Category: Farm Management

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

In light of the recent Independence Day holiday and remembering the founding fathers, there are many attributes from them that can be appreciated. 

It is well known that many of the founding fathers had backgrounds in agriculture. Ben Franklin and James Madison were early proponents of sustainable farming. Thomas Jefferson had a penchant for plants and scientific experimentation. George Washington dabbled in all of those but was also known to be a meticulous bookkeeper. These records were considered essential in determining the success of his enterprises. 

Due to these records and historical preservation efforts, we catch a glimpse of Washington’s efforts in farm management. They were without the digital technologies we enjoy so the records were kept entirely by hand. Day-to-day activities often got recorded in “waste books, pocketbooks, day books or memorandum books”, not unlike a typical pocket notebook farmers may utilize today. Later, the notes from these books would make it into a more formal recording known as a “journal of accounts”. If enterprises became large or complex enough, there were ledgers of accounts and even an accountant to handle these tasks. Washington, however, recorded all the transactions himself. He did so following accounting manuals such as John Mair’s Book-Keeping Methodiz’d. 

While referring to his records and correspondence, Washington noted that after dinner “I resolve …[to] retire to my writing table and acknowledge the letters I have received; but when the lights are brought, I feel tired, and disinclined to engage in this work, conceiving that the next night will do as well; the next comes, and with it the same causes for postponement, & effect; and so on.” A sentiment that perhaps many a farmer can understand. However, it is evident Washington did find time for these tasks as he required large desks and bookcases to accommodate all his files. 

Washington’s records were thorough, as evidenced by the number of documents still available and the detailed entries found on the pages. The documents are being reviewed and catalogued as part of preservation efforts through George Washington’s estate, Mount Vernon. This includes the ‘Washington as Bookkeeper’ article and The George Washington Financial Papers Project used as references for this article. That Washington continued to keep his own books and records when, almost certainly later in life, he could have had someone handle these tasks indicates the level of importance Washington placed on the contents. 

Washington made comments throughout his decorated career on desiring to return to Mount Vernon, “I had rather be on my farm than be emperor of the world”. That Washington desired to relinquish his political power and return to humbler occupations is one reason we admire him today. To think that he would spend a considerable portion of his time recording day-to-day activities at Mount Vernon seems almost unfathomable. Let us admire his dedication, and that we can benefit from his records and example in present day.   

---

Burkett, Kevin. “Founding Farmer.” Southern Ag Today 5(29.1). July 14, 2025. Permalink

In May, the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) released commodity cost and return estimates for crop and livestock products grown in the United States. These estimates are published twice a year and offer insights into the costs faced by the “average” producer at the national and regional levels across the United States. Additionally, on June 18, ERS released cost-of-production forecasts for the 2025 and 2026 production years. This article uses the ERS data to examine changes in operating costs^[1] for producers in southern states since 2022, when farm operating costs peaked, and to estimate future cost trends.

Figure 1 compares operating costs for selected crops in 2022, 2023, and 2024 based on ERS data. Note that ERS divides states into farm resource regions for their estimates. The Prairie Gateway includes most of Texas, parts of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Nebraska, as well as all of Kansas. The Southern Seaboard consists of the easternmost counties of Texas, the northwestern counties of Louisiana, the southeastern counties of Mississippi, and most of Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. Finally, the Mississippi portal covers the eastern parts of Arkansas and Louisiana, along with the western parts of Tennessee and Mississippi.

The data show that operating costs in the southern United States have decreased from their recent highs in 2022; however, they are still significantly above their 10-year averages. The only exception is cotton in the Prairie Gateway states, where increases in ginning costs (due to higher production in 2023 and 2024) and interest costs were enough to offset reductions in other expenses. Table 1 outlines the changes in specific operating costs from 2022 to 2024, explaining why overall costs have decreased since 2022. Unsurprisingly, reductions in operating expenses are mainly due to lower costs for fertilizer, chemicals, and fuel over the past two years.  

Unfortunately for producers, the recent decline in operating costs is likely to be temporary. Table 2 presents the ERS forecasts for corn, cotton, peanuts, and soybeans’ operating expenses in 2025 and 2026, alongside the 2024 cost estimates for comparison. The forecasts indicate that operating expenses will remain close to their 2024 level this year and are expected to rise slightly in 2026. Note that the commodity cost forecasts are reported at the national level rather than the regional level. However, regional and national trends are highly correlated in the ERS cost estimates. Therefore, it is reasonable that regional cost forecasts would resemble the national forecast provided by ERS.

Figure 1. Operating Costs ($/ac) for Selected Crops in Southern Regions, 2022-2024 and 10-Year Average

Table 1. Change in Operating Costs ($/ac), 2022-2024 

 Table 2. Estimated and Forecasted Operating Costs, 2024-2026

---

^[1] Operating costs for all crops include seed, fertilizer, chemicals, custom services, fuel/lube/electricity, repairs, purchased irrigation water, and interest on operating inputs. In addition, cotton operating costs includes ginning, and peanut operating costs includes commercial drying.     

---

References and Resources

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Commodity Costs and Returns data. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns/documentation    

---

Wright, Andrew. “Recent Trends in Farm Operating Costs.” Southern Ag Today 5(28.1). July 7, 2025. Permalink

Timber Market Update

The average south-wide stumpage prices for most major timber products remained relatively unchanged in Q1 2025, staying flat or trending slightly downward. Pine sawtimber averaged around $25/ton, slightly below the price a year ago and about 10% lower than its recent high in Q1 2022 (TimberMart-South, 2025). Pine chip-n-saw prices continued to decline, averaging around $17-18/ton, down about 10% year-over-year and 18% below their 2022 peak. Over the past two years, the average pine and hardwood pulpwood prices have stabilized around $7–8/ton, falling from early 2022 highs. One exception is hardwood sawtimber. Its price held better than other timber products, reaching a record high ($35/ton) in Q4 2024 before a modest retreat in Q1 2025. 

While overall changes in south-wide averages are minimal, stumpage prices across the region vary greatly by state and subregion, largely depending on local weather conditions, local mill demand, and post-disaster salvage activities. Compared to a year ago, pine sawtimber prices fell sharply in Florida (-25%), declined moderately in South Georgia (-11%) and Louisiana (-8%), but remained stable in Alabama, Arkansas, North Georgia, and Mississippi. 

A Closer Look at the Southern Timber Markets

Generally, weak pine sawtimber prices are mainly due to the sluggish housing market. Over 70% of the U.S. softwood lumber and structural panels are used in residential construction, especially in single-family homes, and home improvement activities (Alderman, 2022). Although newly built single-family houses now make up a significantly larger share of for-sale inventory than before the pandemic, their overall supply remains limited. Contributing factors include rising construction material costs, labor shortages, higher financing costs, restrictive zoning regulation, an increase in existing homes for sale (the highest in five years), and declining housing affordability. Uncertainty around tariffs and immigration policy further discourages expansion for homebuilders. In April, single-family housing starts fell to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 927,000, down 12% from the previous year and the lowest level since July 2024. A slowdown in remodeling and repair activity has also contributed to softer demand for lumber and timber products (JCHS, 2025).

Despite weak demand, southern softwood lumber mill capacity continues to grow, exceeding 28.4 billion board feet in 2024— a 35% increase from 2017 (Figure 1)—with an additional 753 million board feet by 2026 (Forisk, 2025). Much of this expansion is driven by Canadian lumber companies facing reduced log availability in Western Canada and ongoing U.S. tariffs. The combination of this increased capacity, while current production aligns with weak demand, means lower capacity utilization. Utilization rates of southern softwood lumber mills have declined from 85% in 2021 (Forisk, 2023) to 75% in 2024 due to softer lumber demand (Forisk, 2025; SFPA, 2025).

The decline in softwood and hardwood pulpwood prices reflects the continued closure and conversion of wood pulping mills in the South. In 2024, wood-using pulping capacity in the South continued to shrink, driven by product shifts in the paper and paperboard industries and the increased use of recycled fiber in pulp production (Figure 2). These structural changes are expected to keep pulpwood prices suppressed, especially in areas impacted by Hurricane Helene and recent paper mill closures.

Figure 1. U.S. South Softwood Lumber Mill Capacity, 2013-2024

Figure 2. U.S. South Wood-using Pulping Capacity, 2013-2024

Figure 3. Added Softwood Lumber Mill Capacity by State, 2017-2025

Looking Ahead

As a leading indicator, single-family housing permits declined by 5.1% in April to an annualized rate of 922,000 units, 6.2% lower than the same time last year. Housing starts are expected to remain weak through the remainder of 2025. This downward pressure, combined with a lingering oversupply of sawtimber from a decade of underbuilding, is expected to weigh on southern timber markets. 

The tariff on softwood lumber imports from Canada currently remains at 14.5% but is expected to increase in fall 2025 (NAHB, 2025). Higher tariffs may reduce Canadian lumber imports and promote U.S. domestic production over the long term. However, they could drive up construction costs in the short term, exacerbating already low housing affordability. 

Areas that have a recent expansion in mill capacity may see localized increases in sawtimber prices (Figure 3). Counties devastated by Hurricane Helene (e.g., South Georgia) may face tighter timber supply and rising sawtimber prices due to local inventory shortages, particularly in areas with low growth-to-drain ratios (USDA Forest Service, 2024).

References

Alderman, D. 2022. U.S. forest products annual market review and prospects, 2015-2021. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-289. Madison, WI: USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.

Forisk. 2023. Regional forest product mill utilization. Athens, GA: Forisk.

Forisk. 2025. Forisk North American forest industry capacity database. Athens, GA: Forisk.

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (JCHS). 2025. Leading Indicator of Remodeling Activity (LIRA). Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.

National Association of Home builders (NAHB). 2025. In win for NAHB, Canadian lumber exempt from Trump’s global reciprocal tariffs. 

The Southern Forest Products Association (SFPA). 2025. Lumber shorts. Metairie, LA: SFPA.

TimberMart-South. 2025. Market news quarterly. Athens, GA: TMS.

USDA Forest Service. 2024. Forest Inventory Analysis Program Forest Inventory EVALIDator web-application. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

---

Li, Yanshu. “Timber Market Remains Sluggish Amid Weakened Housing Starts.“ Southern Ag Today 5(27.1). June 30, 2025. Permalink