Southern Ag Today

Category: Specialty Topics

  • Beekeeping Operations and Revenue Sources in Alabama 

    Beekeeping Operations and Revenue Sources in Alabama 

    Beekeepers provide valuable services to the population and agricultural community in Southern states. Many beekeepers produce honey, which they sell to retailers or directly to consumers. In addition, many specialty crops grown in the South rely on pollinators – both wild pollinators and those managed by beekeepers – to produce fruit and seeds. Blueberries and watermelon in particular are entirely dependent on insect pollinators, and other crops such as avocados, oranges, strawberries, and tomatoes are moderately dependent on insect pollinators (Mallinger et al. 2021). Reflecting this dependence, the largest number of acres that farmers pay to have pollinated in many Southern states is blueberries, followed by watermelon (USDA 2023).

    Given the importance of beekeepers to Southern consumers and to farmers, we conducted an electronic survey of 150 Alabama beekeepers. Our response represented about 12% of the registered beekeepers in Alabama. Alabama has fewer honeybee colonies and lower honey production than Florida or Georgia, but comparable to South Carolina (USDA 2024). Despite the lower total production, Alabama honey yield per colony is higher than other Southern states except for South Carolina (USDA 2024). Alabama also had the highest honey price per pound of all the states in the Southern region in 2023 (USDA 2024). 

    Figure 1 describes the operation size and revenue sources for the surveyed beekeepers. Almost all of the beekeepers sold honey (80%), and many beekeepers sold bees to other beekeepers (42.6%). Very few beekeepers provided pollination services (12%). The most immediate potential for revenue growth among beekeepers thus consists of improving the marketing potential of honey. For farmers in specific regions, it may also be difficult to find a beekeeper that provides pollination services. 

    The majority of our sample (62%) were “hobbyist” beekeepers with small numbers of hives, and only 6% of our sample were large commercial beekeepers. Farmers looking for pollination services would thus need to find the few beekeepers who have enough capacity to pollinate the required number of acres. Alternatively, farmers may wish to contract with many different hobbyist beekeepers either individually or through a cooperative of hobbyist beekeepers. 

    Of the sampled beekeepers who did provide pollination services, 72.2% only offered them within Alabama, while 27.8% offered them both within Alabama and in other states (Florida, Georgia, and California). Reflecting the fact that most of the beekeepers were hobbyists, when asked about barriers to providing pollination services, those that did not offer these services cited a lack of time, resources, and the fact that their operations were too small. Respondents also cited barriers to expanding honey production, which also included a lack of time, as well as difficulty identifying new markets and competing with mass-produced honey that may be mixed with non-honey sweeteners. 

    Given the presence of hobbyist beekeepers in Alabama, facilitating coordination between smaller beekeepers will be essential to improving beekeeper revenue from honey as well as providing pollination services. Beekeepers associations may help connect farmers with beekeepers with the capacity to provide pollination services. Hobbyist beekeepers may also find it beneficial to organize into cooperatives that either provide pollination services or coordinate marketing efforts of local honey. Such cooperatives may have the collective capacity that an individual beekeeper lacks to identify new honey markets or provide consumer education on honey. At the extreme, a state- or region-specific honey marketing board may further improve marketing coordination between large numbers of smaller beekeepers. 

    Figure 1: Characteristics of a sample of 150 Alabama beekeepers

    Source: Survey of 150 Alabama beekeepers conducted in 2024 by the authors

    Sources:

    Mallinger, Rachel E., John J. Ternest, Sarah A. Weaver, James Weaver, and Samantha Pryer. 2021. Importance of insect pollinators for Florida agriculture: A systematic review of the literature. Florida Entomologist 104(3): 222-229. 

    United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Cost of Pollination, December 15, 2023. 

    United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Southern Region News Release Honey, March 15, 2024. 

    Scarbrough, Lawson, and Joel Cuffey. “Beekeeping Operations and Revenue Sources in Alabama.” Southern Ag Today 4(38.5). September 20, 2024. Permalink

  • Land Ownership and the Preservation of Family Farm Legacies 

    Land Ownership and the Preservation of Family Farm Legacies 

    The preservation of land for future generations and the creation of family legacies is an important part of the U.S. agricultural heritage.  Unfortunately, many families are left vulnerable to losing their land or face complicated management decisions.  This occurs because the land is passed down from one generation to the next without an appropriate transition plan or without a properly probated will.  

    Two recent Southern Ag Today articles (referenced below) focused on estate and transition planning, both illustrating the importance of the process of organizing and arranging the transfer of one’s assets, including real estate, to heirs in a structured and legally recognized manner. It typically involves creating a will or trust, designating beneficiaries, and addressing issues like taxes and debts. It is a crucial aspect of risk management that can keep land in the family.  Land ownership where property is passed down without clear legal documentation and is shared among all the heirs is known as heirs property.  

    Heirs property can limit land management and complicate access to some federal programs. Each heir has an equal right to full use and possession and is legally responsible for taxes and other property-related expenses and activities.  As land is passed down to future generations, and the number of heirs increases, it becomes more fractionated with each person’s percentage interest in the land decreasing.  Furthermore, heirs property becomes vulnerable to loss through issues such as partition sales, tax sales, or adverse possession.  Maintenance of the land and the ability to manage the use of the lands resources is also limited and can result in conflict and disputes amongst the heirs.  

    While heirs property is a significant issue, there are means to resolution and preventing the future creation of heirs property.  This starts with a will or appropriate estate or transition plan.  According to a Gallup Poll in 2020, only 46% of U.S. adults have a will.  Almost a quarter of adults 65 years and older are also without a will.  While we do not have these data for agricultural producers, the USDA Census of Agriculture does report the number of producers who are engaged in some form of estate and transition planning.  Table 1 reports the percentage of producers in the 13-state southern region that reported being engaged in estate or transition planning in the 2017 and 2022 Census of Agriculture.  In 2017, this percentage ranged from a low of 49% in Louisiana to a high of 62% in Oklahoma.  These numbers fell in 2022 in all states, with Louisiana remaining the smallest percentage at 44% and Oklahoma, while still the highest, dropped to 56%.  This illustrates the significant gap that exists in agricultural estate planning, leading to increased risk of creating heirs property for future generations. 

     There are various reasons why individuals do not engage in proper estate planning.  Sometimes they feel they do not have enough assets, the process is too expensive, or the process is too complicated.  Another reason is that some people are simply holding off because the conversation is uncomfortable and morbid. However, the best prevention for heirs property is education, choosing the right attorney, and formalizing a transition plan. A well-crafted estate plan can prevent a property from becoming heirs property by ensuring that a clear title is passed down to future generations.  More information on the resolution and prevention of heirs property can be found in the Heirs Property in Alabama publication. 

    Table 1: Percentage of Agricultural Producers Engaged in Estate or Transition Planning 

    State20172022Percentage 
    Change
    OK62%56%-6%
    AR57%53%-4%
    TX58%53%-5%
    VA56%53%-3%
    AL56%52%-4%
    GA55%52%-3%
    MS55%51%-4%
    SC56%51%-4%
    TN55%51%-4%
    KY55%50%-5%
    NC54%50%-4%
    FL51%48%-3%
    LA49%44%-5%
    Source: Author Calculations based on 2022 USDA Census of Agriculture 

    References:

    Gallup. “How Many Americans Have a Will?” The Short Answer. June 23, 2021.

    Graff, Natalie. “Government Incentives for Agricultural Generational Transfer?” Southern Ag Today 4(25.4). June 20, 2024.

    Johnson, Portia, Ryan Thomson, Adam Rabinowitz, and Katie Keown. “Heirs Property in Alabama.” Alabama Cooperative Extension System HE-0852. Revised July 2024.

    Martinez, Charley, and Kevin Ferguson. “Estate Transition Planning.” Southern Ag Today 4(27.3). July 3, 2024.

    Rabinowitz, Adam, Justin Anderson, and Jamie Mardis. “Land Ownership and the Preservation of Family Farm Legacies.” Southern Ag Today 4(35.5). August 30, 2024. Permalink

  • How has the Pandemic Changed the House Price Landscape in the South?

    How has the Pandemic Changed the House Price Landscape in the South?

    The upward trend in the South’s population growth has been further accelerated by post-COVID-19 migration. According to the U.S. Census, southern cities dominated both the 15 fastest-growing cities and the 15 largest-gaining cities between July 1, 2022, and July 1, 2023 (Figure 1). The distinction between these two groups lies in their composition: the top 15 largest cities on this list are predominantly major urban cities, whereas the fastest-growing cities are mostly small towns that have benefited from larger cities’ migration outflow. Accordingly, this new list of the fastest-growing cities in the U.S. raises an important question: How has the housing price landscape changed in the South since the pandemic?

    Figure 1. Top 15 Fastest-Growing Cities and Largest-Gaining Cities between July 1, 2022 and July 1, 2023

    Source: U.S. Census Bureau. (2024, May 16).

    To answer this question, the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), a smoothed and seasonally adjusted measure of typical home values in the 35th to 65th percentile range, was used to observe the percentage changes in house prices from March 31, 2020, to March 31, 2024, following the World Health Organization’s declaration of COVID-19 on March 11, 2020.

    Figure 2 illustrates the percentage changes in house prices across southern states from March 31, 2020, to May 31, 2024. Overall, significant increases were observed in most states, with notable rises exceeding 50% in five states: Florida (58%), Georgia (56%), North Carolina (55%), Tennessee (52%), and South Carolina (50%) since the onset of the pandemic. Conversely, Louisiana and Washington D.C. saw a modest increase of less than 10% during this period, distinct from the upward trends observed elsewhere. In addition, the county-level map (Figure 3) provides geographical insight into the house price landscape. As we can see, house prices in the counties along the Mississippi Delta and a large portion of western and southern Texas counties increased noticeably less or even decreased compared to other regions. These clustered patterns resemble the recent net domestic migration map (2021-2022) from the U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau,  2023, March 30). One notable difference is that negative net domestic migration in big cities has rebounded, whereas the net domestic migration around the Mississippi Delta area continues to face challenges, resulting in decreased house prices.

    Figure 2. House Price Percentage Changes by State from March 31, 2020, to May 31, 2024, in the Southern Region

    Source: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) from March 31, 2020, to March 31, 2024.

    Figure 3. House Price Percentage Changes by County from March 31, 2020, to May 31, 2024, in the Southern Region

    Source: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) from March 31, 2020, to March 31, 2024 (For some counties (about 30 counties, mostly in TX), data from Feb 28th, 2022, is used due to the absence of past data).
    Note 1: There is a less than 1% likelihood that this clustered pattern could be the result of random chance (Moran’s I: 0.5895,     z-score: 90.5022, p-value: 0.0000)
    Note 2: No data is available for the empty counties

    So, what exactly does the house price landscape tell us? The sharp increase in house prices across the southern region of the U.S. since the pandemic underscores the immediate need for supportive measures. As housing costs escalate, there is a critical need to prioritize actions that enhance affordability and ensure equitable access to housing. Considering the rising population trend in the South, it is likely that home prices there will keep climbing, exacerbating the issue of housing affordability. In contrast, underserved regions, such as the Mississippi Delta, which are experiencing negative domestic migration trends worsened by the pandemic, may see community development challenges intensify in the future. Therefore, by addressing these dual issues with strategic and supportive approaches, policymakers can promote a more inclusive and sustainable recovery across the diverse landscapes of the South.

    References

    U.S. Census Bureau. (2024, May 16). Population rebounds for many cities in Northeast and 

    Midwest. Census.gov. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/subcounty-population-estimates.html

    U.S. Census Bureau. (2023, March 30). Domestic Outmigration From Some Urban Counties Slowed, 

    Smaller Gains in Rural Counties. Census.gov. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/03/domestic-migration-trends-shifted.html

  • Making Cooperatives More Relevant and Exciting

    Making Cooperatives More Relevant and Exciting

    I truly enjoyed Phil Kenkel’s Southern Ag Today’s Article “Why Don’t We Start More Cooperatives?” The points and questions he raised got me thinking about cooperative formation opportunities and challenges faced by today’s business owners and society in general. 

    Recently, Phil’s article again came to mind when someone interviewed me about what it meant to run a cooperative development center: what were the challenges and opportunities? My answer to this question was that we must make cooperatives more relevant and exciting. 

    Relevance

    Certainly, the successful cooperatives we have in the United States are prime examples of relevance: credit unions, mutual insurance companies, cotton gins, peanut shellers, dairy processors, and many more.  By relevance, I mean a general awareness of cooperative organization being an option for incorporation.  

    I also believe we may be on the cusp of a cooperative resurgence.  Over 200 years ago, the cooperative movement was largely credited as society’s reaction to the Industrial Revolution, when the workforce had to adjust to mechanized production processes. At the same time, the manufacturing and transportation industries were consolidating into very large firms.  

    Today, we are amid the Digital Revolution, where society is grappling with information technology and artificial intelligence during a period of consolidation and rapid growth of technology firms, which has immensely changed commerce.  Cooperatives may yet again provide society with a response to these trends.   

    Excitement

    How does one get excited about a business structure? Well, a cooperative does have the word “cooperate” embedded in it, so that helps.  Also, in its most basic form, cooperative membership equates to one member, one vote, meaning equal voting representation for all its members.  So, a cooperative structure also embodies the principles of democracy.

    However, my take is that corporate by-laws (although important) are not an exciting rallying point.  Rather, what is the purpose of groups coming together? To address common social, economic, or cultural needs, as defined by the National Cooperative Business Association? How about gaining additional power and independence in an economic system where smaller actors are having an increasingly difficult time? All the above reasons seem compelling to me!

    The local foods movement has provided plenty of excitement and challenges to this space. A “food hub” is a relatively new business model that encompasses the aggregation, distribution, and marketing of local/regionally produced food products (Bartham, 2010).  This definition is remarkably similar to that of a farmers’ cooperative, aside from the fact that some food hubs are non-profit corporations (or other entities) not owned and controlled by farmers. 

    At the South Carolina Center for Cooperative and Enterprise Development, we have had good results generating excitement about cooperatives focusing on these current trends. Within the past 4 years, we have started eight new cooperatives, each addressing issues important to their members.  Some examples:

    Once started, of course, the work does not end.  Keeping cooperatives running smoothly and efficiently is also necessary.  Thankfully, there are many sources of support.

    Assistance for Cooperative Development

    Like the SC Center for Cooperative Development at Clemson University, many land-grant universities have cooperative centers that help train new board members and develop current board members. There is also CooperationWorks!, a non-profit that supports both land-grant and non-land-grant cooperative development centers. A map of development centers can be found on their website, along with many good supporting materials. 

    The USDA Rural Development encourages cooperative development and helps fund cooperative development through its Rural Cooperative Development Grants, gives priority points to cooperatives on its Value-Added Producer Grants, and provides direct assistance to minority-owned cooperatives through its Socially Disadvantaged Groups Grant.  

    Returning to Phil Kenkel’s article with his last line quoted, “Perhaps we just need to recycle some good old ideas!” seems appropriate to repeat. Maybe I would modify it just slightly to “recycle and repackage.” 

    Resources and References

    Bartham, J. (2010). Getting to Scale with Regional Food Hubs.  USDA Rural Development website accessed 7.17.2024. https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2010/12/14/getting-scale-regional-food-hubs

    CooperationWorks! The National Cooperative Development Network.  Cooperative Development Locations.  Website accessed 7.17.2024. https://cooperationworks.coop/member-locator/#search

    Kenkel, P. (2024). Why Don’t We Start More Cooperatives? Southern Ag Today.  https://southernagtoday.org/2024/05/17/why-dont-we-start-more-cooperatives/

    National Cooperative Business Association. (2024). What is a Coop?  NCBA website accessed 7.17.2024 https://ncbaclusa.coop/resources/what-is-a-co-op/

    South Carolina Center for Cooperative and Enterprise Development (2024). Website accessed 7.17.2024. https://coopcentersc.org/

    South Carolina Department of Agriculture (2022). New Beef Co-op Seeks to Expand Processing, Create SC Beef Product.  SC Department of Agriculture News Release. https://agriculture.sc.gov/new-beef-co-op-aims-to-expand-processing-create-sc-beef-product/

    South Carolina Department of Agriculture (2024). New Cut Flower Co-op Working to Market South Carolina Blooms. SC Department of Agriculture News Release. https://cooperationworks.coop/success_stories/new-cut-flower-co-op-working-to-market-wholesale-south-carolina-blooms/

    United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Land Grant Colleges and Universities (2019).  Website accessed 7.17.2024. https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resource/LGU-Map-03-18-19.pdf  

    United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (2022). Preserving Seafood Heritage by Bringing in Next Generation.  Rural Development Success Stories. Website accessed 7.17.2024. https://www.rd.usda.gov/newsroom/success-stories/preserving-seafood-heritage-bringing-next-generation

    United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (2022). Gullah Coop: Growing Food, Preserving Culture.  Rural Development Success Stories. Website accessed 7.17.2024. https://www.rd.usda.gov/newsroom/success-stories/gullah-co-op-growing-food-preserving-culture

    United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development (2024). Website accessed 7.17.2024. Webpage resources:

    Service Center Locator https://www.rd.usda.gov/browse-state

    Rural Cooperative Development Grant https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/business-programs/rural-cooperative-development-grant-program
    Value Added Producer Grant     https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/business-programs/value-added-producer-grants
    Socially Disadvantaged Groups Grant https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/business-programs/socially-disadvantaged-groups-grant

    Richards, Steven. “Making Cooperatives More Relevant and Exciting.” Southern Ag Today 4(33.5). August 16, 2024. Permalink

  • Changes in Average Age of Producers in Southern States, 2017 and 2022

    Changes in Average Age of Producers in Southern States, 2017 and 2022

    USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service’s (NASS) Census of Agriculture is published every five years and provides data at the U.S., state, and county levels. One metric tracked is the average age of agricultural producers. This information is provided for selected southern states for the Census reporting periods 2017 to 2022, along with the percentage change in average age for that timeframe.

    The overall average ages for all producers for 2017 and 2022 for the southern states are indicated in Table 1. In all states, average producer ages were increasing. For 2022, Mississippi and Florida had the highest average ages of producers at 59.6 and 59.5 years old, respectively. Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee had the largest percent change increases in average ages from 2017 to 2022. North Carolina had no change.

    For this same timeframe, North Carolina had the largest numbers of counties with declines in average age of producers for 52 of their 100 counties, or 52 percent, followed by Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (Table 2). Those with the smallest include Maryland, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Kentucky.

    Figure 1 depicts county level decreases (yellow shade) or increases (blue shade) in average age of producers for the states analyzed. Those counties with no changes are depicted in a red hatched fill.

    Figure 1. County Level Change in Average of Age of Producers from 2017 to 2022 Census

    Menard, R. James. “Changes in Average Age of Producers in Southern States, 2017 and 2022.” Southern Ag Today 4(32.5). August 9, 2024. Permalink