Category: Specialty Topics

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

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.

Kane, S. 2024. “2024 Ag Snapshot.” Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development, University of Georgia Extension. https://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=AP129-2&title=2024-ag-snapshots.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2025. https://www.bls.gov/ (Accessed March 17, 2025).

USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 2025. “2022 Census of Agriculture.” https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/.

---

Britwum, Kofi, and Chrystol Thomas. “Developing Rural Economic Opportunities Through Agritourism.” Southern Ag Today 5(12.5). March 21, 2025. Permalink

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!

---

Kenkel, Phil. “Why Are Cooperatives Prominent in U.S. Agriculture?” Southern Ag Today 5(11.5). March 14, 2025. Permalink

The number of breweries has grown substantially over the past decade, becoming a ubiquitous establishment in communities nationwide. However, many of these breweries are small craft producers that lack resources for in-depth market research, creating a need for localized consumer insights—especially in the Southeast where growth of the beer sector has been slower. This synthesis of our case study on the consumption and purchasing habits of Florida beer consumers provides insight into how breweries can effectively market their products to specific segments. 

We find that craft beer has broad appeal with 72% of those surveyed reporting regular purchases. As expected, millennials lead in both purchase frequency and spending, with the highest median monthly beer expenditure at $50 (see Figure 1 and Table 1). Though spending is less ($25 median) among baby boomers, it is not negligible, and, in some areas, they represent a sizable market when aggregated. Women spend nearly the same amount and purchase craft beer at close to the same frequency as men, in-line with national trends towards gender parity and a sign that inclusive marketing is an increasingly important consideration as breweries look to expand their consumer base in a competitive market. 

Table 1. Median monthly beer expenditure by gender and generation

	1st Quartile	Median	3rd Quartile
Gender
Female(n = 325)	$15	$25	$50
Male(n = 257)	$15	$30	$75
Generation
Millennials (n = 127)	$20	$50	$100
Gen X (n = 141)	$15	$30	$60
Baby Boomers (n = 298)	$13	$25	$50

Regarding where consumers drink and shop, beer is most frequently consumed at home (68%) and purchased from grocery stores (66%). This presents two significant challenges for small breweries with goals of tapping into broader marketing channels: (1) acquiring and maintaining canning or bottling equipment and facilities is a major capital investment decision which cannot be easily reversed, and (2) grocery stores dedicate limited shelf space to beer and favor widely recognized brands. To successfully expand into packaged beer, breweries should consider developing a targeted marketing strategy for off-premises retail sales. 

The full case study can be found at https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FE1160. 

---

Hambaryan, Meri, Glory Orivri, Nathan Palardy, John Lai, and Bachir Kassas. “Who’s Buying this Round? Insights from Florida to Help Breweries Reach Consumers.” Southern Ag Today 5(10.5). March 7, 2025. Permalink

Since November 2023, grocery inflation (food-at-home, FAH) has slowed to around 1%, following fluctuations in 2021 and 2023 that peaked at 13.5% (US BLS). However, the perception of grocery inflation remains relatively high. Our monthly consumer survey of approximately 500 primary grocery shoppers in the US reveals that a significant share of consumers still perceives grocery inflation as high (Figure 1).^[1] Over 60% of respondents reported high inflation perceptions between July 2023 and May 2024 when the average FAH inflation rate was 1.8%. While this is lower than the peak of 73% in July 2022, it remains well above the pre-high inflationary period average of 33% (January 2017–August 2021). Several factors contribute to the persistently high perception of inflation among consumers.

First, the sustained high inflation perception among consumers is expected because current moderate inflation indicates that prices for many goods and services continue to rise, even after a significant jump during the high inflationary period (Figure 2). Inflation measures the rate at which prices increase over time, calculated by comparing prices in the current period to those from the same period one year earlier. Falling inflation rates do not imply that prices are decreasing; instead, they indicate that prices are rising at a slower pace. This often confuses consumers, who may misinterpret news about decreasing inflation rates as a reduction in overall price levels. Disinflation (i.e., a slowdown in the rate of inflation) should not be confused with deflation, which refers to an actual decrease in general price levels (Marks, 2023).

Second, consumers often compare current prices to those they were accustomed to prior to the period of high inflation, rather than to prices from one year ago as inflation metrics do. For example, comparing the FAH consumer price index (CPI) from May 2024 to May 2020 reveals a substantial cumulative inflation rate of 24.68%, as demonstrated in Figure 3. This tendency could lead to a heightened perception of current inflation.  

Third, frequent purchases of essential items like groceries amplify inflation perceptions. As noted by D’Acunto et al. (2021), frequent exposure to necessity purchases heightens inflation awareness. A survey by Balagtas and Bryant (2024) found that consumers were more sensitive to food price increases compared to other goods, despite actual food inflation (2.2%) being relatively low compared to items like housing (4.5%) and auto insurance (22.6%). Understanding what inflation is and how it is calculated is essential for consumers to bridge the gap between actual inflation and their perceived inflation. Historically, grocery prices rarely decrease (US BLS), making it unlikely that inflation perceptions will quickly return to pre-high-inflation levels. However, rising incomes (US BLS) are expected to gradually ease these perceptions over time. Identifying and addressing evidence-based causes of persistent high inflation perception can improve public understanding, boost consumer confidence, and help policymakers to communicate more effectively with consumers about economic conditions.

Figure 1. the Inflation Rate of Food at Home (FAH) Based on Consumer Price Index versus Consumer Inflation Perception of FAH, represented by the Share of Respondents Who Strongly Agreed Noticing an Increase in Grocery Prices

Figure 2. Food at Home (FAH) Inflation Rate Fluctuations versus FAH Consumer Price Index 

Figure 3. Actual Inflation Rate of Food at Home Based on Consumer Price Index versus Consumer Inflation Perception, represented by the Share of Respondents Who Strongly Agreed with the Inflation Statement

---

^[1] In our study, inflation perception is measured by the statement “I have noticed an increase in grocery prices at my grocery store recently” where survey participants answered on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). We focus on the “strongly agree” category in our discussion on inflation perception as it experienced most significant changes during the inflationary period.

---

Kim, Ashley Jiyoon, and Sungeun Yoon. “Why Grocery Inflation Still Feels High.” Southern Ag Today 5(6.5). February 7, 2025. Permalink

The annual evaluation of the general manager is a clear duty of a cooperative board of directors. It’s a very important task. An evaluation of the general manager is an opportunity to revisit the direction and performance of the cooperative. When done correctly, the evaluation process will strengthen ties between board and manager and align management with board objectives. Here are three recommendations for improving the manager evaluations at your cooperative.

1. Evaluate What Matters Most

One challenge of manager evaluation is that potentially, there is a lot to evaluate. Further, some of the manager’s duties might be hard to evaluate or observe. If you choose criteria based on the functions of management, you might develop a list like this:

Planning

• Actively and accurately assesses competitive forces
• Makes timely adjustments to the changing business environment
• Helps to craft a successful strategic approach
• Develops and implements effective timelines and goals
• Budgets for current and future operating needs
• Ensures cooperative resources are available and ready for customer use

Organizing

• Effectively hires and trains high-quality employees
• Assigns resources to their best use
• Delegates managerial duties effectively
• Plans and accommodates organizational growth

Leading

• Motivates employees toward excellence
• Cultivates board relations
• Communicates with members
• Promotes the company vision
• Mentors and grooms future managers

Controlling

• Reports financial results in a clear and timely manner
• Monitors cooperative performance
• Appropriately adjusts budgets throughout the year
• Makes staffing changes when needed
• Conducts employee evaluations and gathers employee feedback

Further, you can consider the manners in which the manager conducts their self. The manager’s personal skills, attributes, and competencies might also be important. Additional criteria might include the following:

Interpersonal

• Communication Skills
• Listening
• Empathy
• Emotional Intelligence
• Working with Others
• LeadershipMentoring
• Friendliness
• Technical
• Industrial Knowledge 
• Marketing
• Equipment Operations
• Software Knowledge

Conceptual

• Abstract Thinking
• Problem Solving
• Adaptability
• Analysis
• Diagnosing Problems
• Forecasting and Predictions
• Decision-making

One solution to organizing all these potential criteria is to consider the stewardships of the manager. Every cooperative manager has responsibilities toward the operations of the cooperative, the board, and the members. To help further, consider if your evaluation criteria are focused on the mission of the cooperative. In doing this, better questions begin to emerge:

Cooperative

1. Recruits, trains, and retains quality employees. 
2. Maintains and protects the functionality of cooperative assets.
3. Demonstrates result-driven use of cooperative funds.
4. Focuses on cooperative mission.

Board

1. Provides frequent and thorough reports of cooperative financial condition.
2. Communicates market opportunities and risks in a timely manner.
3. Interprets market conditions affecting financial performance.
4. Informs board of potential legal threats and conflicts of interest.

Members

1. Actively recruits new membership.
2. Is knowledgeable of individual members and seeks their input.
3. Promotes the mission of the cooperative to members.
4. Is focused on customer service.

2. Include Professional Development

Don’t forget that the manager is also a valuable asset to the cooperative. Your evaluation might include goals for self-improvement of leadership skills or industry knowledge.  The manager might self identify some of these goals as well as other relevant criteria for the cooperative, board, and members. Questions might include:

Manager

1. Mentors employees for future leadership.
2. Exemplifies integrity for the cooperative.
3. Listens to member-owner concerns.
4. Analyzes cooperative performance and suggests needed corrections.

3. Give Evaluation the Time it Deserves

Successful manager evaluation is not an annual event – it is a year-long process. When your board approach to manager evaluation is to invite the manager in to award a bonus, or take them to lunch, or any other solitary event, you are failing to protect the cooperative. Proper evaluation starts immediately following the prior evaluation by establishing the evaluation criteria for the coming year. This is to be agreed upon by board and manager. Monthly board meetings should take time to revisit and assess the evaluation, noting evidence of performance. Executive sessions are useful times to briefly discuss management performance and discuss any needed adjustments to evaluation criteria, or management actions. At the end of the year, the board chair can ask for an evaluation from each board member and the manager.  Doing this will help to elevate the annual evaluation to a constructive process for both cooperative and manager. 

---

Park, John. “Evaluating the Cooperative Manager.” Southern Ag Today 5(5.5). January 31, 2025. Permalink