This year Tennessee celebrates 31 years of partnership with the AgrAbility Project, a national initiative that continues to change the lives of farmers and ranchers with disabilities. Since its establishment in the 1990 Farm Bill and initial federal funding in 1991, AgrAbility has expanded to 21 states—including Tennessee, which launched its program in 1994. In Tennessee alone, AgrAbility has supported more than 1,300 farmers whose physical conditions have limited their ability to farm—offering them new tools, resources, and, most importantly, hope. However, Tennessee is but one of several AgrAbility programs in the South. Other Southern AgrAbility programs include Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and Texas. Together, these programs help Southern farmers continue to farm in the face of disability.
The core vision of AgrAbility is simple but powerful: to enhance the quality of life for those in agriculture who face disabling conditions. That vision is realized through access to assistive technology, gainful employment opportunities in agriculture, and evidence-based information to help individuals manage and overcome challenges. Tennessee’s program is a collaborative effort among the University of Tennessee Extension, Tennessee State University Extension, the STAR Center (a nonprofit disability organization in Jackson, TN), and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
What makes AgrAbility unique is its inclusivity—its services are available to any farmer in the state, regardless of farm size or income. With the average age of farmers steadily increasing, there’s a growing demand for adaptive technologies to address issues such as mobility limitations, hearing and vision impairments, arthritis, and other age-related conditions.
Over time, assistive technologies have become more advanced, and so have the farmers AgrAbility serves. The program’s reach now includes veterans, women, and older farmers in the south —each bringing their own strengths and stories to the field. AgrAbility works with agricultural partners to connect farmers with essential resources and to foster open conversations about farm stress and mental health—topics once left in the shadows.
At its heart, AgrAbility is about resilience, independence, and the unwavering spirit of farmers. With a dedicated team, strong partners, and ongoing support from organizations like the Tennessee Department of Human Services/Vocational Rehabilitation Services, AgrAbility is not just a program—it’s a lifeline.
Here’s to 30 plus years of making farming possible for all.
Arguably, farmer-owned cooperatives are the lifeblood of agriculture in the United States. They help agricultural producers to overcome a lack of market power, guarantee access to markets and services, and improve overall financial well-being from ownership of the supply chain. As long as American agriculture is composed of a relatively large number of small producers of undifferentiated commodities, cooperatives will remain a needed part of the industry. But what, in turn, is the lifeblood of your local cooperative? Members!
A cooperative is a business that is owned and controlled by the people who use it. More than just customers, these members have responsibilities to their cooperative that relate to use, ownership and control, and finance. The success or failure of a cooperative hangs on proper attention to these responsibilities.
I. Use
Cooperative members have a responsibility to use their cooperative. Cooperatives strive for greater volume of business to help them achieve profitable economies of scale. A member’s use of their cooperative sounds like the easiest of responsibilities to fulfill. However, many cooperative owners have difficulty with this. I believe the problem is that they haven’t fully adopted the owner mentality. They see their relationship with their cooperative as just another customer opportunity, meaning that when short term price opportunities arise, they quickly abandon the business that they own in favor of a competitor. This then leads many cooperative managers to exclaim, “There is no member loyalty today”.
The lesson? Members need to remember that their ownership of the cooperative represents future profitability, more stable returns, access to needed markets and services, and general protection from powerful buyers and sellers that are not invested in their future. Cooperative managers must also learn – members have no incentive to be loyal if the only benefit you offer them is based on price. Successful cooperatives also pursue excellence in customer service and product quality and will continually educate members on the value of cooperation.
II. Ownership and Control
Cooperative members have a responsibility to exert the rights of ownership and control over their cooperative. Each member of the cooperative is an owner and should understand their cooperative in all aspects – its structure, bylaws, policies, operations, legal obligations, and financial status. Occasionally, I am approached by an individual with a great idea for a business and who thinks a cooperative business structure would be best. Most of those cases fail to progress when we discuss member-ownership and control.
Cooperatives are formed by members based on their needs. Members incorporate the business – not management. Members elect directors, define the mission of the cooperative and establish bylaws and policies. Although members hire a general manager to operate the business and manage employees, they are still involved in controlling the business by providing direction, serving on committees, expressing opinions, and voting on significant changes to the cooperative.
The most successful cooperatives educate members about operations and the ways that the cooperative engages in business. Boards of directors often take a tour of their cooperative’s operations and come away surprised at their increased knowledge that inspires better board decisions.
III. Finance
Cooperative members have a responsibility to finance the cooperative for the purpose of conducting operations. They are not responsible for financial returns. Profitability remains the responsibility of management. Members are responsible for ensuring the business has the necessary capital to form and operate the business. This is done initially through the purchase of a share of voting stock (which gives the rights of membership). One-time investments may also be used when forming the business or expanding into new services or product lines. Ultimately, the most important means for members to finance their cooperative takes us back to use, or patronage. The greater the patronage, the greater the cost efficiency of the cooperative. It should be noted that members are responsible in sharing losses just as they are in sharing earnings.
Members make the cooperative successful. Through use, ownership and control, and finance, members are the lifeblood of their local cooperative.
Raising state minimum wage rates to more than twice the federal minimum wage rates is expected now or in the near future in many specialty crop-producing states, posing significant financial challenges to U.S. fresh produce growers. With Florida’s basic minimum state wage rates set to reach $15 per hour by September 2026 and California already at $16.50 per hour (United States Department of Labor, 2022)—and farm wages potentially climbing to $19 per hour— labor costs, already a substantial portion of production expenses, are expected to increase considerably. This exacerbates competition with Mexican growers, who benefit from significantly lower wages—roughly one-tenth of U.S. rates—enabling them to price strawberries more competitively, particularly during the U.S. winter season.
As of 2020, Florida’s minimum wage was $8.56 per hour and is expected to reach $15 per hour by 2026 (United States Department of Labor, 2022). In contrast, the increasing wage disparity between the U.S. and Mexico provides Mexican producers a consistent competitive edge, evident by Mexico’s substantial market share—approximately 60% of all U.S. fresh produce imports and 98% of strawberry imports. Higher U.S. labor costs are projected to reduce domestic strawberry supplies by as much as 37%, causing domestic prices to rise by 14% to 30%. Consequently, Mexican strawberry exports to the U.S. are expected to increase significantly, further intensifying competition.
Recent research highlights the financial implications: if the minimum wage increases to $15 per hour, the U.S. strawberry industry could lose $93 million (-5.5%) in revenue (Table 1). Should wages climb to $19 per hour, losses may escalate to $304 million (-17.9%) (Table 2).
To address these challenges, Southeastern U.S. growers are encouraged to proactively adopt strategies to remain competitive. Short-term measures may include advocating for equitable trade policies addressing wage disparities. Long-term solutions require investments in automation, mechanization, and artificial intelligence to reduce labor dependency. Embracing technological innovations, reassessing pricing strategies, diversifying into niche markets, and seeking governmental support or favorable trade policies will be critical to ensuring the long-term sustainability and profitability of Southeastern U.S. strawberry producers in an increasingly competitive global market.
Notes: RUSP: Real U.S. price for strawberry in $/lb.; RMXP: Real Mexican import value of strawberry in $/lb.; USQ: U.S. strawberry (non-organic) shipments in Million lbs.; MXQ: Mexican strawberry shipments in Million lbs. Pre-policy values are calibrated by averaging pre-policy data (2017-2019). In this scenario, farmers would pay their crews at the lower bound set by state law—a minimum of $15/hour.
Table 2. Pre- and Post-Policy Minimum Wage Increase: $19/Hour Wage Scenario (Maintaining the Same Margin)
Pre-Policy values
Post-Policy values
Difference
%Change
RUSP ($/lb.)
0.97
1.26
0.29
30.5%
RMXP ($/lb.)
1.41
1.74
0.32
23.0%
MXQ (M. lbs.)
374.89
546.30
171.40
45.7%
USQ (M. lbs.)
1,765.60
1,108.48
-657.12
-37.2%
U.S. Revenue (M.$)
1,699.39
1,395.08
-304.31
-17.9%
MX revenue (M.$)
532.02
952.59
420.56
79.0%
Notes: RUSP: Real U.S. price for strawberry in $/lb.; RMXP: Real Mexican import value of strawberry in $/lb.; USQ: U.S. strawberry (non-organic) shipments in Million lbs.; MXQ: Mexican strawberry shipments in Million lbs. Pre-policy values are calibrated by averaging pre-policy data (2017-2019). Retrieved from USDA-AMS (2021) and USD-FAS (2021) In this scenario, farmers would maintain the same margin difference relative to the increasing minimum wage, resulting in a wage of $19/hour when the minimum wage rises to $15/hour.
Over the span of two centuries, the economic structure of the United States has evolved from a predominantly agrarian base to an industrial and, more recently, a service-oriented economy. As these transitions happened, many urban and suburban residents in the U.S. became increasingly disconnected from agriculture, as employment in the agricultural sector declined from approximately 8 million in 1950 to about 2.3 million at the end of 2024 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025). According to the 2020 census, about 80% of the U.S. population live in urban areas, a slight decrease from 2010. Yet, despite this urban shift, the public’s interest in understanding where food comes from remains strong given the growth in farm participation in agritourism over the years and the revenue generated from these activities. The development and expansion of agritourism, creates opportunities for individuals to engage with farms and experience agriculture firsthand. Agritourism encompasses a range of farm-based activities, including educational tours, U-pick operations, farm-to-table events, and guided visits to crop and livestock farms, such as petting zoos.
Agritourism has been an important segment of the agricultural economy in the U.S., contributing $1.26 billion in agricultural revenues in 2022, and is expected to grow in the coming years (USDA NASS, 2025). This growth, while expected nationwide, is also evident in southern United States, where agritourism is gaining traction. The southern region contributed about 35% of the total U.S. agritourism and recreational services income (Table 1). Moreover, over 40% of the farms indicate this level of income activity is from the southern region. To emphasize the importance of agritourism on the economy, recent studies have undertaken economic impact assessments for states like Tennessee and Georgia. In Tennessee, Dhungana and Khanal (2023) estimated a total industry output of approximately $119 million, driven by $65 million in direct spending on agritourism farms. Georgia’s agritourism-related activities were estimated to have generated a total economic impact of $109.8 million in 2022, increasing from $88.2 million in 2021 (Kane, 2024).
Most southern states experienced an increase in agritourism and recreational income and farm participation between 2017 and 2022 (Table 1). Louisiana and Tennessee had the highest increases in farm participation of 23.3% and 11.0%, respectively. Unsurprisingly, the bulk of farm participation occurred in Texas with 4,816 farms in 2022, down from 5,723 in 2017. Despite this decline in farm participation in Texas, the state saw an 18% increase in revenue to about $192 million in 2022. All states, except Kentucky, recognized increases in income, with South Carolina (125.6%), Mississippi (99.6%), Oklahoma (70.7%), and Tennessee (68.4%) showing increases above sixty percent. Despite a 9.2% increase in farm participation in Kentucky, its income decreased by 15.5% to $14.4 million.
Beyond its broader economic contributions, agritourism serves as a critical farm diversification strategy, allowing producers to generate additional revenue streams while mitigating enterprise risks associated with a non-diversified income stream, such as market price fluctuations. As consumer demand for local foods continues to rise, the willingness to pay price premiums for these products will create ongoing opportunities for farms engaged in direct sales. Agritourism also fosters economic development through indirect channels, including job creation in hospitality and food retail sectors that support local foods and agricultural sectors. Additionally, visitor spending in agricultural communities bolsters rural economies, enhancing their economic resilience. Beyond economic impacts, agritourism strengthens cultural heritage and reinforces rural identities. Educational components of agritourism facilitate partnerships between farmers, local organizations, and schools, fostering deeper community engagement. As agritourism continues to expand, its role in supporting both agricultural viability and rural economic development will remain significant.
Table 1. Agritourism and Recreational Income for Southern U.S.
State/Region
No. of Farms
Income ($000)
2017
2022
2017
2022
AL
481
507
$6,793
$9,848
AR
295
316
$4,705
$6,000
FL
761
784
$27,047
$39,924
GA
736
742
$28,058
$31,052
KY
651
711
$17,013
$14,372
LA
215
265
$2,567
$3,058
MS
321
346
$6,564
$13,104
NC
995
982
$23,785
$30,399
OK
761
736
$6,525
$11,139
SC
505
516
$6,219
$14,032
TN
644
715
$14,519
$24,457
TX
5,723
4,816
$162,567
$191,793
VA
863
833
$40,933
$52,047
United States
28,575
28,617
$949,323
$1,259,261
Southern Region
12,951
12,269
$347,295
$441,225
Southern Region (% of U.S. Total)
45.3
42.9
36.6
35.0
Source: USDA NASS 2022 Census of Agriculture Note: Income is not adjusted for inflation.
References
Dhungana, P., and A. Khanal. 2023. “Spending on farms ripples into the region: agritourism impacts.” Frontiers in Environmental Economics 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/frevc.2023.1219245.
There are examples of successful cooperatives in almost every business sector from funeral homes to ski resorts. Cooperatives are particularly prominent in the U.S. agricultural sector. Understanding the forces behind that observation reveals a lot about our agricultural sector and the cooperative business model.
Many sectors of U.S. production agriculture are dominated by family farms. Generally speaking, the family farm structure has been successful, and family members, or in many cases extended family members with skin in the game, are able to manage the unique aspects of the farm resources. However, that family-based organizational structure also leads to inherent challenges. Many farms are specialized in a single standardized commodity. They also deal with firms that are much larger than them in both their upstream (input purchase) and downstream (commodity marketing) transactions.
Agricultural cooperatives function as extensions of the farm firm allowing producers to achieve economies of scale and a better bargaining position for both inputs and marketing. One of the major reasons that agricultural cooperatives are prominent in the U.S. is that family farms are prominent in the U.S. Cooperatives allow farmers to operate independently but still capture the economies of a large-scale business structure. Those scale economies are possible because many producers are sourcing similar inputs and marketing similar commodities.
Geography and transportation also contribute to the rationale for agricultural cooperatives. A dairy producer in New York cannot sell their milk to a processor in California. Producers depend on input suppliers and marketing outlets near their location. Their success is dependent upon those outlets remaining in existence. They also face the possibility that a local input supplier or marketing firm could have a “mini-monopoly” in an area. Agricultural producers form cooperatives to guarantee access to input and marketing infrastructure and to help keep markets honest.
In my Agricultural Cooperative textbook, I have an entire chapter discussing the economic rationale for cooperatives. In the case of agricultural cooperatives, their prominence and success relates back to the prominence of family and multi-family farms. The gap in size between family farms and their upstream and downstream trading partners continues to grow rapidly. That suggests that agricultural cooperatives are more important now than ever!
