Authors: Alicia Rihn, Melinda Knuth, Charlie Hall, Ariana Torres



The U.S. environmental horticulture industry, commonly referred to as the&nbsp;green industry, is an economically important sector that encompasses firms involved with the production and sales of horticultural products and services, including greenhouses, wholesale nurseries, turfgrass sod producers; landscape design, construction, and maintenance firms; and wholesale and retail distribution channels including garden centers, mass merchandisers, and allied trade suppliers. The Green Industry has been a consistent contributor to the U.S. economy, with national impact studies conducted since the 1980s documenting its employment, output, and GDP (gross domestic product) contributions using national surveys and IMPLAN input-output modeling (Hall et al. 2006; Hodges et al. 2011; Hodges et al. 2015; Hall et al. 2020). Between 2013 and 2018 alone, industry contributions grew by 16.2% in employment and 17.3% in output in inflation-adjusted terms (Hall et al. 2020), underscoring the sector’s resilience and economic footprint.



The present study extends this research to 2023, providing updated national estimates and a focused look at economic contributions across southern U.S. regions. In the U.S., the south includes key states involved with producing horticultural products. Eight regions were used for the analysis: Southeast, Southcentral, Appalachian, Northeast, Midwest, Great Plains, Mountain, and Pacific (Figure 1). The data presented here was collected by the Green Industry Research Consortium, which has collected data on industry-related topics for more than 30 years. The Consortium is a multi-state research project group of agricultural economists and horticulturists that conduct economic impact statements for the Green Industry in the U.S. every five years. Results from the latest data collected by the group are presented below and are based on Knuth et al. (2026). Understanding where economic activity is concentrated within the South has direct implications for resource allocation decisions, Extension programming priorities, and industry advocacy efforts at the state level.&nbsp;



<h1 class="wp-block-heading">Total U.S Green Industry Economic Impacts</h1>



In 2023, across industry sectors, the U.S. green industry supported approximately 2.9M jobs and generated $519.7B in total economic output (Table 1). Compared to 2018 estimates of 2.3M jobs and $348.1B in output (Hall et al. 2020), this represents roughly a 27% increase in employment and nearly 50% growth in output over five years, a notable trajectory for an industry that had been characterized as entering a mature, slow-growth phase in prior decades. These gains likely reflect post-pandemic rebounds in residential landscaping demand, increased consumer investment in outdoor living spaces, and growth in green infrastructure spending.&nbsp;



Value-added output, the industry’s direct contribution to GDP, reached $302.7B, with&nbsp;labor income accounting for $175.1B of that total. These figures underscore that the green industry is not only large in terms of sales volume but also generates substantial wages and benefits for millions of workers across production, services, and retail segments. The industry also contributed $69.1B in taxes across all levels of government, including $11.7B in local taxes, $15.2B in state taxes, and $42.1B in federal taxes. Federal taxes accounted for the largest proportion of the industry’s tax contribution, which is not surprising given the size of the green industry workforce.



<h1 class="wp-block-heading">Southern Region Green Industry Economic Impacts</h1>



Three regions will be focused on for this section, including the Southeast, Southcentral and Appalachian regions which consist of 15 states across the South. Collectively, these three regions accounted for roughly 35% of national green industry employment (1.0M jobs) in 2023, with the largest portion being in the Southeast region, followed by the Southcentral and Appalachian regions (Figure 2). The regions accounted for $174.8B in total economic output (34% of total economic output in 2023) with a similar trend where the Southeast region has the highest output ($75.9B), followed by the Southcentral and Appalachian regions. The Southeast region led all three southern regions across these economic indicators, more than the Southcentral and Appalachian regions combined. This is consistent with the concentration of nursery and floriculture production, landscaping services, and retail distribution in states like Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia, which have historically ranked among the top green industry states nationally (Hall et al. 2020).



Value-added output across the three regions totaled $103.0B, led by the Southeast region, then the Southcentral region, and the Appalachian region. The regions had $59.3B in labor income and $23.6B in total taxes. The federal taxes were $14.3B, while state taxes were $5.2B, and local taxes were $4.0B. The distribution of tax contributions mirrors the employment pattern, with the Southeast region generating the largest fiscal impact at all levels of government, followed by the Southcentral region and Appalachian region.



<h1 class="wp-block-heading">Summary</h1>



The U.S. green industry remains a major economic force, supporting approximately 2.9M jobs and generating $519.8B in output nationally in 2023—representing roughly 27% employment growth and nearly 50% output growth since 2018, demonstrating continued resilience despite broader economic disruptions. The industry&#8217;s $302.7B in value-added contributions and $175.1B in labor income reflect its deep integration into the broader U.S. economy, while its $69.1B in tax contributions across federal, state, and local levels underscore its fiscal significance. Southern states play a particularly prominent role, with the Southeast, Southcentral, and Appalachian regions collectively accounting for approximately one-third of national green industry employment and output. Among these, the Southeast region dominates across all economic indicators, driven by the concentration of nursery and floriculture production, landscaping services, and retail distribution in states such as Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia. These findings have direct implications for multiple stakeholders: green industry firms can use the data to inform investment decisions, business planning, and competitive positioning within their respective markets; Extension professionals can leverage regional economic profiles to prioritize programming efforts and tailor educational resources to areas of greatest industry concentration; and industry associations and advocacy groups can employ these economic impact figures to strengthen policy arguments, justify workforce development initiatives, and secure support for infrastructure investments that benefit the sector. Understanding where economic activity is concentrated also helps state and local governments recognize the green industry&#8217;s contributions to employment and tax revenues, potentially influencing decisions related to land use, water access, and labor policy.



Figure 1. U.S. Regions Used in the Economic Impact Analysis.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="756" height="324" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.5-1.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-43848"/><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Note: Regions were adapted from USDA Farm Production Regions.</figcaption></figure>



Table 1. Economic Contributions of the U.S. Green Industry Nationally and By Region.



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>Region</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center"># of States</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Employment (Jobs)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Output (M$)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Value Added (M$)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Labor Income (M$)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Local Tax (M$)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of State Tax (M$)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Federal Tax (M$)</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">Sum of Total Tax (M$)</td></tr><tr><td>Midwest</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">8</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">571,754</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">104,689</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">59,072</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">33,814</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,307</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,977</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">8,162</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">13,445</td></tr><tr><td>Northeast</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">12</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">555,189</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">103,312</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">60,233</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">35,097</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,348</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">3,035</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">8,417</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">13,800</td></tr><tr><td>Pacific</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">482,249</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">88,287</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">52,288</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">30,510</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,946</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,558</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">7,302</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">11,806</td></tr><tr><td>Southeast</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">466,054</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">75,930</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">44,932</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">25,987</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,712</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,230</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">6,241</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">10,183</td></tr><tr><td>Southcentral</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">293,549</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">50,565</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">29,895</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">17,194</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,227</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,557</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">4,140</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">6,924</td></tr><tr><td>Appalachian</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">5</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">288,232</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">48,307</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">28,179</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">16,204</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,131</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,446</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">3,903</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">6,480</td></tr><tr><td>Mountain</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">7</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">227,886</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">38,231</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">22,286</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">12,997</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">864</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,119</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">3,116</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">5,099</td></tr><tr><td>Great Plains</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">61,218</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">10,442</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">5,883</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">3,346</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">242</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">306</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">810</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">1,358</td></tr><tr><td>Grand Total</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">51</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">2,946,132</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">519,763</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">302,768</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">175,149</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">11,776</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">15,228</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">42,091</td><td class="has-text-align-right" data-align="right">69,095</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: Knuth et al. 2026</figcaption></figure>

The Economic Contributions of the Southeast Region’s Green Industry 

Authors: Bart L. Fischer and Joe L. Outlaw



While the agricultural industry in the U.S. has long relied on trade as a major demand outlet, the agricultural trade deficit ballooned to more than $100 billion in total over the last 4 years, and at the same time, the United States has been experiencing unparalleled growth in export competition. While the current administration is using retaliatory tariffs as a tool to attempt to reset the deck, we increasingly are hearing from various corners that the U.S. cannot trade its way out of the low-price scenario we are facing for row crops.&nbsp;&nbsp;While we might take a more nuanced view than that assessment, it does beg the question of what the U.S. is doing—and what more could be done—to expand demand here at home for agricultural commodities.



While much of that work falls to the private sector, the Federal government certainly plays a role, including by both directly purchasing products and by providing incentives.&nbsp;&nbsp;With respect to purchases, the U.S. government has long been a significant buyer of U.S. agricultural commodities.&nbsp;&nbsp;For example, for more than 200 years, the U.S. government has been purchasing U.S.-grown commodities to donate overseas in the form of emergency food aid.&nbsp;&nbsp;In addition, the&nbsp;Buy American Act&nbsp;(P.L. 72-428) was signed into law in 1933—a contemporary of the nation’s first farm bill—and required the U.S. government to give preference to U.S.-made products in all its purchases.&nbsp;&nbsp;As another example, the Berry Amendment is a statutory requirement originally adopted in 1941 “that restricts the Department of Defense (DoD) from using funds appropriated or otherwise available to DoD for procurement of food, clothing, fabrics, fibers, yarns, other made-up textiles, and hand or measuring tools that are not grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States.”<a href="applewebdata://4917C694-EF9E-43F5-80B2-7C624095A38B#_ftn1">[1]</a>



While government purchases continue to be a significant demand source, the U.S. government has also been doing more to incentivize the private sector to purchase U.S.-grown commodities.&nbsp;&nbsp;Perhaps the most notable example is the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and the impact that ethanol has had on the demand for corn and other feedstocks. That debate continues today as Congress considers whether to authorize the sale of year-round E15 and as the details are worked out on 45Z and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).&nbsp;&nbsp;While we are all familiar with the biofuel examples, there are other examples being introduced in Congress, including the&nbsp;Grown in America Act of 2025&nbsp;(H.R. 1707) and the&nbsp;Buying American Cotton Act of 2026&nbsp;(H.R.7230/S.1919).&nbsp;&nbsp;Both bills are starting to pick up steam with a growing list of co-sponsors.



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>The Grown in America Act of 2025 was proposed by the Ag Investment for America Coalition which is made up of a broad cross-section of commodity organizations and domestic food and beverage manufacturers.<a href="applewebdata://4917C694-EF9E-43F5-80B2-7C624095A38B#_ftn2">[2]</a>  It was introduced in the House in the 119th Congress by Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN-8) and includes 32 bipartisan co-sponsors (including 4 original sponsors).  The bill aims to expand demand for domestic agricultural commodities and encourage additional investment in domestic supply chains by establishing a tax credit for food and beverage manufacturers that source their raw agricultural inputs from U.S. farmers and ranchers.  The tax credit would be equal to 25% of the value of domestically sourced agricultural commodities used in the production of a food or beverage for human consumption.</li>
</ul>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>The Buying American Cotton Act of 2026 was proposed by the National Cotton Council.<a href="applewebdata://4917C694-EF9E-43F5-80B2-7C624095A38B#_ftn3">[3]</a>  It was introduced in the House in the 119th Congress by Rep. Greg Murphy (R‑NC-3) and includes 70 bipartisan co-sponsors (including 23 original sponsors). It was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R‑MS) and includes 14 bipartisan co-sponsors (including 3 original sponsors), including Sen. John Boozman (R-AR), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. The bill aims to encourage the consumption of U.S.-grown cotton, including the consumption of products made from such cotton, by establishing a tax credit for retailers.  The tax credit would be equal to 18-24% of the value of the U.S.-grown cotton contained in the article of clothing (with the range depending on whether it was manufactured in a country with whom the United States has a free trade agreement in place).  </li>
</ul>



These bills have 15 co-sponsors in common, including the support of Rep. G.T. Thompson (R-PA-15), Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture. Between the America First focus of the Trump Administration and a growing bipartisan interest on Capitol Hill post-COVID in bolstering U.S. supply chains, we can envision both bills receiving favorable treatment on Capitol Hill.



Given the growth in export competition, U.S. farmers are going to need all of the domestic solutions they can get to increase prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;All of the alternatives discussed in this article will do that, and the sooner the better.



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



<a href="applewebdata://4917C694-EF9E-43F5-80B2-7C624095A38B#_ftnref1">[1]</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.trade.gov/berry-amendment">https://www.trade.gov/berry-amendment</a>



<a href="applewebdata://4917C694-EF9E-43F5-80B2-7C624095A38B#_ftnref2">[2]</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aginvestmentforamerica.com/">https://www.aginvestmentforamerica.com</a>



<a href="applewebdata://4917C694-EF9E-43F5-80B2-7C624095A38B#_ftnref3">[3]</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cotton.org/news/releases/2026/ncc-on-baca-house-intro.cfm">https://www.cotton.org/news/releases/2026/ncc-on-baca-house-intro.cfm</a>

Expanding Domestic Demand for Agriculture

Authors: Adam Rabinowitz, Wendiam Sawadgo, Will Maples, and Sthefani Oliveira



Fertilizer is a significant input in the production of row crops for farmers that can quickly disrupt previously calculated break-even levels and marketing decisions. Since the production of fertilizer – especially nitrogen fertilizer – depends on natural gas, it is also very closely tied to oil market activities. There has been much attention in the news about the conflict in the Middle East, the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, and oil prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;The lack of oil flowing through the Strait is affecting oil markets throughout the world and raising concerns about how farmers will be affected.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Farmer Pre-booking of Fertilizer



To better understand the challenges faced by farmers, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) conducted&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fb.org/market-intel/farm-bureau-survey-reveals-real-impact-of-fertilizer-availability-and-price">a survey of farmers</a>&nbsp;throughout the U.S. from April 3-11.&nbsp;&nbsp;The AFBF survey asked about fertilizer and fuel purchasing and potential impacts from the recent price increases.&nbsp;&nbsp;Respondents in the Southern region reported the lowest percentage of all respondents who pre-booked fertilizer, at 19%, compared to the high of 67% in the Midwest. This means that proportionately more farmers in the South are now facing higher-than-expected input costs as planting approaches. The increase in break-even prices means farmers need to reevaluate what constitutes a “good” marketing opportunity. A price target that looked feasible during the winter may not cover updated input costs. Prior sales also need to be evaluated in this context. Bushels priced earlier in the winter, based on lower cost expectations, may now be insufficient to cover higher input costs.&nbsp;



Farm Input Price Trends



While the recent spike in fertilizer and diesel prices has created additional challenges, it is also important to understand the broader context of these prices over time.&nbsp;&nbsp;The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service collects prices for several fertilizer and other input products in Alabama. The minimum and maximum price of each product has been reported weekly since October 2017.&nbsp;&nbsp;The area between the minimum and maximum price depicts the range in prices that farmers pay in Alabama.&nbsp;&nbsp;Figures 1 and 2 show the price ranges for urea and farm diesel.&nbsp;&nbsp;



There are two important observations to be made from these price charts.&nbsp;&nbsp;First, changes in the lowest price are not always the same as changes in the highest price.&nbsp;&nbsp;Thus, it is important for farmers to look for where they can find the best price or to consider strategies to obtain lower prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;Carefully planning the purchase (or pre-purchase) of inputs can help farmers obtain lower prices.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Second, while prices toward the end of 2025 had decreased from the peak in early 2022, they still had not returned to pre-2021 levels. This is true for both the inputs shown in Figures 1 and 2, as well as for inputs that have not seen major price increases since the start of the war, such as ammonium nitrate, DAP, and potash. Before the current price increases, we started to see the range between the lowest and highest prices shrink, a potential sign that markets were stabilizing at that time. The current increase may not maintain that trend, and seeing the bigger picture helps inform future expectations.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Takeaway Message



It is important to maintain focus on the broader issues in the farm economy. While the prices of urea and diesel have risen significantly since the end of February, simply correcting that increase will not address the longer-term issues at hand.&nbsp;&nbsp;Farmers have faced higher prices for inputs since the increases in 2021, compared to prices from late 2017 to early 2021. Given the volatility in fertilizer prices, discipline will be required in marketing decisions going forward.



Will Maples noted in&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/03/04/what-determines-a-good-price/">a recent Southern Ag Today article</a>&nbsp;that knowing cost of production to estimate breakeven costs should be the starting point for determining pricing goals as part of a pre-harvest marketing plan. When the pricing of inputs changes, it is advisable to watch those breakeven costs and maintain flexibility in marketing activities.&nbsp;



Farmers might also consider splitting intended sales into smaller portions and committing those bushels as price opportunities and cost estimates evolve. Thinking about sales in smaller units, such as 5,000 bushels, allows producers to remain more flexible in their marketing decisions. This approach provides the ability to adjust as conditions change.



Farmers should also have a plan for any unpriced grain that could be placed into storage. With increases in break-even costs, farmers may choose to store grain at harvest or may be forced to sell to meet cash flow or loan obligations. For Southern producers, this situation may be more challenging. The region generally has less on-farm storage capacity and, as noted earlier, fewer producers pre-booked fertilizer. Together, the factors discussed increase the need for farmers to pay careful attention to their marketing plan and maintain flexibility in their risk management strategies.



Figure 1. Urea: Quarterly Price Range in Alabama, 2017-2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="881" height="541" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.3-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43862" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.3-1.png 881w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.3-1-768x472.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 881px) 100vw, 881px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: USDA-AMS. Alabama Production Cost Report (Weekly).</figcaption></figure>



Figure 2. Farm Diesel: Quarterly Price Range in Alabama, 2017-2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="891" height="558" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.3-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43863" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.3-2.png 891w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.3-2-768x481.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 891px) 100vw, 891px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Data source: USDA-AMS. Alabama Production Cost Report (Weekly).</figcaption></figure>



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



References:



Maples, William. “What Determines a “Good” Price?” Southern Ag Today 6(10.3). March 4, 2026.&nbsp;



USDA-AMS.&nbsp;Alabama Production Cost Report (Weekly). Available at:&nbsp;<a href="https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/viewReport/3051">https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/viewReport/3051</a>



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



Rabinowitz, Adam, Wendiam Sawadgo, Will Maples, and Stefan Oliveira. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/fertilizer-prices-a-recent-price-spike-but-a-longer-term-issue-that-impacts-marketing-decisions/">Fertilizer Prices: A Recent Price Spike but a Longer-Term Issue that Impacts Marketing Decisions.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(18.3). April 29, 2026. <a href="http://v">Permalink</a>

Fertilizer Prices: A Recent Price Spike but a Longer-Term Issue that Impacts Marketing Decisions

Authors: Josh Maples and David Anderson



The USDA Livestock Slaughter 2025 Summary was released last week and showed U.S. red meat production declined about 2 percent in 2025 from 2024 levels. Beef production was the main driver of the overall decrease in red meat supplies at 3.6 percent below 2024. Pork production was 0.8 percent lower than in 2024, while lamb production was essentially flat.&nbsp;&nbsp;An observant reader will notice that lamb production is such a small portion of total red meat production that it does not readily show up on the attached chart of total red meat supplies.



Digging deeper into beef production and cattle slaughter highlights the impact of larger harvest weights on beef supply. Commercial cattle slaughter totaled 29.8 million head, down 6 percent from 2024. However, average live weights increased by 33 pounds. The rise in live weights provided some offset to the smaller number of cattle moving through processing plants in 2025. Average live weights have increased by 67 pounds since 2023.



The mix of steers, heifers, and cows as a proportion of total cattle slaughter shifted somewhat in 2025, although not in a way that would suggest herd expansion. Steers comprised 49.7 percent of total federally inspected cattle slaughter, up from 48.6 percent in 2024. That is not to say that more steers were slaughtered, but, as fewer cows were culled, steers made up a larger percentage of total cattle slaughter.&nbsp;&nbsp;Heifers made up 31.7 percent of cattle slaughter, down slightly from 32 percent the previous year. Cull cows represented 17 percent of total slaughter, down from 17.8 percent in 2024. Within the cull cow total, 53 percent were dairy cows, up from 49 percent in 2024.The April Cold Storage report from USDA provides a snapshot of meat supplies in freezers at the end of March. Total red meat in cold storage was down 2 percent from a year ago, with beef inventories declining 3 percent. Pork in cold storage was up 2 percent from last year, while poultry supplies were down 5 percent year over year. Within the poultry category, chicken inventories were down 3 percent, while turkey in cold storage was down 9 percent from last year.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="936" height="618" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43853" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.2-1.png 936w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.2-1-768x507.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 936px) 100vw, 936px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="936" height="608" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43854" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.2-2.png 936w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/6.18.2-2-768x499.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 936px) 100vw, 936px" /></figure>



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



Maples, Josh, and David Anderson. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/decline-in-2025-red-meat-production-driven-by-beef/">Decline in 2025 Red Meat Production Driven by Beef.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(18.2). April 28, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/decline-in-2025-red-meat-production-driven-by-beef/">Permalink</a>

Decline in 2025 Red Meat Production Driven by Beef

Authors: Gracen Briges, Kelli Russell, and Mykel Taylor



In the first article of this <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/04/20/more-than-a-number-the-farmer-lender-relationship/">series</a>, we explored how farmers describe their relationships with lenders, identifying three general types of relationships: trusting and collaborative, strained and tense, and transactional and unstable. In this second article, we focus on the challenges that can disrupt or strain relationships. Drawing on 74 interviews with 98 farmers and ranchers across four states (Alabama, Kansas, Montana, and North Carolina), findings indicate that turnover, mergers, and financial pressures contribute to disruption, while concerns over trust and financial vulnerability affect how farmers engage with their lenders.  



Turnover, Mergers, and Institutional Changes



“They had a lot of&nbsp;<a>turnover</a>&nbsp;lately, so I don&#8217;t know who I&#8217;m working with as well as I used to.” &#8211; Kansas livestock, row crop, and forage producer&nbsp;



Farmers frequently described turnover and institutional changes as key sources of instability in their lender relationships. Changes in loan officers at their lending institution required farmers to repeatedly rebuild relationships, reestablish credibility, and explain the details and goals of their operation. Repeated transitions to a new lender limited farmers&#8217; ability to develop long-term trust and familiarity, which many farmers viewed as essential to a good lender relationship.&nbsp;



Broader institutional shifts, including mergers and acquisitions, further contributed to instability in the relationship. In many of these merger cases, institutional priorities shifted away from agriculture lending, leaving farmers feeling less understood and supported. According to the 2025 Ag Lender Survey Report from the American Bankers Association and Farmer Mac, lenders anticipate a 27% turnover rate among agricultural lending staff over the next five years, reinforcing the likelihood of ongoing disruption and repeated need for relationship-building.&nbsp;



Fear, Trust, and Financial Vulnerability



“They&#8217;re gonna look at numbers for access&nbsp;<a>for</a>&nbsp;capital. They&nbsp;<a>have to</a>&#8211; they&#8217;re regulated by that, and that&#8217;s their obligation.”&nbsp;&nbsp;&#8211; Alabama livestock producer



Farmers are uncomfortable sharing detailed personal and financial information with lenders they do not know or trust. They recognize that lenders prioritize financial performance and risk management in accordance with their institutional goals, which can raise concerns about whose specific interests were being served. This awareness makes some farmers hesitant to disclose information, especially during financial hardships. Fear of judgement, mistrust of lender’s motives, and a sense of vulnerability often shape how farmers interact with their lenders, creating a cautious guarded approach.&nbsp;



During periods of financial stress, these feelings are heightened. Farmers may limit the information they share, which reduces the opportunities for lenders to offer support, advice, and problem solving. Oftentimes the relationships become transactional or constrained, leaving farmers feeling at risk. Acknowledging the farmer’s mindset in these situations is essential for improving and fostering a more supportive, transparent relationship.&nbsp;



Conclusion



Farmer-lender relationships play an important role in agricultural operations, but they are often shaped by continuity, confidence, and risk. Turnovers, mergers, and institutional changes can disrupt relationships, requiring farmers to continuously rebuild relationships and limit the development of long-term confidence in their lenders. At the same time, farmers&#8217; awareness of lenders’ financial and regulatory obligations can make them more cautious, especially in times of financial stress. Feelings of uncertainty and vulnerability may limit open communication, reducing the opportunity for the lender to understand and support operations.&nbsp;



While strong, collaborative partnerships are highly valued, they can be hard to build and maintain in an ever-changing lender environment. Strained relationships can have consequences for the farmer including missed opportunities for guidance, support, and improved financial decisions. Recognizing these dynamics emphasizes the value of fostering continuity, building confidence, managing risk, and strengthening the relationship as a whole to the benefit of both farmer and lender.&nbsp;



References



American Bankers Association &amp; Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac). (2025). 2025 Ag Lender Survey Report. Released November 12, 2025. American Bankers Association; Farmer Mac. Summary available online.

Challenges in the Farmer-Lender Relationship

On April 27, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in&nbsp;Durnell v. Monsanto, a case brought by a Missouri plaintiff who alleges that exposure to the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, caused him to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The case is one of thousands filed over the past decade against Monsanto Company (now owned by Bayer) by plaintiffs claiming that Roundup use caused cancer and that Monsanto failed to warn consumers of the risk. Bayer argues that these state law claims are preempted by federal pesticide law and should be dismissed. After years of litigation, that question is now before the Supreme Court, and its ruling could affect not only Roundup-related cases but also future lawsuits involving other pesticides.



Roundup is among the most widely used herbicides in the United States. Since the 1990s, it has been central to Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” system, which pairs glyphosate-resistant seeds with herbicide application to allow spraying during growing seasons. Roundup has also been widely used in home and municipal landscaping.



Since 2015, tens of thousands of lawsuits have been filed against Bayer alleging that Roundup caused cancer. These cases are typically brought under state products liability law, particularly failure to warn claims. Bayer has consistently argued that such claims are preempted by federal law. Only a small number of cases have gone to trial, and outcomes have varied widely. Some juries have ruled in Bayer’s favor, while others have awarded plaintiffs damages exceeding $2 billion. Federal appellate courts are divided: the Third Circuit has held that federal law preempts these claims, while the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have held that it does not.



The plaintiff in&nbsp;Durnell&nbsp;filed suit in Missouri state court in 2019. A jury found that Monsanto failed to warn him of potential health risks and awarded $1.25 million in damages. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict, rejecting Bayer’s preemption argument. The Missouri Supreme Court declined to review the case, bringing the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.



At the center of the dispute is the Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide, and Fungicide Act (FIFRA), the primary federal law governing pesticide regulation. Under FIFRA, pesticides must be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before being sold or distributed. The EPA must determine that a pesticide will not cause “unreasonable adverse effects” on the environment, defined as risks to human health or the environment balanced against the product’s benefits. This evaluation includes assessing potential carcinogenicity.



FIFRA also defines the role of states in regulating pesticides. It prohibits states from imposing labeling or packaging requirements that are “in addition to or different from” federal requirements. It further bans the sale of “misbranded” pesticides, meaning products whose labels lack necessary warnings to protect health and the environment.



Failure to warn is a state law tort commonly raised in products liability cases. It does not allege that a product is defective, but that the manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings or instructions. To succeed, a plaintiff must show both that warnings were insufficient and that the risk was known or reasonably knowable at the time.



The Supreme Court addressed FIFRA preemption once before in&nbsp;Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC. There, the Court held that state labeling requirements are preempted if they impose obligations “in addition to or different from” FIFRA. However, state law claims are not preempted if they are equivalent to and consistent with FIFRA’s prohibition on misbranding.



Bayer relies on&nbsp;Bates&nbsp;to argue that the plaintiff’s claim is preempted because it would effectively require adding a cancer warning to Roundup’s label. Bayer contends that complying with a state judgment would force it to alter federally approved labeling, which FIFRA prohibits.



The plaintiff argues the opposite, insisting that his claim parallels FIFRA’s misbranding provisions and is therefore not preempted. Citing&nbsp;Bates, he maintains that state law claims consistent with federal misbranding standards remain valid.



The case includes a notable twist. Unlike many similar lawsuits, the plaintiff bases his failure to warn claim not on product labels but on Monsanto’s marketing materials from the 1990s and 2000s. He alleges that advertisements portrayed Roundup as completely safe, showing users applying it in shorts and tee shirts. Because FIFRA governs labeling rather than marketing, the plaintiff argues that his claim falls outside the scope of federal preemption.



Bayer disputes this distinction, asserting that regardless of how the claim is framed, resolving it would still require changes to product labeling, bringing it within FIFRA’s preemptive scope.



At this point, it is difficult to predict how the Supreme Court will rule. An amicus brief from the Office of the Solicitor General supports Bayer’s position, while advocacy groups such as the Make America Healthy Again movement back the plaintiff. Whatever the outcome, the Court’s decision is likely to have far-reaching consequences, shaping pesticide regulation and influencing thousands of ongoing and future cases.



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



Rollins, Brigit. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/durnell-v-monsanto-pesticide-liability-at-the-supreme-court/">Durnell v. Monsanto: Pesticide Liability at the Supreme Court.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(17.5). April 24, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/durnell-v-monsanto-pesticide-liability-at-the-supreme-court/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities