In January 2026, the Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council (TACC) held their annual Farm Store Summit. The Summit is a gathering of farm store managers which allows for the sharing of ideas, success stories, and strategies in response to their greatest challenges. As participants discussed the challenges facing their farm store operations, three themes stood out.&nbsp;



I.&nbsp;&nbsp;Increasing Competition



Consolidation in supply markets, especially for fertilizer, chemical, and seed, is having a negative impact on form store profitability. Agricultural industries are populated by some very large suppliers who may also be competitors in the retail space. That’s a difficult situation for a local cooperative farm store. Increasing urbanization adds to the challenge with a change in the surrounding customer base. As agriculture loses acres to homes and other industries, cooperatives are challenged to adapt to an urban consumer to help maintain sales volume. They strive to tell these customers that they are welcome at the co-op. These changes also bring increased competition from urban-focused retailers like Walmart, Home Depot, and Tractor Supply Co.&nbsp;&nbsp;Although cooperatives feel they might have an advantage in expertise, their competitors are marketing and distribution powerhouses.&nbsp;



II.&nbsp;&nbsp;Finding Good Employees



Several times during the summit a manager praised the value of a good employee. In a retail business, employees can make all the difference. They are the first to greet customers and the last to ensure that all expectations were met. Employees that are friendly and engaging with customers generate increased sales. Likewise, poor employees can leave customers feeling dissatisfied and inclined to take their business elsewhere. Even when everything else in the cooperative is executed perfectly, negative behavior and attitudes of employees will be felt in sales. As one manager put it, “culture can edge out competency”. Cooperative farm store managers are replacing the negative energy of poor employees with the profitability that comes with employees that value and understand excellent customer service.&nbsp;



III.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Attitude of the Board



Perhaps the greatest challenge to the cooperative farm store comes from within the board room. Many managers expressed concern over the attitude of board members toward retail operations. Board members sometimes see their farm store as a needed service rather than a profit center for the cooperative. They are willing to take losses on an activity that represents a convenience or perceived security, especially when the cooperative has another primary activity, such as a grain elevator. However, a profitable farm store represents added resilience to overall cooperative operations. Additionally, board members may focus on the convenience aspects of carrying certain inventory and neglect the profit considerations of inventory turnover. A tractor part may seem invaluable for an occasional emergency, but inventory that sits on the shelf for ten years has already lost money. Retail space and the money used to stock the shelves are investments.&nbsp;



Successful farm stores are valuable to their members and communities. Not only do they provide needed products and services, but they also generate profits from other parts of the supply chain. Their success depends on adapting to competition, excellent customer service, and direction from a board that is focused on profit and financial stability.&nbsp;



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



Park, John. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/challenges-for-the-cooperative-farm-store-in-2026s/">Challenges for the Cooperative Farm Store in 2026.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(7.5). February 13, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/challenges-for-the-cooperative-farm-store-in-2026s/">Permalink</a>

Challenges for the Cooperative Farm Store in 2026

Authors : Jiyeon Kim, Junior&nbsp;Research Economist- Agricultural Risk Policy Center, North Dakota State University



Andrew Muhammad, Ph.D. Professor and Blasingame Chair of Excellence, University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture- Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics



In 2025, the President imposed a series of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), reshaping U.S. trade policy. These measures, ranging from fentanyl‑related tariffs in February to broad reciprocal tariffs implemented in April, generated an estimated $130 billion in revenue by early December with implications for multiple sectors, including agriculture. Agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, and farm machinery were subject to these duties, resulting in roughly $1.1 billion in tariff collections between February and November. Although representing small shares of total farm input spending, these tariffs contribute to rising production costs throughout the supply chain (Arita et al., 2026). We provide a brief discussion of these tariffs in this article; a more detailed analysis is presented in&nbsp;IEEPA Fertilizer Tariffs: Revenue, Relief, and Pass‐Through&nbsp;at the following link:&nbsp;<a href="https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/387621?v=pdf">https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/387621?v=pdf</a>.



IEEPA tariffs have been imposed on several agricultural inputs including fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, and farm machinery, against a backdrop of already volatile input prices and low commodity prices. Based on import data from the U.S. International Trade Commission and tariff rates specified in executive orders, IEEPA tariff revenue collected on agricultural input imports is estimated at roughly $1.1 billion between February and November 2025 (see Figure 1). To provide some context, USDA projects that U.S. farmers will spend about $27.2 billion on seed, $20.6 billion on pesticides, and $33.5 billion on fertilizers in 2025 (Arita et al., 2026). The tariff revenue collected on these products accounts for approximately 0.2% of seed spending, 1.5% of pesticide costs, and 0.4% of fertilizer costs. Although these shares appear relatively small, they do not fully capture the broader cost pressures facing producers. The tariffs on materials such as steel, aluminum, and machinery components may raise additional costs for U.S producers across the supply chain.&nbsp;



Figure 2 shows the estimated monthly IEEPA tariff revenue by agricultural input category from January through November 2025. While tariff revenue for most agricultural inputs changed modestly, revenue from imported farm machinery rose sharply following the implementation of the 10% baseline tariff in April. This increase was driven primarily by imports from China and India.



Although tariff revenues on key inputs represent a relatively small share of farm expenditures, they contribute to a broader rise in production costs, particularly when combined with duties on steel, aluminum, and machinery components. Continued monitoring is essential as these policies evolve and their cumulative impacts unfold.



Figure&nbsp;1.&nbsp;Estimated Total IEEPA Tariff Revenue (February-November, 2025)



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="576" height="384" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.4-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43438"/></figure>



Figure&nbsp;2. Estimated Monthly IEEPA Tariff Revenues for Agricultural Inputs in 2025



<figure class="wp-block-image aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="576" height="384" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.4-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43439"/></figure>



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



References



Arita, S., Chakravorty, R., Kim, J., Lwin, W., Steinbach, S., Wang, M., and Zhuang, X. (2026). IEEPA Fertilizer Tariffs: Revenue, Relief, and Pass‐Through. NDSU Agricultural Trade Monitor 2026‐01. Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies, North Dakota State University. January 19, 2026. <a href="https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.387621">https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.387621</a>



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



Kim, Jiyeon, and Andrew Muhammad. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/how-2025-ieepa-tariffs-affected-agricultural-inputs-and-production-costs/">How 2025 IEEPA Tariffs Affected Agricultural Inputs and Production Costs.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(7.4). February 12, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/how-2025-ieepa-tariffs-affected-agricultural-inputs-and-production-costs/">Permalink</a> http

How 2025 IEEPA Tariffs Affected Agricultural Inputs and Production Costs

The USDA released the February World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report yesterday with relatively little fanfare, especially compared to January.&nbsp;&nbsp;Wheat showed a little lower domestic use, resulting in higher ending stocks.&nbsp;&nbsp;Alternatively, corn showed greater exports and a lower ending stock, down to 2.1 billion bushels.&nbsp;&nbsp;Both the wheat and corn price projections remained unchanged at $4.90 per bushel for wheat and $4.10 per bushel for corn.&nbsp;&nbsp;The futures market for wheat and corn was essentially flat in response.



The most active part of a quiet report day was with soybeans.&nbsp;&nbsp;While domestic supply and use projections remained unchanged, production in Brazil was increased 2.0 million tons to 180.0 million tons.&nbsp;&nbsp;This was as a result of both greater reporting area in Brazil and favorable weather conditions, contributing to an increase in global production and ending stocks.&nbsp;&nbsp;However, the nearby futures market for soybeans maintained its upward trajectory, increasing roughly 11-12 cents per bushel, continuing the trend that started February 4 when soybean futures increased over 26 cents on comments by President Trump about China purchasing more soybeans.&nbsp;&nbsp;Regarding China, the WASDE report indicated that, “China is reported to be considering buying more U.S. soybeans, … [but] if China bought more from the United States, global soybean exports will likely be shifted with more U.S. shipments to China and less to other markets.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Thus, no change in global soybean demand was made in this report.



Meanwhile, the balance sheet for cotton remained basically unchanged, with exports reduced 200,000 bales and the marketing year average price decreasing 1 cent to 60 cents per pound.&nbsp;&nbsp;Table 1 details the current balance sheet for the four major crops.&nbsp;&nbsp;Upcoming USDA activity to watch includes the release of the USDA Agricultural Baseline Projections to 2035, the 102nd&nbsp;Agricultural Outlook Forum, and then the March WASDE and Prospective Plantings reports.



Table 1.&nbsp;2025/26 Wheat, Corn, Soybean, and Cotton Supply, Use, Stocks, and Price Estimates, February 2026 WASDE



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Wheat</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Corn</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Soybean</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Cotton</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="4">Production and Supply</td></tr><tr><td>Planted (Million Acres)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">45.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">98.8</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">81.2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">9.28</td></tr><tr><td>Harvested (Million Acres)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">37.2</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">91.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">80.4</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">7.80</td></tr><tr><td>Yield (Bushels/Pounds)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">53.3</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">186.5</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">53.0</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">856</td></tr><tr><td>Production (Million Bushels/Bales)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1,985</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">17,021</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4,262</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">13.92</td></tr><tr><td>Total Supply (Million Bushels/Bales)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2,959</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">18,597</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4,607</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">17.92</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="4">US Exports and Use</td></tr><tr><td>Exports (Million Bushels/Bales)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">900</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">3,300</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1,575</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">12.00</td></tr><tr><td>Total Use (Million Bushels/Bales)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2,028</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">16,470</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4,257</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">13.60</td></tr><tr><td>Exports % of Total Use</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">44%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">20%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">37%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">88%</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="4">Stocks and Price</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Ending Stocks (Million Bushels/Bales)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">931</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2,127</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">350</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">4.4</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Stocks/Use</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">46%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">13%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">8%</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">32%</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Avg. Farm Price ($/Bushel or Pound)</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$4.90</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$4.10</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$10.20</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">$0.60</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



Data Source: USDA February 2026 WASDE



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

February WASDE Report Quiet while Soybean Futures Keep Moving Up

Super Bowl LX is over, and I hope your team won. One team that certainly won was the U.S. poultry industry. The Super Bowl weekend is one of the highest annual periods of demand for chicken wings in the United States. Approximately 6.2 billion broiler chickens are produced annually in the United States, each yielding two full wings. Once disjointed for commercial purposes, the two wings are typically divided into four retail portions, resulting in an estimated 24.8 billion individual wing pieces produced each year.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/americans-to-eat-1-48-billion-chicken-wings-for-super-bowl-lx/">The National Chicken Council</a>&nbsp;projects that Americans will consume approximately 1.48 billion wings during Super Bowl gatherings—an amount equivalent to less than one month of domestic broiler production. Given this surge in consumption, the U.S. poultry industry could reasonably refer to the event as the “Chicken Wing Bowl!”



Chicken wing prices have experienced considerable volatility in recent years. However, early 2025 appears favorable for consumers. Wholesale wing prices opened the year below $1.00 per pound and have risen only modestly to slightly above $1.10 per pound (Fig. 1). This price level represents a 66 percent decline from the historic peak of $3.24 per pound recorded in January 2022. With March Madness—another major period of heightened wing consumption—approaching, current trends suggest positive conditions for consumers and retailers alike.



Despite these trends, chicken wing pricing remains historically unpredictable. As one primary wing consumption event has passed, and the next one draws near, restaurants and other retail food outlets try to capitalize on consumer interest. Market competition, combined with relatively low wholesale costs, should help maintain affordable wing prices at the retail level even beyond this Super Bowl. However, current&nbsp;<a href="https://esmis.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/release-files/795741/cost0126.txt">cold storage inventories</a>&nbsp;show 1.12 million fewer pounds of wings compared with the same period last year, which could exert upward pressure on prices eventually. But overall wing inventory is more than double the levels observed back in 2021-22 when prices soared. According to a recent USDA retail price report, the average retail price for conventional fresh party wings in the southeastern United States stands at $2.49 per pound, with individually quick-frozen (IQF) wings priced slightly higher at $2.67 per pound. If supplies remain stable, retail prices may continue to reflect current favorable conditions. Meanwhile, U.S. broiler growers remain committed to meeting consumer demand by supplying the market with high-quality chicken wings.



Figure 1. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="780" height="550" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43425" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.2-1.png 780w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.2-1-768x542.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 780px) 100vw, 780px" /></figure>



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



Brothers, Dennis. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/chicken-wing-bowl-2026/">Chicken Wing Bowl, 2026!</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(7.2). February 10, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/chicken-wing-bowl-2026/">Permalink</a>

Chicken Wing Bowl, 2026! 

Southern wheat producers are experiencing significant losses this year due to low prices, weather conditions, and a shortage of stockers for grazing. To maximize returns or minimize losses, farmers must evaluate whether producing wheat for grain, grazing, or hay is most financially viable under current market and production conditions.



We have a Wheat and Small Grains Decision Aid (<a href="https://vernon.tamu.edu/extension-projects/d3-agricultural-economics/">Link</a>) to help farmers decide whether to use wheat for grain, grazing, or baling. To make an informed choice, compare the prices of grazing, wheat hay, and grain, expected yields, production costs, crop rotation options, available equipment, and insurance coverage. What follows is an example analysis with basic assumptions, check out the decision aid to include your operation-specific data.



Although all alternatives show negative returns this year, hay production continues to offer higher profits under similar conditions. In this example, baling hay is more favorable due to lower wheat grain prices. Actual results will depend on your wheat bale prices and may vary if you own harvesting or baling equipment.



Grazing is also more favorable if farmers were able to graze wheat early, have sufficient moisture and forage, and enough livestock to maximize beef production.



The decision aid enables you to compare alternatives from both economic and financial perspectives. Analyzing cash flow helps identify the most advantageous option, particularly if you own a combine or hay baling equipment.



You can also use this information to determine the hay sale price needed to match wheat grain profit margins or to set an appropriate grazing price. The Decision Aid uses your data and costs to calculate breakeven prices for hay and grazing (see Graphs 1 and 2).



Graph1: Break-Even Hay Prices



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1248" height="901" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43417" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.1-1.png 1248w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.1-1-1024x739.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.1-1-768x554.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1248px) 100vw, 1248px" /></figure>



Consider baling wheat if you can sell hay above the breakeven price, based on current wheat prices and expected yields. For example, with a yield of 40 bushels per acre at $5 per bushel, baling is preferable only if the net price per ton of hay exceeds $119, assuming 76% of the estimated biomass or 2.07 tons per acre.



Graph 2. Breakeven Grazing Prices



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1248" height="896" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.1-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43418" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.1-2.png 1248w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.1-2-1024x735.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.07.1-2-768x551.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1248px) 100vw, 1248px" /></figure>



Similarly, with a yield of 40 bushels per acre at $5 per bushel, grazing is advisable only if the grazing price exceeds $0.60 per pound of gain.&nbsp;



With low wheat prices, alternatives such as grazing or hay production may provide better financial outcomes. The Wheat and Small Grain Decision Aid (<a href="https://vernon.tamu.edu/extension-projects/d3-agricultural-economics/">Link</a>) is designed to help farmers evaluate these options. Using your own data on yields, prices, and costs is essential for effective analysis. If you need assistance with the decision aid, please let us know.



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



Abello, Pancho. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/analyzing-wheat-alternatives-in-the-south/">Analyzing Wheat Alternatives in the South.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(7.1). February 9, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/analyzing-wheat-alternatives-in-the-south/">Permalink</a>

Analyzing Wheat Alternatives in the South

Consumers are interested in native plants (i.e., those present prior to European settlement) with heightened demand in recent years. Interestingly, positive perceptions of native plants are widespread but spending in the U.S. is uneven, with heightened spending among a relatively small group of consumers. Using a 2022 national survey of 2,066 U.S. households that purchase plants, consumer spending patterns reveal a clear segmentation story relative to native plant purchasing behavior. Consumers can be divided into three segments based on their perceptions of native plants: Native averse (32% of the sample), native curious (36%), and native enthusiast (32%). Approximately 20% of the sample (n=422) were from the USDA South region (i.e., Delaware, Washington D.C., Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas; USDA, 2021). Of the Southern participants, 25% were native averse, 42% were native curious, and 32% were native enthusiasts.



Several factors influenced segment membership including native plant perceptions, education, and plant purchasing behavior. Native enthusiasts and native curious consumers perceived native plants as providing many benefits (i.e., less maintenance, adapted to difficult sites, help water conservation, benefit the economy, improve biodiversity, are readily available, I know where to purchase native plants, are drought resistant, help pollinators, complements existing landscape, aid in natural habitat restoration, are aesthetically pleasing, and wildlife friendly) while native averse consumers did not share these perceptions. Rather, the native averse segment perceived native plants as not providing significant benefits over introduced species. The native enthusiasts also placed greater importance on native plants (in general) and reported higher subjective knowledge (Fig. 1). Similar results were observed in the U.S. and Southern region. In the South, 100% of native enthusiast members purchased native plants in 2021 (similar to 100% in the U.S. total sample), vs. 45% of native curious (46% in the U.S. total sample), and 34% of native averse segments (28% in the U.S. total sample). Education impacted segment membership, with native enthusiasts and native curious having higher education levels than the native averse group. Income did not influence segment membership, indicating that disposable income was not the driving factor behind these groupings, rather perceptions influenced subsequent plant spending behavior.



Figure 1. U.S. Consumers Perceived Importance and Knowledge of Native Plants



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2158" height="1003" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.5-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43409" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.5-1.png 2158w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.5-1-1024x476.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.5-1-768x357.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.5-1-1536x714.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.5-1-2048x952.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2158px) 100vw, 2158px" /></figure>



While all three segments purchase native and introduced plants, native plant expenditures are primarily driven by native enthusiasts and native curious members (Fig. 2). On average, in 2021, native enthusiasts spent $187 on native plants (70% of total plant spending), while native curious consumers spent $76 (41% of total plant spending) on native plants, and native averse spent $47 (26% of total plant spending) on native plants. In 2021 in the Southern region, native enthusiasts spent $171 on native plants (64% of total plant spending), while native curious consumers spent $133 on native plants (80% of total plant spending), and native averse spent $111 on native plants (72% of total plant spending). Of note, total plant spending was higher among native enthusiasts in both the total and Southern samples relative to the native curious and native averse which were not significantly different. This implies that the native enthusiast segment is spending more on plants in general and are likely seeking out native plants when they are available.



Figure 2. U.S. Consumer Native and Introduced Plant Spending Behavior In 2021 (n=2066).



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2342" height="1223" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.6-2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43411" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.6-2-1.png 2342w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.6-2-1-1024x535.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.6-2-1-768x401.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.6-2-1-1536x802.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.6-2-1-2048x1069.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2342px) 100vw, 2342px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2342" height="1155" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.5-2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-43412" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.5-2-2.png 2342w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.5-2-2-1024x505.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.5-2-2-768x379.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.5-2-2-1536x758.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/6.06.5-2-2-2048x1010.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2342px) 100vw, 2342px" /></figure>



These patterns point to potential growth in native plant sales through increasing per-customer spending among consumers who already buy plants and view native plants favorably. A small shift in the native curious consumers’ plant budgets to purchase more native plants could generate a sizable gain in total native plant sales because of the size of the segment and their receptiveness to native plants. For growers, retailers and landscapers, strategies that increase confidence in native plant selection is key. For example, clear labeling, aesthetic assortments and bundling native plants with information may be more effective than broad awareness campaigns. These strategies may be more impactful given that there is evidence that native plants are not always clearly identified at retail (Brzuszek and Harkess, 2009) and that native plants may be perceived as less desirable than introduced plants (Gillis and Swim, 2020). Thus, providing clear point-of-sale information about the plants and their benefits while demonstrating their aesthetic appeal may aid in convincing members of the native curious segment to purchase more native plants.&nbsp;



References:



Brzuszek RF, Harkess RL. 2009. Green industry survey of native plant marketing in the southeastern United States. HortTechnology 19:168-172.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.19.1.168" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.19.1.168</a>



Gillis AJ, Swim JK. 2020. Adding native plants to home landscapes: The roles of attitudes, social norms, and situational strengths. J Environ Psych. 72: 101519.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101519" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101519</a>



US Department of Agriculture. 2021. Regions – states by census region and division.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeastarea/beltsville-md-bhnrc/beltsville-humannutrition-research-center/docs/regions/">https://www.ars.usda.gov/northeastarea/beltsville-md-bhnrc/beltsville-humannutrition-research-center/docs/regions/</a>. [accessed 26 Feb 2024].



Acknowledgements:&nbsp;This research was supported by a grant from the Horticultural Research Institute (‘‘HRI’’). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of HRI.



Source:&nbsp;Rihn, A.L., A. Torres, B. Behe, and S. Barton. 2024. Unwrapping the native plant black box: Consumer perceptions and segments for target marketing strategies. HortTechnology. 34(3): 361-371.&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH05401-24" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH05401-24</a>.



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



Rihn, Alicia, and Pralhad Bajgain. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/u-s-native-plant-spending-and-customer-segments-a-southern-perspective/">U.S. Native Plant Spending and Customer Segments: A Southern Perspective.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(6.5). February 6, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/05/u-s-native-plant-spending-and-customer-segments-a-southern-perspective/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities