’t any big surprises in the report, it highlighted several interesting trends that will be worth watching over the next few months.



May feedlot marketings, those cattle sold by feedlots to packers, were down 11.8 percent compared to last May.&nbsp;&nbsp;Part of that decline was due to one less operating day in May 2026 compared to May 2025, which cut about 5 percentage points off marketings.&nbsp;&nbsp;But, marketings remained low regardless of the number of days.&nbsp;&nbsp;More days on feed, reduced packing plant schedules, and fewer cattle have slowed marketings.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Placements of cattle into feedyards were down 9.7 percent compared to last May.&nbsp;&nbsp;Normally, close to 200,000 more feeders are placed in May than in April each year.&nbsp;&nbsp;The larger May placements are often driven by cattle coming off wheat pasture that has been grazed out or other winter grazing programs reaching the end of cool season grass pastures.&nbsp;&nbsp;This year, May placements were only 2,000 head more than April.&nbsp;&nbsp;May placements were almost smaller than April for the first time.&nbsp;&nbsp;It’s likely that some cattle that would have been placed in May were pulled forward into April given the drought status of many areas.&nbsp;&nbsp;One of the other interesting trends in placements this year is the small month to month differences.&nbsp;&nbsp;Monthly placements in 2026 have ranged from a low of 1.611 million head in February to a high of 1.741 million head in January.&nbsp;&nbsp;Normally, there is a range of about 300,000 head.&nbsp;&nbsp;This dampening of seasonal placements may have some interesting effects on marketings and beef supplies late in the year.



The combination of 1.551 million head marketed and 1.704 million head placed left the total number of cattle on feed larger than last year by 2.1 percent on June 1.  That is the second consecutive month with more cattle on feed than the prior year and it continued the unusual trend of growing numbers on feed in the first half of the year.  What does this mean for the rest of the year?  More cattle on feed may mean more cattle ready for slaughter late in the year compared to last year.  That should pressure prices later in 2026.  The reduced placements might suggest fewer heifers being sent to feedlots but there is little evidence to support that idea.  The July cattle on feed report will include the quarterly estimate of the number of heifers on feed and that will shed some light on heifer retention.



<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/2026/06/6.26.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44197" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.2-1.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.2-1-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.2-1-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.2-1-1536x1152.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/2026/06/6.26.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44198" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.2-2.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.2-2-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.2-2-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.2-2-1536x1152.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/2026/06/6.26.2-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44199" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.2-3.png 1920w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.2-3-1024x768.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.2-3-768x576.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.2-3-1536x1152.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/2026/06/22/feedlot-placements-and-marketings-drop-sharply/">Feedlot Placements and Marketings Drop Sharply.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(26.2). June 23, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/22/feedlot-placements-and-marketings-drop-sharply/">Permalink</a>

Feedlot Placements and Marketings Drop Sharply

Authors: Jingyuan Zhang, Sushil Paudyal and Grace Melo



Finding reliable workers has become increasingly difficult for U.S. farmers, especially for physically demanding agricultural jobs (U.S. Department of Agriculture,&nbsp;2023). The pool of domestic workers willing to take these jobs continues to shrink, even as wages have increased. In response, many farms have turned to the H-2A program.&nbsp;



Between 2015 and 2024, the number of certified H-2A workers more than doubled, reaching 350,000 or more (Figure 1). These workers now represent a significant share of the agricultural labor force and play an important role in supporting food production.



Figure 1. Number of H-2A Workers Certified, 2015–2024



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1954" height="1141" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44178" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.1.png 1954w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.1-1024x598.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.1-768x448.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.1-1536x897.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1954px) 100vw, 1954px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Performance Data 2015-2024</figcaption></figure>



The program has been, and remains, heavily concentrated on crop agriculture (Escalante, 2023). More than 80% of H-2A workers are employed in crop production, while animal farms make limited use of the program (Figure 2). Although the number of H-2A workers in animal agriculture increased from about 7,500 to over 17,500 since 2015 (Figure 1), they accounted for only 4.7% of total H-2A employment in 2024 (Figure 2). This raises an important question: why is adoption so low among livestock farmers, and how could the program better serve their needs?



Figure 2. Number of H-2A Workers Certified by Sector, 2024



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1954" height="1141" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.1-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44179" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.1-2.png 1954w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.1-2-1024x598.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.1-2-768x448.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/6.26.1-2-1536x897.png 1536w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1954px) 100vw, 1954px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Performance Data, 2024</figcaption></figure>



A survey conducted with 133 livestock producers in Texas—including 99 beef cattle producers (Zhang and Melo, 2026) and 34 dairy farmers—provides insight into these questions. Farmers in both sectors reported persistent labor challenges, with 81% of beef cattle producers and 71% of dairy producers struggling with labor hiring, turnover, training, and retention. Although both sectors demand substantial labor, beef cattle operations often have more flexible and varied labor needs, while dairy farms tend to focus more on traditional agricultural tasks such as cow care, milking, and farm maintenance. Dairy farms also tend to hire more workers, require more hours per worker, and have a relatively higher share of farms paying higher wages. These trends align with Escalante and Gutierrez-Li (2025). However, producers in both sectors similarly reported four main barriers that limit H-2A use in cattle operations:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>The program is limited to temporary or seasonal work, whereas livestock production typically requires year-round labor, making many operations ineligible. This is particularly true for dairy farms, where milking and animal care are continuous.</li>



<li>H-2A requires employers to guarantee at least 35 hours of work per week. Livestock labor needs, however, are often variable. For example, beef operations may require fewer hours during some periods and more intensive labor during others, making it difficult for many farms to commit to and reliably meet the required minimum (U.S. Department of Labor, 2023).</li>



<li>The Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) is often viewed as too high for livestock farmers. During our survey period in Texas, the AEWR was $15.55 per hour. In contrast, 67% of beef producers and 29% of dairy producers reported paying $13 per hour or less, and only a negligible share paid above $16. While the AEWR is intended to protect domestic workers, the required wage, combined with housing and transportation costs, can be difficult for livestock farms operating on tight margins.</li>



<li>The program lacks flexibility in job duties. Employers must specify H-2A tasks in advance, and some routine livestock activities, such as hauling cattle or transporting feed and milk, may fall outside the program’s definition of agricultural work (Congressional Research Service,&nbsp;2021). This creates uncertainty and potential legal risks for producers whose labor needs often shift with weather, emergencies, and animal conditions.</li>
</ul>



Despite these challenges, interest in the program remains strong. About 85% of dairy farmers and 78% of beef cattle producers in the survey indicated they would benefit from a more flexible H-2A program. Farmers broadly support reforms that would allow year-round employment, introduce more flexible scheduling and job duties, and simplify and speed up the application process. Targeted policy reforms that relax seasonality restrictions, increase flexibility in hours and job duties, and streamline administrative requirements would directly address the binding constraints identified by producers and are likely to facilitate broader adoption of the H-2A program in livestock operations, thereby alleviating persistent labor shortages and supporting the stability of U.S. animal agriculture.



References



Congressional Research Service. (2021).&nbsp;The H-2A temporary agricultural worker program&nbsp;(R44849).&nbsp;<a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44849">https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44849</a>



Escalante, Cesar L. “Sectoral and Regional Concentration of H-2A Patronage.” Southern Ag Today 3(42.3). October 18, 2023.&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2023/10/18/sectoral-and-regional-concentration-of-h-2a-patronage/">https://southernagtoday.org/2023/10/18/sectoral-and-regional-concentration-of-h-2a-patronage/</a>



Escalante, Cesar L., and Alejandro Gutierrez-Li.&nbsp;“Relating Crop and Livestock H-2A Labor Decisions to AEWR and Sectoral Wage Gaps.” Southern Ag Today 5(18.1). April 28, 2025.&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/04/28/relating-crop-and-livestock-h-2a-labor-decisions-to-aewr-and-sectoral-wage-gaps/">https://southernagtoday.org/2025/04/28/relating-crop-and-livestock-h-2a-labor-decisions-to-aewr-and-sectoral-wage-gaps/</a>



U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2023).&nbsp;Farm labor report. Economic Research Service.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/">https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/</a>



U.S. Department of Labor. (2024).&nbsp;Office of Foreign Labor Certification performance data.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/foreign-labor/performance">https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/foreign-labor/performance</a>



U.S. Department of Labor. (2023).&nbsp;H-2A temporary agricultural program: Employer requirements.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/agriculture/h2a">https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/agriculture/h2a</a>



Zhang, Jingyuan, and Grace Melo.&nbsp;Does Administration Mode Affect Survey Outcomes Among Hard-to-Reach Populations? An Intercept Survey with Beef Cattle Farmers.&nbsp;Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 2026, 1-20.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2026.10040">https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2026.10040</a>



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



Melo, Grace. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/22/h-2a-labor-an-opportunity-for-beef-cattle-and-dairy-farms/">H-2A Labor: An Opportunity for Beef Cattle and Dairy Farms?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(26.1). June 22, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/22/h-2a-labor-an-opportunity-for-beef-cattle-and-dairy-farms/">Permalink</a>

H-2A Labor: An Opportunity for Beef Cattle and Dairy Farms?

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>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities