Category: Specialty Topics

Disconnected youth, individuals aged 16 to 24 who are not in school or working, have become a growing concern in the U.S. over the past two decades (Crockett & Zhang, 2023). Disconnection from both education and employment can lead to long-term consequences, including delayed life milestones, reduced productivity, and a weakened workforce.

While disconnected youth are shaped by a complex mix of influences, community programs offered by local organizations, including nonprofits, Cooperative Extension Service, workforce development agencies, and youth-serving groups, may provide a promising pathway to engagement. Many of these programs offer mentorship, job training, educational support, leadership development, and connections to local networks that help young people build confidence, develop skills, and find direction for sustained engagement in education or the workforce. 

To explore this possibility, a nationwide online survey was conducted from March 7^th to 17^th, 2025, with 1,031 randomly selected individuals aged 18 to 24 (those under 18 were excluded to avoid the need for parental consent). The survey focused on respondents’ experiences and perspectives regarding participation in community programs that support education and career development, which are areas they are often disconnected from.

Figure 1. A map of the Survey Responses (n = 1,031)

First, the survey asked respondents how often they had received support from community programs, including mentorship, job training, youth development, education, or tutoring (Figure 2). Approximately 29.2% reported never receiving such support, while the remaining 70.8% indicated some level of participation. Most respondents said they received support either “sometimes” (32.7%) or “rarely” (25.4%), suggesting limited but notable engagement. A smaller portion reported more frequent involvement, with 10.1% selecting “often” and just 2.6% selecting “very often.”

Figure 2. Frequency of Support Received from Community Programs (Unit: %)

More notably, respondents who participated more frequently in community programs were more likely to perceive them as highly beneficial for their education and career, suggesting a substantial positive impact of such programs (Figure 3). But what exactly are young adults looking for in these programs? When asked to rank six types of community programs based on their perceived impact on education and career outcomes, the majority of respondents chose “Access to job opportunities or career advice” as the most helpful, while “Financial support or assistance” received the lowest ranking (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Perceived Helpfulness Levels by Frequency of Program Participation (Unit: %)

Figure 4. Average Importance Ratings of Community Program Benefits by Perceived Impact on Education and Career

(1 = Least Important; 6 = Most Important)

What about accessibility to community programs? The survey asked whether respondents had access to local initiatives such as mentorship, job training, youth development, or tutoring services (Figure 5). Only about 33% reported having “Good” or “Excellent” access, while roughly 27% indicated “No access at all” or “Limited access.” The majority selected “Moderate access,” suggesting that while some programs are available, they may not fully meet participants’ expectations.

Figure 5. Access to Community Programs in Respondents’ Areas (Unit: %)

The findings from this survey highlight both the potential and limitations of current community programs in addressing the needs of disconnected youth in the U.S. Results suggest that these programs can positively influence education and career development outcomes, particularly when young adults receive consistent support and perceive the programs as helpful. However, many respondents reported limited or no access to such programs, revealing gaps in availability and effectiveness. These insights point to a clear opportunity for targeted policy action to expand access, improve program quality, and ensure that support reaches the youth who need it most.

Reference
Crockett, A., & Zhang, X. (2023, April 6). Young adults are disconnected from work and 

school due to long-term labor force trends. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Available at: https://www.dallasfed.org/cd/communities/2023/2303.

---

Seo, Frank. “Bridging Disconnection: Community Program Participation and Perceived Impact Among U.S. Youth.” Southern Ag Today 5(24.5). June 13, 2025. Permalink

Recent tax discussions have focused on extending some of the provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which were set to expire in 2025.  One of the lesser-known provisions that impact agricultural producers is the Section 199A deduction.  As in all tax provisions, the details are quite complex, but a layman’s explanation can give a flavor of the key provisions.  The history of the provision dates to 2004 when Congress passed the domestic production activities deduction (DPAD) which provided a deduction to companies that manufactured inside the U.S. Farming was included in the definition of manufacturing, so agricultural producers qualified, but there was also a W-2 wage requirement that limited the value to many commodity producers. Agricultural cooperatives were also included, and they could elect to reflect the farmer’s production and associated tax deduction at the cooperative level.

The DPAD was eliminated by the 2017 tax bill in exchange for the reduction of the corporate tax rates.  Because over 98% of producers are operating pass-through taxation entities, few farmers benefited from the decrease in the corporate tax rates.  Agricultural cooperatives also did not benefit from the tax rate decrease since they typically pass on profits and the taxation of those profits on to their members through patronage.  In order to create parity for those groups the TCJA created the Section 199A qualified business income deduction.

As a simplification, Section 199A provides a deduction equal to 20% of qualified income, which is roughly equivalent to taxable income.  That deduction lowers the effective rate on pass-through taxation entities such as sole proprietorships, partnerships and limited liability companies to be more on par with the corporate tax rate.  The deduction is limited to 50% of W-2 wages paid since the original intent of the DPAD legislation was to encourage manufacturing and employment in the U.S. 

The cooperative provisions of Section 199A are somewhat complex.  The cooperative calculates the deduction based on their qualified income and it is limited to 50% of the cooperative’s W-2 wages.  In the case of cooperatives, qualified business income is calculated before patronage distribution, which is analogous to before tax income in a corporate firm. The cooperative can either retain the deduction at the cooperative level or pass a portion or all of it on to the producer. Because of that pass-through possibility, producers who market commodities through a cooperative have their farm-level Section 199A deduction reduced.  Unfortunately (in terms of complication) the cooperative member’s offset is based on formulas relating to the farm qualified income and W-2 wages and is not related to the amount of deduction (if any) passed on by the cooperative.  

Because of that structure, cooperative boards of directors face complicated decisions on the amount of the cooperative level Section 199A deduction that is retained or passed on.  Those boards must consider both the loss of deduction that the member received from marketing through the cooperative and the value of the deduction to both the cooperative firm and cooperative member.The Section 199A deduction has been an important tool in creating tax parity between corporations, farm businesses and agricultural cooperatives.  As with many tax provisions it is perhaps unnecessarily complex. It has positively benefited both producers and agricultural cooperatives which typically did not benefit from the corporate tax rate reduction.  It has also created a new, and somewhat complex, role for agricultural cooperatives in pooling and distributing tax deductions. If Section 199A becomes and remains a permanent feature of the tax code, that tax deduction management may come to be viewed as just another aspect of the traditional roles of agricultural cooperatives.  I wonder if the Rochdale Pioneers envisioned that role when they developed the original cooperative principles in 1844?

---

Kenkel, Phil. “Understanding the Section 199A Tax Deduction.” Southern Ag Today 5(23.5). June 6, 2025. Permalink

Understanding the Gaps Between Innovation, Labor, and What Really Works on the Farm

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed weaknesses in food supply chains, prompting renewed interest in innovation. Technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), precision farming, and robotics offer potential solutions, but their success depends on how well they are integrated into real-world farming systems. Mechanization is not a one-size-fits-all solution. However, most research has focused on creating new tools, not on how these tools fit into existing production systems and supply chains.

Heavy Dependence on Manual Labor

Specialty crops like fruits, vegetables, and nuts require careful handling and most are harvested by hand. Labor shortages and rising labor costs are major concerns for these industries, but replacing human labor with machines is not straightforward. The complexity and diversity of specialty crops in size, shape, and growing conditions, makes it hard to design machines that can work across different crops and farm types. Many farms don’t have workers who know how to use or fix new machines. This means schools and training programs need to do a better job of teaching these skills. To quote an 8 May 2025 article “The Silent Risk in Supply Chain Technology? Poor Training,” “Gartner Vice President Analyst Tom Enright delivered a clear message to supply chain leaders: the success of digital transformation initiatives will depend less on the technology itself and more on the people expected to use it.” In our competitive world, learning is a two-way street between the business and its technological tools and the people who contribute the skills and time as employees of that business.

Slow Adoption of Technology

Even though mechanization and automation technologies exist, they are not widely used in specialty crop farming. Farmers are cautious about adopting new tools due to high costs and uncertainty about their effectiveness. Developing and testing new technologies is expensive and represents high levels of financial and production risk especially to small farms and early adopters. Funders and developers must “de-risk” these innovations to make them more attractive to farmers, which involves identifying and eliminating non-viable options early.

Workforce Skills and Human Factors

New technologies often require skilled operators. Hamilton et al. (2021) investigated the slow adoption rate of mechanical harvesting in U.S. agriculture and concluded, “If farmers are less willing to invest in capital [equipment] that ultimately leads to higher wages, then long-term productivity growth is likely to be lower, and the problem will persist (p. 1456).” There is a need to consider where tech-savvy workers are most needed and how to train them.

Mismatch Between Technology and Farming Systems

Many innovations are developed without considering how they will fit into existing production systems and supply chains. As one grower proclaimed: “The labor needed to drive a tractor is not what’s killing me; the labor killing the weeds is what’s killing me. If you’re going to charge $1.4 million for a device, we’re perfectly fine attaching it to a tractor that already has a power source and putting a human in charge of keeping that equipment safe.” There is a need to focus more on how technologies interact with real-world farming environments in the development phase rather than “build it and they will buy it” approach.

Need for System-Wide Change

Mechanization affects not just the tools used, but also the skills, attitudes, and regulatory systems within agriculture. For example, California farmers and tractor companies have unsuccessfully lobbied to change the state’s decades-old  ban on the use of autonomous agricultural tractors and robots to replace hard-to-find workers. Implementing change requires more than just new machines—it requires a shift in how the entire system communicates along the food supply chain. 

Mechanizing specialty crops is a complex challenge that involves more than just building better machines. It requires understanding the entire agricultural system—people, economics, and technology. Economists, engineers, regulators, and farmers must work together to create solutions that are practical, scalable, and sustainable. It’s not just about buying new machines—it’s about training people and creating machines to work smarter and make choices that keep paychecks and profits growing. 

For further insights, see the Choices Theme “Why is Mechanization in Specialty Crops So Hard?” to read four papers that apply Dr. John Holt’s systems-based approach (Holt, 1989) to the challenges of mechanization:

1. Investment and Incentives
   Serviss and Thornsbury examine how farmers and industries decide whether a new technology is worth the cost. They ask: What makes a tool truly cost-saving? How can we measure its impact across the whole system?
2. Knowledge and Awareness
   Loor and Roka explore how information about new technologies spreads. They ask: What do farmers already know? What more do they need to know? How can agricultural extension services help?
3. Right-Sizing Technology
   Neill looks at how well new tools fit into different types of farms. He asks: Can we design machines that work for both small and large farms? How do we address the challenges of scale?
4. Human Skills and Systems
   Morgan focuses on the people who use the technology. She asks: Where do we need skilled workers most? Are we asking the right questions about how people and machines can work together?

To hear more from Southeastern farmers and other folks who are navigating farm labor and technological solutions, visit University of Tennessee’s Let’s Talk About Labor podcast series.

References

Hamilton, S.F., T.J. Richards, A.P. Shafran, and K.N. Vasilaky. 2021. “Farm Labor Productivity and the Impact of Mechanization.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 104(4):1435–1459.

Holt, J. 1989. “Managing Change in Extension.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(4):869–873.

---

Moragn, Kimberly L.. “High-Tech Tools, Real-World Problems: Farmers’ Views on Mechanization Challenges.” Southern Ag Today 5(22.5). May 30, 2025. Permalink

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.

---

Rampold, Shelli D., Eileen Legault, and Joetta T. White. “30+ Years of Empowering Southern Farmers: The Impact of AgrAbility.” Southern Ag Today 5(18.5). May 2, 2025. Permalink

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. 

---

Park, John. “Members Are the Key to Cooperative Success.” Southern Ag Today 5(17.5). April 25, 2025. Permalink