Southern Ag Today

Blog

  • Who’s Buying Farmland? A Look at Mississippi’s Agricultural Land Markets Part II

    Who’s Buying Farmland? A Look at Mississippi’s Agricultural Land Markets Part II

    Authors: Hudu Abukari, Kevin Kim, Ayoung Kim, and Brian Mills

    Agricultural and forest land are essential components of the rural economy throughout the southern United States. These lands support crop and livestock production, timber, recreational uses, and long-term investment opportunities. As regional demand for agricultural land continues to evolve, understanding who is buying land and how land-use patterns are shifting is increasingly important for producers, lenders, Extension agents, and policymakers. 

    In our previous Southern Ag Today article, we showed that individuals and general partnerships (GPs) remain the most active participants in the farmland market in terms of transaction frequency. However, there was an increase in the number of non-individual/non-GP buyers, particularly financial and real estate developers. In this publication, we dig deeper into more specific land types and buyer trends across southern states.

    The majority of land transactions involve recreational/timberland, which accounted for 77% of all agricultural land purchases between 2019 and early 2023. Timberland dominates the rural landscape in many parts of the South, and its large share of transactions reflects its availability and investment appeal. In contrast, cropland represented only 11% of agricultural land transactions, while pasture made up the remaining portion in terms of transactions. This difference highlights a key challenge in many southern markets: cropland and pasture turnover is relatively low, while timber and mixed timber-recreational tracts are far more commonly available.

    Types of Buyers Participating in Different Agricultural Land Market

    Buyers of agricultural property generally fall into four categories: (1) Individuals and general partnerships (GPs); (2) Non-individual/non-GP agricultural businesses; (3) Financial and real estate businesses; and (4) Other industries. A closer look shows distinct differences in buyer behavior across cropland, pasture, and recreational/timberland.

    Cropland

    Pasture

    Recreational/Timberland

    Overall Market Shifts and Implications

    The most significant trend is the growing presence of financial and real estate businesses, particularly in cropland and recreation/timberland. 

    • Cropland has the most diversified buyer pool, and shows the most notable shift toward investor participation displacing individuals and agriculture businesses. From 2019 to 2023, the presence of financial and real estate investors rose from 13% to nearly 30%.
    • Pasture remains the most stable and producer-driven category, reflecting the long-term nature of livestock operations and the prevalence of family ranching across the southern region.
    • Recreational and Timberland buyers are still dominated by individuals, but the less traditional buyers have made modest gains in market share. Notably, the share of financial and real estate developers has doubled over the period. 

    These trends bring some opportunities, such as new capital entering rural land markets, increased land valuation, and potential for diversified land uses. However, possible challenges should be considered, including higher land prices, greater competition for limited cropland, and potential barriers for small, beginning, and socially disadvantaged farmers.

    Monitoring these patterns can help Extension professionals, rural leaders, lenders, and policymakers respond proactively to ensure that land markets remain accessible and supportive of agricultural communities.

    Abukari, Hudu, Kevin Kim, Ayoung Kim, and Brian Mills. “Who’s Buying Farmland? A Look at Mississippi’s Agricultural Land Markets Part II.” Southern Ag Today 6(2.1). January 5, 2026. Permalink

  • Agricultural Cooperatives in the United States: How Does the South Stack Up?

    Agricultural Cooperatives in the United States: How Does the South Stack Up?

    Good Reasons to Cooperate

    Southern Ag Today has recently published several articles on why producers should consider joining, starting, or becoming more involved with a cooperative in their state. An annual publication from the US Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development[i] (USDA RD) offers solid financial reasons to do the same.  How does a return on investment (allocated equity in the case of a cooperative) of 11.3% to 45.2% sound? It appears that cooperatives offer a distinct advantage to farmers in their state.  

    How Does the South Stack Up?

    The readership might be interested in a little competition (or some light post-holiday reading) – how does the US Southern Region[ii] stack up with the rest of the US?  Table 12 in the report cited above provides information on cooperatives represented in each state, which are illustrated with the heat map graphics below and ranked[iii].

    Cooperatives Doing Business in Each State

    Texas (#2) pulls its weight, ranking behind Minnesota in the number of cooperatives doing business in the state.  Oklahoma (#11), Tennessee (12th), Mississippi (16th), and Alabama (17Th) also make the top 20.  

    Number of Cooperative Members in Each State

    Kentucky comes in first place!  Virginia (#8), Texas (#9), Tennessee (#11), Arkansas (#18), Mississippi (#19), and Oklahoma (#20) combine forces to propel the Southern US into just over one-third of the top 20 placements. 

    Marketing Cooperatives Headquartered in Each State

    Marketing cooperatives generate their revenue from the sale of members’ products. Texas again takes the #1 spot, but only Virginia in the Southern Region makes the top 20 at #19. These results, however, may not reflect next-generation cooperatives and cooperatives organized as LLCs (i.e., peanut cooperatives in Georgia)[iv].

    Supply and Service Cooperatives Headquartered in Each State

    Supply and service cooperatives provide farmer members with what their name suggests. Southern states claim nine of the top 20 spots, with Tennessee (#4), Alabama (#6), Mississippi (#9), Texas (tied for #9), Oklahoma (#12), Arkansas (#16), Kentucky (tied for #16), Virginia (tied for #16), and Louisiana (#20). 

    And the Winner Is….

    Honestly, anyone who is a member of a well-functioning cooperative! In terms of sheer numbers, the North Central Region is first, followed by the Southern Region in second.  However, the presence of more cooperatives, their members, and specific types of cooperatives in various regions of the US is largely influenced by the types of commodities grown and the number of different commodities that can be cultivated in each region.  Farm size and the density of farming operations in each location also play a role.  Finally, farmers’ willingness to collaborate with other farmers seems basic, but refers to the willingness of farmers from two or three generations in the past.  Many cooperatives have been around for a long time, with 78% of all cooperatives operating for more than 50 years[1].

    The “well-functioning” part of a cooperative is largely due to the engagement of its members. If your farm is part of a cooperative, strive to be engaged with it by attending meetings, voting in elections, serving as a board member, and encouraging the next generation to do the same.

    If you are looking to start a cooperative or improve a cooperative’s performance, many land-grant universities have specialists who help cooperatives succeed by training and developing cooperative board members and staff. 

    [i] Service Report 87.  USDA Rural Development Rural-Business Cooperative Service.  November 2024 [Unpublished Report]. https://www.rd.usda.gov/publication-cooperatives/sr-87-agricultural-cooperative-statistics-2023

    [ii] The US Southern Region, as defined by the Southern Risk Management Education Center, comprises 13 states, which account for approximately 26% of the US states (and a larger proportion of the land mass). The other regions are also defined, based on the types of crops grown in each region. 

    [iii]  To keep things simple, this article just compares the number of states each region has in the Top 20, as the acres of farmland, number of farmers, and the volume of business through each cooperative in each region may vary significantly.  

    [iv] The report excludes cooperatives that deviate from the one-member, one-vote model, as well as those that handle more than 50% of their volume from non-members.  

    Richards, Steve. “Agricultural Cooperatives in the United States: How Does the South Stack Up?” Southern Ag Today 6(1.5). January 2, 2026. Permalink

  • An End to the Disruption of Two Key Weekly Federal Crop Reports

    An End to the Disruption of Two Key Weekly Federal Crop Reports

    From October 1, 2025, to November 12, 2025, the U.S. federal government was largely shut down until a congressional stalemate was resolved involving appropriations legislation. The 43-day duration of this shutdown was unprecedented, but some of its effects are taking even longer to resolve.

    The agricultural marketing implications of the federal shutdown included the suspension of important public agricultural data, especially near term (i.e., weekly) data.  Such data are important for characterizing near term influences on cotton prices.  For example, the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) publishes a weekly export sales report for cotton (and other row crops) which serves as a useful indicator of export demand.  As displayed in Figure 1, cotton weekly export sales in relation to nearby ICE cotton futures are helpful in explaining or predicting export quantities demanded.  

    USDA FAS weekly export sales reports resumed on November 13, but export data picked up where it left off (i.e., for September 18).  Even with issuing semi-weekly reports to catch up, the normal one-week lag schedule won’t be achieved until January 8, 2026.  The one-week lag schedule has the most value as a current demand indicator.  But instead of a 43-day delay, we are really dealing with a 112-day delay (September 18 to January 8) until a full return to normal reporting.  Thus for over a hundred days, the only market participants with knowledge of the current export demand picture were the merchandizers.

     For another example, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) publishes weekly “Commitment of Traders” (COT) data on the positions of index funds and hedge funds in agricultural futures markets (Figure 2).  The changes in these speculative futures positions have near term value in explaining fluctuations in ICE cotton futures.  Like the cotton export sales data, the COT data have little explanatory power outside of a week old.

    The 2025 Commitment of Traders (COT) report schedule saw significant revisions due to the federal funding lapse, leading to catch-up publications throughout the end of 2025.  Reports for late October and November 2025 were pushed to December 2025, with the CFTC increasing frequency until a return to the normal reporting schedule on December 29, 2025.  Beyond the direct shutdown (7 to 8 weeks) the CFTC near term publication schedule won’t be fully restored until after a 17-week period.

    Thus, the disruption of valuable near-term cotton marketing data flow has been quite long, but as we enter the new year, we are finally back to a normal reporting period.

    Robinson, John. “An End to the Disruption of Two Key Weekly Federal Crop Reports.” Southern Ag Today 5(53.3). December 31, 2025. Permalink

  • Total Meat Supplies End Year on High Note

    Total Meat Supplies End Year on High Note

    Total meat production surged in December, with production of all major meat species higher than the year before.  It was a sharp contrast to the rest of the year, in which less beef and pork were produced than in 2024.  

    Red Meat

    Red meat production, led by beef and pork, normally increases seasonally, from Summer to Fall.  This year was no exception as both increased seasonally over that period.  Beef and pork production in December were 0.5 percent and 3.9 percent larger than in December 2024, respectively.  Larger December beef production may surprise some, given the talk all year of tighter beef supplies, but steer dressed weights surged to new record highs, over 980 pounds per head, leading to larger beef production.  Heavier barrow and gilt dressed weights than a year ago helped boost pork production, as well.  

    For the year, red meat production was 1.9 percent less, about 1 billion pounds, than in 2024.  Beef production was down about 3.3 percent, and pork production was almost 0.5 percent smaller.  About 1 percent more lamb was produced in 2025.  For the third consecutive year, more pork than beef was produced.  

    Poultry

    While red meat production declined, young chickens (broilers) expanded their share of total meat production.  Broiler and turkey production increased 4.0 percent and 8.4 percent, respectively, in December compared to last December.  Less expensive feed and higher wholesale broiler meat prices earlier in the year contributed profits to fuel increased production.  The late increase in turkey production might be considered “too little, too late” for the whole bird market since it was after Thanksgiving, and it followed on the heels of increasing production in the second half of the year. 

    For the year, 3.5 percent (1.9 billion pounds) more broiler meat was produced than in 2024.  Turkey production was down about 122 million pounds.  On balance, increasing poultry production offset declining red meat production, leading to an increase in total meat production of about 800 million pounds.  

    The new year should bring more poultry production from both broilers and turkeys.  Beef production will continue to decline, and pork may see a little increase in production.  I was asked recently if we are “running out of meat” during a discussion of declining beef production and high prices.  The quick and correct answer is “no!”  But, production market shares are changing.  

    A note on data.  This article uses weekly meat and poultry production.  In much of our agricultural data, weeks don’t equal months.  The first day of a month may fall mid-week and end mid-week, so that data for a week’s production will include some in one month and some in another.  But, the monthly data released by USDA won’t dramatically affect the discussion above.

  • Don’t Ignore Cow Size When Comparing Calf Weaning Weights

    Don’t Ignore Cow Size When Comparing Calf Weaning Weights

    While I have heard discussions around the topic, I have never been one to believe that an “optimal” cow size exists. Every farm is unique and operates in a different production and market environment. Whenever this question comes up, I simply reply that I don’t really care what cows weigh, as long as they are weaning enough pounds of calf each year to be profitable. But even that is a fluid discussion as it is impacted by the market. For example, a cow does not have to wean as large of a calf to be profitable in 2025 as she would have in 2022. The reality is that producers make culling decisions each year based on the best information they have at the time.

    While record keeping has never been high on the list of things that cow-calf operations enjoy, it is extremely important and should be used to drive these decisions. Well managed cow-calf operations track weaning weights on individual calves and tie each calf back to its dam. By doing that, productivity can be measured for each individual cow. On the other hand, it is nearly impossible to track production costs on an individual cow basis. Producers with good financial records likely have a solid understanding of what it costs them to maintain the average cow in their herds. 

    This distinction is important when one considers how to use production records to make culling decisions. Larger cows tend to wean larger calves, but they are also more expensive to own. While it is not easy to observe, they will consume more hay, feed, pasture, and mineral as they maintain their larger bodies and one can make a case that vet / medicine, yardage, transportation and other expenses will be higher for larger cows too. The simple point being that if one is making culling decisions based on calf weaning weights alone, they are likely to be disproportionately culling more of their smaller cows. By doing this over time, the average size of their cows increases, and their costs trend upward.

    Several years ago, I put together an Extension presentation aimed at illustrating this point and encouraging producers to consider cow size in their culling decisions. I used a simple budget approach and estimated cost adjustments for various sized cows. I even included a higher cull value on those larger cows, which is relevant to the discussion. Using this approach, it appeared that an operation needed to wean about 50 more lbs of calf for every additional 100 lbs of mature cow they were maintaining. 

    While I am not suggesting this approach was perfect, I do think it did a good job illustrating the concept. Basing culling decisions solely on weaning weight can be misleading – especially when the herd has cows of varying size. While I don’t think there is an “optimal” sized cow, I know those larger cows must be weaning larger calves to earn their keep. And the only way to do that is to consider calf weaning weights in relation to the weight of the cows.

    Burdine, Kenny. “Don’t Ignore Cow Size When Comparing Calf Weaning Weights.” Southern Ag Today 5(53.1). December 29, 2025. Permalink