Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • Nonprofit Organizations and Community Engagement: Bridging Gaps in Local Support

    Nonprofit Organizations and Community Engagement: Bridging Gaps in Local Support

    In the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2025 publication Principles of Community Engagement, community engagement is defined as building “sustainable relationships through trust and collaboration, strengthening community well-being”. Wallerstein et al. (2015) emphasized that essential strategies for a wide variety of community and organizational settings can be developed through community engagement and organizing. The recent flash flooding in Central Texas over the July 4th holiday weekend is an example of this engagement with numerous nonprofit charitable organizations involved in search, rescue, cleanup, and support efforts. These organizations include Texas Search and Rescue (TEXSAR), Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Community Foundation of the Texas Hill Country, the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross, Kerrville Pets Alive, and many others. This article explores the contributions of charitable nonprofit organizations to community development, showcasing selected models of engagement and their broader regional impact in the southern U.S.

    Community engagement through charitable organizations is a cornerstone of sustainable economic and social development across the United States (Wallerstein et al. 2015; Balsano 2005). These organizations support jobs and consume goods and services, thereby investing directly and indirectly into the local economy and contributing to community economic development. Furthermore, their community involvement and presence encourage charitable giving. Giving USA (2025) reported an overall increase in charitable donations of 6.3% in 2024, although there have been fluctuations in donations over the past five years. Studies have found that individuals receive some level of personal satisfaction when they donate (Crumpler and Grossman 2008; Hughes 2006; Steinberg 1997). Figure 1 shows that revenue per capita and the share of nonprofit relative to private employment are more concentrated in the northern United States, with relatively lower levels in the southern states. This regional disparity highlights lower nonprofit revenue per capita and fewer paid staff or volunteers relative to the for-profit private sector in southern communities. 

    The Southern region’s unique challenges, including higher poverty rates, food insecurity, and more frequent natural disasters compared to other U.S. regions (Thomas and Liao 2024), underscore the critical role of non-profit organizations in community development. Non-profit organizations such as regional food banks, Lions Club International, and Rotary Club have emerged as crucial partners in addressing some of these challenges through targeted interventions and community mobilization. For instance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that 14% of households in the Southern U.S. faced food insecurity between 2021 and 2023, leading to a rise in demand for food assistance from regional food banks. Lions Club International’s southern chapters implemented over 2,500 community service projects in 2022, focusing on vision care, diabetes prevention, and youth development programs. These organizations leverage volunteer networks and community resources to address immediate needs while building long-term resilience through education, health services, and disaster preparedness initiatives.

    A more localized nonprofit is the Texas A&M University’s The REACH Project, which exemplifies innovative approaches to community development through academic-community partnerships. This project has demonstrated remarkable success in supporting essential workers through comprehensive support services. Currently, it has assisted over 3,000 essential workers and their families, providing access to affordable housing solutions, healthcare services, and educational opportunities. Similar initiatives have emerged in Alabama, such as the Black Belt Community Foundation, the foundation awarded over $500,000 in 2024 through 130 grants to community and arts organizations across 12 counties. The initiative supports local efforts in community development and the arts, reflecting its commitment to empowering the Black Belt region. These programs demonstrate the effectiveness of collaborative approaches involving academic institutions, local communities, and non-profit organizations in fostering sustainable development.

    The impact of charitable non-profits on communities extends beyond immediate service delivery to fundamental social and economic transformation. Research indicates that communities with higher levels of non-profit engagement demonstrate greater resilience during economic downturns and natural disasters (Roberts et al., 2021; Searing et al., 2023). According to Giving USA (2025), nonprofits that retained 10% more of their donors experienced up to a 200% increase in fundraising revenue during the 2023 economic downturn, demonstrating how sustained nonprofit engagement enhances financial resilience. As the southern region faces evolving challenges from climate-related disasters to economic disparities, charitable non-profits play an increasingly vital role in community development. Strengthening collaboration with these organizations represents a crucial investment in building more resilient and sustainable communities.

    Figure 1: Nonprofit Revenue Per Capita and Private Nonprofit Employment Share by State in 2023

    Source: Visualized by authors using National Council of Nonprofits, State Nonprofit Data and Report, and U.S. Census Data.

    References

    Balsano, A.B. 2005. Youth civic engagement in the United States: Understanding and addressing the impact of social impediments on positive youth and community development. Applied Development Science 9(4): 188-201.

    Black Belt Community Foundation. Retrieved April 15, 2025, from https://blackbeltfound.org/news/2025artscommunitygrants/.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: CDC/ATSDR. 2025. Principles of community engagement (3rd ed.). https://hsc.unm.edu/population-health/_documents/principles-of-community-engagement_3rd-edition.pdf. 

    Crumpler, H., and P. Grossman. 2008. An experimental test of warm glow giving. Journal of Public Economics 92(5-6): 1011-1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.12.014. 

    Hughes, P. 2006. The economics of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 16(4): 385-508. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.119. 

    Lions Clubs International. Southern Region Community Service Impact Report 2022. Retrieved April 15, 2025, from https://www.lionsclubs.org/en/discover-our-clubs/service-report-2022.

    National Council of Nonprofits. (n.d.). Economic impact of nonprofits. Retrieved July 15, 2025, from https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/about-americas-nonprofits/economic-impact-nonprofits.

    Roberts, F., F. Archer, and C. Spencer. 2021. The potential role of nonprofit organizations in building community resilience to disasters in the context of Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102530.

    Searing, E.A.M., K. Wiley, and S.L. Young. 2023. Resiliency tactics during financial crisis. In The Nonprofit Resiliency Framework, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003387800-34.

    Steinberg, R. 1997. Overall analysis of economic theories. Voluntas 8 (2): 179–204.

    The REACH Project. Retrieved April 15, 2025, from https://agsreach.networkforgood.com/.

    Thomas, C., and A. Liao. 2024. The Food Insecurity Challenge: A Snapshot of the Southern U.S. Southern Ag Today 4(40.5). October 4, 2024. https://southernagtoday.org/2024/10/04/the-food-insecurity-challenge-a-snapshot-of-the-southern-u-s/. 

    United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Retrieved April 15, 2025, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-security-in-the-united-states.

    Wallerstein, N., M. Minkler, L., Carter-Edwards, M. Avila, and V. Sanchez. 2015. Improving health through community engagement, community organization, and community building. In K. Glanz, B.K. Rimer and K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 277-300). Wiley.

    Thomas, Chrystol, An-Ting Liao, and Sreedhar Upendram. “Nonprofit Organizations and Community Engagement: Bridging Gaps in Local Support.” Southern Ag Today 5(30.5). July 25, 2025. Permalink

  • Will Brazil Close the Quality Gap with U.S. Beef in Japan?

    Will Brazil Close the Quality Gap with U.S. Beef in Japan?

    In a recent Southern Ag Today article, Muhammad et al. (2025) explored whether Brazil can compete with the U.S. in Japan’s premium beef market. They found Brazil has the volume but questioned the quality. This article digs deeper, showing how advances in genetics and feeding systems may close the gap.

    Two key forces shape beef quality: genetics and nutrition. Historically, Brazil relied on grass-fed Nellore cattle (Bos indicus), which yield leaner, less marbled meat. However, change is underway.

    Crossbreeding with British breeds such as Angus is increasing rapidly. Angus semen accounted for 49% of all beef semen sales in 2021 (USDA–FAS, 2021). In 2024, British breeds made up a third of sales, driven by demand for marbling and tenderness (ASBIA, 2024).

    Meanwhile, Nellore genetics are also improving. Breeding programs have targeted carcass quality for over two decades. In 2024, more than 14.6 million beef cows, 22.3% of the national beef herd (Figure 1), were artificially inseminated (ASBIA, 2025). Over 420,000 purebred Zebu calves were registered that year, reflecting long-term investments in breeding (ABCZ, 2024).

    Nutritional gains have kept pace with advancements in genetics. Brazil rapidly expanded its feedlot systems, especially in the central-west and southeast regions. These enable grain finishing, improving marbling and consistency, key traits for markets like Japan. In 2024, Brazil had over 8 million head in feedlots (Figure 2), representing a 25% increase in five years (DSM-Firmenich, 2024). In 2023, feedlot-finished cattle made up 21.3% of all beef slaughter, underscoring the growing role of confinement (CNA, 2024). Advances in mineral nutrition, feed conversion, and precision feeding have further improved carcass yield and quality.

    Brazil is no longer just a volume player. Upgrades in genetics, nutrition, and feedlot systems are reshaping its beef industry. It’s increasingly meeting premium standards. The U.S. still leads, but Brazil is narrowing the gap on quality.

    Figure 1: Number and Percentage of Beef-Breeding Cows Inseminated in Brazil 2014-2024 

    Source: ASBIA (2025)

    Figure 2. Cattle on Feedlots in Brazil 2014-2024

    Source: DSM-Firmenich, 2024

    Referneces

    ABCZ – Associação Brasileira dos Criadores de Zebu. (2024). Estatísticas do Registro Genealógico – RGN. https://www.abcz.org.br/produtos-e-servicos/area-tecnica/registro-genealogico/estatisticas

    ASBIA – Associação Brasileira de Inseminação Artificial. (2024). Index ASBIA 2024 – Beef cattle semen sales by breed. https://asbia.org.br/index-asbia/

    ASBIA – Associação Brasileira de Inseminação Artificial. (2025). Anuário ASBIA 2025. https://asbia.org.br/wp-content/uploads/Anuario/ASBIA_anuario_2025.pdf

    CNA – Confederação da Agricultura e Pecuária do Brasil. (2024, August 5). Expectativa de retorno do confinamento em 2024 frente ao cenário de custos [Technical report]. https://www.cnabrasil.org.br/publicacoes/expectativa-de-retorno-do-confinamento-em-2024-frente-ao-cenario-de-custos

    DSM-Firmenich. (2024). Panorama do Confinamento 2024 [Unpublished report].

    Muhammad, A., Martinez, C., & Hossen, M. D. (2025, March 6). Market showdown: U.S. beef faces new challenges in Japan amid Brazilian reentry. Southern Ag Today, 5(10.4). https://southernagtoday.org/2025/03/06/market-showdown-u-s-beef-faces-new-challenges-in-japan-amid-brazilian-reentry/

    U.S. Department of Agriculture – Foreign Agricultural Service. (2021). The Brazilian bovine genetics market and U.S. exports [PDF]. https://usdabrazil.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-Brazilian-Bovine-Genetics-Market-and-US-Exports_Brasilia_Brazil_03-01-2021-1.pdf

    Moreira, Felipe Martins, and Yuri Calil. “Will Brazil Close the Quality Gap with U.S. Beef in Japan?” Southern Ag Today 5(30.4). July 24, 2025. Permalink

  • Planted Peanut Acres at 34 Year High

    Planted Peanut Acres at 34 Year High

    Farmers across the United States planted an estimated 1.9 million acres to peanuts in 2025, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Acreage report released on June 30th. If realized, this would mark a 100,000 acre increase over last year’s value and would be the largest peanut plantings since 1991 (Figure 1). This is also the third consecutive year of peanut acreage increases, up from just 1.45 million acres in 2022. Low competing row-crop prices — especially cotton prices being below 70 cents per lb. — is one factor that made peanuts a somewhat more-favorable alternative in 2025. 

    Figure 1: US Planted Peanut Acres by Year

    Data Sources: USDA-NASS. Acreage & Crop Production Annual Summary reports.

    The 2025 planted peanut area for all major peanut-growing states is equal to or greater than what it was in 2024, as shown in Figure 2. Georgia — the largest producing peanut state — had the biggest increase, adding 50,000 peanut acres to last year’s figure for a total of 900,000 acres. Alabama, North Carolina, and Texas added an additional 10,000 acres apiece. Georgia’s total would be its highest since 1991, Alabama’s its highest since 2015, and Texas’ its highest since 2017.

    Figure 2: 2025 Planted Peanut Acres by State and Percent Change from 2024

    Data source: USDA-NASS. Acreage. 2025.

    What could this increased peanut acreage mean for production and markets? The USDA Oil Crops Outlookreleased on July 15th reports an estimated 1.85 million harvested acres and an average peanut yield of 4,000 lb. per acre.1  This would amount to a record-high production of 3.7 million tons, a 476,000 ton increase from the 2024 level. At this level of production and current disappearance projections, 2025/26 marketing year ending stocks are projected to be 1.129 million tons, a 34% increase from the prior year. This expected increase in peanut supply would likely lead to a further decline in peanut contract prices going into next year. Overall, the USDA-ERS projects peanut prices for the 2025/26 marketing year to average $500 per ton, which is in line with the runner contracts offered this spring, and would mark an $18-per-ton decrease from last year. 

    Footnote: 1Keep in mind that peanut yields have been inconsistent over the past decade, so averaging 4,000 lb. per acre is far from a guarantee.

    References

    Sawadgo, Wendiam. “Peanut Yield Trends.” Southern Ag Today 4(13.1). March 25, 2024. Available at: https://southernagtoday.org/2024/03/25/peanut-yield-trends/

    USDA-ERS. Oil Crops Outlook. July 15, 2025. Available at: https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/j098zb08p

    USDA-NASS. Acreage. June 30, 2025. Available at: https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/j098zb09z

    USDA-NASS. Crop Production Annual Summary. Available at: https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/k3569432s

    Sawadgo, Wendiam. “Planted Peanut Acres at Thirty-four Year High.” Southern Ag Today 5(30.3). July 23, 2025. Permalink

  • Any Relief in Sight for Consumers?

    Any Relief in Sight for Consumers?

    The record high retail beef price reported by the most recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) has prompted a lot of calls about why prices are record high and whether there is any relief in sight.  While we often write about the great cattle prices for producers who are selling, there is a flip side, and that is consumers who are buying beef.  

    Reduced slaughter and beef production, especially in the second quarter of the year, cut supplies just as grilling season heated up seasonal beef demand.  The combination led to a spike in wholesale prices and retail beef prices.  

    Is there a chance for consumers to see falling retail beef prices in the coming months?  Normal seasonal production and demand would suggest prices falling from recent highs.  Evidence from the wholesale beef market over the last couple of weeks indicates lower prices.

    Starting with the cutout, the Choice boxed beef cutout has declined each week since it hit a record high weekly average value of $394 per cwt 4 weeks ago.  Each of the seven primal cuts that make up the cutout has declined in price over this period.  

    Ribeye steaks exhibit the normal seasonal pattern that peaks early in grilling season, then declines after Memorial Day.  Ribeyes hit their annual peak price in late Fall as holiday demand drives them higher. Following the pattern, wholesale beef ribeyes peaked in price at $14.18 per pound.  They have since declined to $10.50 per pound, only slightly ahead of last year.  

    Loin strips usually hit their annual wholesale price peak leading up to July 4th.  They hit $11.84 per pound in June and have since dropped to $9.68 per pound.  The price remains higher than last year, but wholesale spot market prices are coming down. 

    Wholesale 90 and 50 percent lean boneless beef prices continued to increase into July.  The 50 percent lean price hit an all-time record of $2.62 per pound.  Lean boneless beef is particularly impacted by fed beef supplies, which have been cut due to declining slaughter and seasonally lower weights.  Boneless beef prices tend to decline seasonally after mid-year as we get past the grilling season rush in demand.  

    Seasonal price patterns would suggest that there is a chance for a little bit of relief from record high beef prices.  But, only if we compare to the peak price this summer.  Wholesale beef prices are already declining.  

    There is a time lag from lower wholesale prices showing up at retail, but lower wholesale prices combined with normal seasonality of various cut prices should lead to the expectation of falling prices in the coming months.  But, it’s not likely that prices will decline below year ago levels.  

    A Preview

    USDA will release the July Cattle on Feed report on Friday.  While market analysts expect lower placements, marketings, and cattle in feedyards than a year ago, the really interesting number will be the number of heifers on feed on July 1.  The heifers on feed will provide some insight into heifer retention.  Also, look for placements in Texas due to the ban on Mexican feeder cattle.  The lack of spayed heifers coming from Mexico is important in evaluating the number of heifers on feed.

    Anderson, David. “Any Relief in Sight for Consumers?” Southern Ag Today 5(30.2). July 22, 2025. Permalink

  • Who’s Driving the Broiler Revenue Bus? Part 1of 3

    Who’s Driving the Broiler Revenue Bus? Part 1of 3

    On July 1, 2026, the “Poultry Grower Payment Systems and Capital Improvement Systems” ruling is set to go into effect. The ruling was set forth by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The most impactful change predicted is how it specifically addresses the way contract broiler growers are paid. The ruling requires live poultry dealers (integrators) to change the typical grower ranking systems, typically called “tournament pay”, to a system that establishes a minimum pay regardless of grower cost performance and allows for only positive pay incentives to be employed by integrators. For most integrators to meet this new requirement, it is expected that a standard minimum pay per pound of live broiler delivered to the processing plant will be established for all their growers. If you ask broiler growers, most will say they perceive this as a positive change, potentially making it easier to manage their businesses, and many will likely receive an increase in overall revenue. But this begs the question: will it positively affect all growers all the time, and is this the best way to help growers? And further, what affects revenue more – pay per pound or pounds out the door? In this and two upcoming contributions to Southern Ag Today, we look at what is driving the broiler revenue bus, to what extent does it have control, and finally, just how much a small change can mean to a grower’s bottom line.

    While an integrator may establish a fixed base, or minimum pay rate, that pay rate is only applied to pounds leaving the houses. There are many factors beyond the grower’s control that impact total pounds, such as bird placement rate (density), out-time between flocks, flock length, and mortality, especially when mortality is associated with a major disease event. While bird weight can be tied to farm management, the integrator makes the final decision on when to catch the birds, and a change of a couple of days can have a significant impact on pounds delivered. Out-time between flocks can also have significant impacts on pounds. Many things that affect out time are out of the control of both grower and integrator, like chick availability. To evaluate the question, I examined three and a half years of data from two broiler farms of the same size, age, technology, and in similar locations growing for the same integrator under the same tournament pay contract. The farms have different on-farm management, and Farm B is the better performer of the two. I compared bird revenue per house from 17 flocks to pounds per flock per square foot of housing (Lbs./SF) and pay per pound ($/CWT), nominally (Fig. 1a-b). A quick look at the graphs and it seems the green revenue line seems to mostly mirror the red Lbs./SF line. A closer look reveals that, while many flocks saw a directional movement of all three factors together, there were several flocks where $/CWT increased yet revenue decreased, driven by a decrease in Lbs./SF. There were also a few flocks where the opposite occurred and $/CWT decreased, yet revenue increased, driven by increased Lbs./SF. In these instances, Lbs./SF drives the revenue up or down despite opposite changes in pay rate. This would suggest that a simple pay rate fixation would not always equate to an increase in revenue, and that a decrease in pounds (often out of a grower’s control as indicated above) could easily overtake the potential positives of a marginal pay rate increase. 

    Figure 1a.

    Figure 1b.

    Brothers, Dennis. “Who’s Driving the Broiler Revenue Bus? (Part 1of 3).” Southern Ag Today 5(29.1). July 14, 2025. Permalink