Category: Farm Management

U.S. agricultural producers use hired farm labor for field crops, livestock, and nursery operations, for grading and sorting of agricultural products, for supervisory roles, and other areas. According to USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), mechanization led to greater productivity and a reduction in the need for labor, both self-employed farm operators (including family members) and hired workers, from 1950 to 1990. Since 1990, however, U.S. employment of agricultural workers has stabilized. For the 1950 to 1990 period, labor from self-employed and family members experienced a greater decline (74 percent) than hired farm labor (51 percent reduction). Even though hired farm labor comprises only one percent of all U.S. wage and salary workers, hired labor is important for agriculture to succeed (USDA/ERS, 2025).

Table 1 contains census of agriculture data for the number of hired farm laborers and farms with hired farm labor from 2012 to 2022, along with the ten-year average change for the southern states. There should be no surprise that all southern states have witnessed a decrease in both workers and farms with hired farm labor (for Maryland, the number of farm workers is essentially flat, but farms with hired labor are declining). Kentucky leads in the loss of hired farm labor over the ten-year average at -23.2%, followed by Oklahoma (-18.1%). Kentucky also leads in the decrease in the number of farms with hired farm labor at -18.7%, followed by Mississippi (-16.6%). For Kentucky during this timeframe, there was a shift away from tobacco production, a highly labor-intensive crop. Florida and Georgia have lost the fewest workers as measured by the ten-year average (USDA/NASS, 2025a). The prevailing reasons for the decrease in hired farm labor are the aging of the farm workforce, the lack of new immigrants entering agriculture, the displacement of labor by technology and machinery, costs, a lack of interest, and a preference for a better life-work balance.

Table 1. Number of Hired Farm Laborers (Workers) and Farms with Hired Farm Labor for Selected Southern States
	2012		2017		2022		2012-2022 Ave Δ
State	Workers	Farms	Workers	Farms	Workers	Farms	Workers	Farms
Kentucky	68,586	19,586	52,701	16,530	40,464	12,939	-23.2%	-18.7%
Oklahoma	51,119	18,108	42,431	16,794	34,323	13,181	-18.1%	-14.4%
Mississippi	32,307	10,581	27,166	9,105	21,936	7,345	-17.6%	-16.6%
N. Carolina	78,012	14,469	67,496	12,492	55,536	10,464	-15.6%	-14.9%
Virginia	46,561	12,718	39,657	10,954	33,719	8,969	-14.9%	-16.0%
Alabama	32,948	11,216	26,136	9,881	24,228	7,850	-14.0%	-16.2%
Texas	160,392	56,401	143,763	50,892	120,468	40,327	-13.3%	-15.3%
Tennessee	42,737	15,071	40,056	14,170	32,240	11,222	-12.9%	-13.4%
Louisiana	26,632	7,838	23,019	6,789	20,863	5,951	-11.5%	-12.9%
S. Carolina	23,398	5,851	20,938	5,254	18,730	4,449	-10.5%	-12.8%
Arkansas	33,104	11,715	29,047	10,373	28,162	9,051	-7.7%	-12.1%
Georgia	51,156	12,258	48,972	11,737	44,537	9,891	-6.7%	-10.0%
Florida	107,192	13,291	96,247	12,207	96,588	11,680	-4.9%	-6.2%
Maryland	14,705	3,536	15,143	3,410	14,820	2,992	0.4%	-7.9%
Source: Censuses of Agriculture

The 2022 agriculture census indicates that hired farm labor ranked third in a ranking of production expenses for southern states, preceded by feed purchases and livestock and poultry purchased/leased (see Menard SAT “Census of Agriculture Production Expenses for Southern States, 11/11/24). For all farms, data from the most recent agriculture census indicate that wages and salaries plus contract labor are 12 percent of production expenses. However, this percentage increases to 42 percent for greenhouse and nursery operations and 40 percent for fruit and tree nut operations. For immigrant labor costs in dairies and nurseries, costs as a share of gross revenues are near their 20-year highs. Hired farm labor wages vary by state and farm region. For 2024, the hourly wage rates for hired farm labor in the southern states range from $15.25 (Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) to $19.15 per hour (Maryland). For that same timeframe, hired farm labor ranges from $14.86 to $18.13 per hour for crop operations and $14.73 to $17.51 per hour for livestock operations (USDA/ERS, 2025; USDA/NASS 2025a & 2025b).

For 2022, the most common agriculture operation type for each state where hired farm labor was utilized is indicated in Table 2. The table also provides information for each state on the operation type having the largest hired farm labor production costs. For example, beef cattle (NAICS 112111) farming was the most common operation type for hired farm labor in Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. Greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture production operations had the highest hired farm labor production costs for Alabama, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

Table 2. Most Common Operation Type for Hired Farm Labor and Largest Hired Farm Labor Production Costs for Selected Southern States, 2022
State	Most Common (NAICS)	Largest Production Costs (NAICS)
Alabama	Beef Cattle (112111)	Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production (1114)
Arkansas	Oilseed & Grain Crops (1111)	Oilseed & Grain Crops (1111)
Florida	Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production (1114)	Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production (1114)
Georgia	Fruit & Tree Nut Farming (1113)	All Other Crop Farming (11194/11199*)
Kentucky	Beef Cattle (112111)	Other Animal Production (1129**)
Louisiana	Oilseed & Grain Crops (1111)	Oilseed & Grain Crops (1111)
Maryland	Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production (1114)	Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production (1114)
Mississippi	Oilseed & Grain Crops (1111)	Oilseed & Grain Crops (1111)
N. Carolina	Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production (1114)	Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production (1114)
Oklahoma	Beef Cattle (112111)	Beef Cattle (112111)
S. Carolina	Vegetable & Melon Farming (1112)	Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production (1114)
Tennessee	Beef Cattle (112111)	Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production (1114)
Texas	Beef Cattle (112111)	Beef Cattle (112111)
Virginia	Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production (1114)	Greenhouse, Nursery, & Floriculture Production (1114)
*Hay and peanut farming**Horse/equine productionSource: Censuses of Agriculture

There are a couple of interesting trends moving forward that may affect southern states and the use of hired farm labor.  Long-distance migrations from home to work are declining —farmworkers are more settled.  Fewer farmworkers are pursuing the seasonal follow-the-crop migration. Also, women as farmworkers is an increasing trend. (USDA/ERS, 2025; USDA/NASS, 2025a). 

Reference

USDA Economic Research Service (ERS). 2025. “Farm Labor.” Available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/ farm-economy/farm-labor.

USDA National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS). 2025a. Census of Agriculture Reports. Available at https://www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/index.php.

USDA National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS). 2025b. “Quick Stats.” Available at https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

---

Menard, R. Jamey. “Hired Farm Labor Trends.” Southern Ag Today 5(34.1). August 18, 2025. Permalink

Producers across the United States, particularly in the Southern states, are increasingly adopting the Livestock Risk Protection Program (LRP) despite a strong market and high premiums. Originally designed to protect ranchers against declining cattle prices, the LRP has experienced significant growth. The number of head covered under the program has increased from just 71,000 in 2017 to 7.5 million by July 2025. In 2024, ranchers insured prices for 6.2 million head, a notable increase from 4.97 million in 2023. This increase corresponds with changes made to the LRP program by the USDA and the substantial improvement in market prices for feeder and live cattle (see Figure 1).

The increase in cattle prices, coupled with the narrowing margins for stockers and feedlot operations, highlights the need to implement effective price risk management strategies. The LRP helps minimize financial losses, secure profit margins, and reduce the risk of business failure, especially considering higher investment levels. The higher adoption of the LRP indicates a growing number of ranchers are integrating price risk management plans to protect their operations. By establishing a floor price for their cattle, these ranchers significantly lower the risk of business failure.

Figure 1: LRP Usage and Prices

In the summers of 2019 and 2021, the USDA implemented several modifications to the Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) program that contributed to this growth. These changes not only reduced the premiums ranchers had to pay but also allowed them to defer premium payments until the end of the endorsement period, making the program more accessible across all states and counties. 

While LRP can be used to hedge many beef cattle categories, not every LRP animal category has increased at the same rate. Steer Weight 2 is the most commonly used category for price hedging. This category had an average weight of 854 pounds per head insured. So far in 2025, this category accounts for 42% of all transactions, which is slightly below the historical average of 46%. The second and third largest categories are Fed Cattle Steers & Heifers, which have a historical average weight of 1,480 pounds per insured head, and Heifers Weight 2, which have a historical average weight of 826 pounds. These two categories account for 20% and 17% of the historical transactions, respectively.

Remarkably, the Unborn category has experienced significant growth this year. Unborn cattle represent 11% of the total number of head insured, well above the historical average of 6%. Historically, the Steers and heifers Category 1, including the Unborn category, accounts for 17% of all head insured. This past year, that proportion increased to 22%, thanks to the growth in unborn cattle.

Figure 2: Beef LRP Usage per Animal Category

Ranchers in the Southern region have also increasingly adopted the Livestock Risk Protection (LRP) program as an essential tool for managing price risks over the past five years (see Figure 3). As of July 2025, ranchers insured approximately 1.3 million head of cattle annually through the LRP program, with Texas and Oklahoma accounting for 47% and 30% of the total, respectively. However, in the past year, participation from Texas and Oklahoma has decreased compared to other Southern states. So far in 2025, these two states represent 77% of the total head insured in the Southern region, down from 88% participation in 2024.

Figure 3: LRP Usage in the Southern States

For more information on the LRP, consult the USDA Fact Sheet on Livestock Risk Protection for Fed Cattle. If you’re considering purchasing price insurance through this program, you can find a list of approved livestock agents and insurance companies on the USDA website.

---

Abello, Pancho. “USDA’s Livestock Risk Protection Program Use Keeps Increasing.” Southern Ag Today 5(33.1). August 11, 2025. Permalink

Much has been written recently about the strength of the current cattle market. With beef cow inventory at a 60+ year low and demand being very strong, cow-calf operations are clearly in the driver’s seat. Calf values are more than double what they were three years ago, which speaks to considerable opportunity for cow-calf operators to invest in their cowherds. Expansion is often the first opportunity that comes to mind in a strong calf market, and there is likely merit in expansion, if doing so is consistent with the goals of the operation. However, some producers may not be interested in growing the size of their cowherds due to land constraints, management limitations, or other reasons. The following are a few other investment opportunities worth consideration.

Genetics – Some producers may choose to use the current increase in cow-calf revenues to improve the genetics of their herds. Investment in genetics often has long-run implications, resulting in more valuable calves to sell over multiple years. Sires certainly come to mind, but the current calf market combined with the strong cull cow prices may provide an opportunity to cull a bit harder and also purchase some higher quality females.

Facilities – Working facilities are crucial resources for cow-calf operations for numerous reasons. Value-added opportunities such as health protocols, post-weaning programs, castration, implants, etc. are made much easier with quality working facilities. The same is true for receiving, sorting and loading of cattle. If facilities have historically been a constraint, the current market may be providing an opportunity to make improvements and position the operation to sell higher value calves in the future.

Grazing systems – Winter feeding days are typically the most expensive days for cow-calf operations as stored feed (hay) is being fed. Improved grazing systems (interior fencing, additional water sources, portable mineral feeders, etc.) allow for more efficient use of existing forage during the grazing season. This has the potential to increase the number of grazing days and reduce the number of hay feeding days. In most cases, this results in lower costs per cow per year and puts an operation in a better position when calf prices fall.

Debt service / financial management – Strong markets also provide an opportunity to make financial moves that set an operation up for the long run. Increased revenues may allow an operation to pay down some debt and thereby lower their cost structure going forward. Similarly, it may provide an opportunity to build some working capital and lower dependence on operating loans. In both cases, future interest expenses are reduced, which has implications for profitability.

To be clear, the purpose of this article was not to discourage expansion. There are likely operations that need to do just that. But I also live in an area where land constraints are real and know that expansion is not always feasible. Plus, I have seen situations where operations expanded during strong markets and wished they had not done so a few years later. The main point is that the current calf market provides a significant opportunity for a cow-calf operation to position itself for the long-run, and that will look different for each one of them.

---

Burdine, Kenny. “Cowherd Expansion is Not the Only Way to Capitalize on a Strong Calf Market.” Southern Ag Today 5(32.1). August 4, 2025. Permalink

Farmland is one of the most important assets for agricultural producers, serving as both a source of income and a foundation for their livelihood. With continued strong demand for agricultural land, farmland values in the Southern U.S. have steadily increased over time. According to the USDA Economic Research Service, the compound annual growth rate of farmland values between 2018 and 2024 was around 5 percent. 

However, in recent years, there has been growing discussion that demand for farmland isn’t coming solely from producers. From media reports and even casual conversations with neighbors, we often hear about billionaires purchasing large tracts of farmland or significant parcels being sold to developers. Yet despite these stories and the concerns they raise, there is little concrete information about how frequently non-producer buyers are participating in the farmland market. This leads us to an important question: How active are non-agricultural buyers in today’s agricultural land market?

Using transaction-level data from lending institutions in Mississippi covering the period from 2019 through the first half of 2023, we can begin to understand the different types of buyers in the agricultural land market. Buyers are categorized into four groups: (1) individuals and general partnerships (GPs), likely involved in agricultural production; (2) financial and real estate businesses; (3) non-individual/non-GP agricultural businesses; and (4) other industries. Other than the first group (individuals and GPs), the rest are limited partnerships, limited liability companies, and corporations, and they are grouped based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. 

Figure 1: Number of Agricultural Land Transactions by Buyer Type

Figure 1 shows the number of farmland transactions completed by four groups between 2019 and the first half of 2023: (1) individuals and general partnerships (GPs), (2) financial and real estate businesses, (3) non-individual/non-GP agricultural businesses, and (4) all other business entities.

What we find is that the majority of farmland transactions in Mississippi are predominantly carried out by individuals and GPs. Between 75% and 83% of all transactions during this period involved buyers from this group. The presence of financial and real estate businesses in the market has grown over time, even though their overall share still remains somewhat small. Their share of total farmland transactions ranges between 6.36% in 2019 and 10.42% in the first half of 2023—surpassing the share of non-individual/non-GP agricultural businesses, which ranged from 7% to 9% during the same period. The final group—comprised of other businesses such as those in construction, warehousing, and unrelated industries—accounted for approximately 4% to 6% of total transactions.

In summary, individuals and general partnerships (GPs) remain the most active participants in the farmland market in terms of transaction frequency. However, there is an increase in the number of non-individual/non-GP buyers, particularly financial and real estate developers. While this external demand may help support farmland values, it can also contribute to upward pressure on land prices—bringing both potential benefits and challenges for agricultural producers. Moreover, this shift in ownership patterns coincides with a long-term decline in U.S. farmland acreage, but identifying the actual relationship will require more rigorous examination. As the farmland market continues to evolve, understanding who is buying agricultural land—and why—becomes increasingly important. Continued monitoring of buyer trends can help inform policy discussions, land use planning, and long-term strategies.

---

Kim, Kevin, Hudu Abukari, Ayoung Kim, and Brian E. Mills. “Who’s Buying Farmland? A Look at Mississippi’s Agricultural Land Market.” Southern Ag Today 5(31.1). July 28, 2025. Permalink

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