It is no secret that over the last few years, U.S. agricultural producers have been hit with the combination of relatively low crop prices while most of their input prices have experienced all-time highs. At the same time, livestock agriculture, especially cow-calf and dairy producers, have experienced record cattle and calf prices. The number of farm bankruptcies are rising across the South, and much like previous downturns, producers are asking for advice on how to manage their way out of this hopefully short-term economic downturn.
Following a similar product that was developed during the most recent downturn (2014-2019), 36 Agricultural Economists from the Southern Extension Economics Committee developed 24 articles that provide valuable information to producers and landowners as they attempt to navigate the current downturn. Each article was double peer reviewed to ensure the publication—entitled “Surviving the Farm Economy Downturn: 2026 Update”—provides the most up-to-date information and strategies possible. The papers were categorized into 6 distinct areas: Setting the Stage; Crop Market Outlooks; Livestock; Ag Lending/Credit/Crop Insurance; Strategies; and Resiliency.
The publication, available here, was made possible by support from the Southern Extension Risk Management Education Center, under project award Nos. 2021-70027-34722 and 2025-70027-45397, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
The amount of beef grading Prime has been increasing for a number of years. As Prime and Choice graded beef have increased, the amount grading Select has declined. Over the last two months the percent of beef grading Prime has been more than double the percent grading Select. More than 17 percent of beef graded, has graded Prime in 5 of the last 6 weeks. Select grade beef has averaged 8.2 percent of all beef graded over that same period. Over the same 6 week period last year, 13 percent of beef graded was Prime and 12 percent graded Select. The amount of beef grading Choice has experienced little change, 71.67 percent in 2026 compared to 71.64 percent in 2025.
Why more Prime? Because markets and incentives work! Value-based marketing has rewarded quality with premium prices. Important factors at work are more days on feed and heavier finished weights. Demand for higher USDA quality grade beef has fueled premiums and increased the percent grading Prime.
It’s worth remembering that there is a supply and demand for each beef grade. As the amount of Prime beef has increased, premiums as measured by Prime-Choice and Prime-Select price spreads have decreased. The Prime-Choice boxed beef cutout price spread averaged $13.16 over the last 6 weeks. Over the same period in 2025 it averaged $21.97. The Prime-Select cutout price spread has declined almost $20 per cwt, from $35.66 last year to $15.86 this year. The cutout value for Prime compared to branded beef, primarily certified angus beef, indicates a similar decline in the price spread, from $15.77 per cwt last year to $6.31 this year. The decline in the amount of beef grading Select has likely helped lead to a negative Choice-Select spread in recent weeks.Going forward it will be interesting to follow the percent grading in each category. Even though overall beef production is declining, the amount of beef available in a specific grade can exceed a year ago if enough of it grades in that category. For example, in March 2026 there was 20.5 percent more Prime beef available than in March 2025. Pounds of Choice and Select were down 8.7 and 35.5 percent, respectively. Changes in pounds available in each grade will impact premiums between grades that can dampen or exacerbate normal price seasonality.
Recommended citation format: Anderson, David, and Josh Maples. “Prime Doubles Up Select.” Southern Ag Today 6(24.2). June 9, 2026. Permalink
For tax years beginning after July 4, 2025, sellers may elect to pay the net income tax attributable to gain from the sale or exchange of qualified farmland property to a qualified farmer in four equal annual installments instead of paying the full amount in the year of sale.[1] The first payment is due in the year of the sale or exchange, with the remaining three installments due over the following three tax years.
This special provision does not change the character of the gain or reduce the total tax liability, including the Net Investment Income tax. Instead, it provides flexibility in the timing of tax payments and may improve cash flow for investment or operational needs.
Qualified Farmland Property
To qualify, the farmland must meet all of the following conditions:
Be located in the U.S.
Have been used substantially by the seller for farming purposes, or leased to a qualified farmer for farming purposes, during the 10-year period ending on the date of sale or exchange.
Be subject to a covenant or legal restriction prohibiting non-farming uses for at least 10 years beginning the day after the sale or exchange.
Essentially, the property must be used primarily for farming purposes for the 10 years before the sale and remain restricted to farming use for at least 10 years after the sale. In many parts of the U.S. South, eligibility for state property tax incentive programs requires land to remain in agricultural or forestry use. As a result, these programs are generally compatible with this federal income tax provision as long as the property continues to be used for agricultural or forestry uses.
For this provision, farming purposes are as defined under Section 2032A(e) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and include:
Cultivating soil or raising and harvesting any agricultural or horticultural commodities;
Raising, shearing, feeding, caring for, training, and managing animals on a farm;
Handling, drying, packing, grading, or storing agricultural or horticultural commodities in their unmanufactured state; and
Planting, cultivating, caring for, or cutting trees or preparing trees for market (other than milling).
Forestland used to grow timber qualifies as farmland property.
Qualified Farmer
A qualified farmer is an individual actively engaged in farming under 7 USC Section 1308-1(b) and (c), generally requiring significant contributions to the farming operation. Landowners are generally considered actively engaged on owned land. For additional details, see USDA Farm Service Agency guidance on actively engaged in farming: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/tools/informational/payment-eligibility/actively-engaged-farming.
Making the Election on Tax Return
Individuals and entities can make the election using IRS Form 1062, Deferral of Tax on Gain From the Sale or Exchange of Qualified Farmland Property to Qualified Farmers. Include a separate Schedule A (Form 1062) for each qualified farmland sale along with a copy of the covenant with your federal income tax return for the tax year of the sale. If any installment payment is missed, the remaining balance becomes due immediately.
Thoughts on Tax Planning Strategies
This provision provides farmers and forest landowners with another tax planning option when selling or exchanging land. Many landowners are familiar with the IRC Section 1031 like-kind exchange, which allows taxpayers to defer tax on gain from the exchange of like-kind property until the replacement property is sold or otherwise disposed of. If the property is held until death and transferred through inheritance, the deferred gain may be permanently avoided through the step-up in basis rule. However, Section 1031 exchanges have strict requirements regarding timing and the identification and acquisition of qualifying replacement property.
Additional Sources of Information
For more information, please refer to IRS Instructions for Form 1062, Deferral of Tax on Gain From the Sale or Exchange of Qualified Farmland Property to Qualified Farmers.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide financial, tax, or legal advice. Please consult your own tax advisor concerning your particular tax situation.
During the last decade, the specialty crop industry has faced multiple challenges alongside shifting consumer demand. While some commodities have experienced growth, others have declined due to labor constraints, disease pressures, and increasing import competition. Figures 1 and 2 show acreage trends by commodity group from 2014 to 2024. Over the last decade (2014-2024), harvested acreage for fresh and processed vegetables declined by 23%, while potato acreage decreased by 13%, representing compound annual growth rate (CAGR) declines of 2.5% and 1.4%, respectively (Figure 1). Production declines were smaller due to continued productivity and yield gains.
Figure 1. U.S. Harvested Vegetable Acreage, 2024-2024.
Data source: USDA ERS. Vegetables and Pulses Yearbook Tables.
Combined fruit and nut acreage has increased steadily, driven almost entirely by tree nuts, where planted acreage expanded by 87% over the last decade (Figure 2). Growth has been led by almonds and pistachios, with additional increases in pecans and walnuts. These crops are generally less labor-intensive because harvesting in modern orchards is highly mechanized.
In contrast, fruit acreage has generally declined. Citrus acreage fell by 32%, while other major non-citrus fruit acreage declined by about 12%, representing CAGR declines of 3.7% and 1.3%, respectively. The citrus decline has been largely driven by citrus greening disease and lower orange juice consumption. Meanwhile, stronger consumer demand has supported growth in strawberry and blueberry acreage and production, although imports have increased faster than domestic output.
Figure 2. U.S. Bearing Fruit and Tree Nut Acreage, 2014-2024.
Data source: USDA ERS. Fruit and Tree Nuts Yearbook.
Economic pressures continue to challenge the specialty crop industry, particularly rising input and labor costs. Labor shortages remain one of the industry’s most significant concerns, especially for operations dependent on hand harvest. Adverse Effect Wage Rates (AEWR) for H-2A workers have increased steadily in recent years, adding pressure to labor-intensive operations. Recent changes implemented in October 2025 under the U.S. Department of Labor’s Interim Final Rule modify how AEWR wages are calculated, specifically by adopting state-level wage data and adjustments tied to worker skill levels and housing cost adjustments for H-2A versus domestic workers. These changes have been received with optimism by much of the industry, as they are expected to result in significant wage savings relative to AEWR increases that occurred in previous years. However, projected savings vary by state depending on whether the new AEWR falls below the federal or state minimum wage, in which case employers must pay the applicable minimum wage per the Fair Labor Standards Act. For example, Florida’s statewide minimum wage will increase to $15.00 per hour on September 30, 2026, exceeding the 2025-2026 AEWR for Florida H-2A workers of $10.18 per hour for Skill Level I workers and $12.77 per hour for Skill Level II workers. As a result, employers must pay the higher state minimum wage. Assuming 92% of H-2A workers are classified as Skill Level I and 8% as Skill Level II, estimated total wage bill savings in southern states range from 7.6% in Florida and 10.9% in Maryland to 41.6% in Louisiana and 39.3% in Mississippi (Rutledge et al., 2026).
A 2025 Specialty Ag Labor Survey conducted by Vegetable Grower News and Fruit Grower News found that more growers are responding to labor shortages by reducing acreage than by adopting automation. Although mechanization continues to advance, many fresh-market fruits and vegetables still require hand harvest to maintain quality standards. As a result, mechanization remains a longer-term solution for many specialty crop sectors.
Import competition is another major issue affecting the industry. Imports play an important role in supplying products during the off season, but in the case of southeastern growers, they also compete directly with domestic production. Lower labor and regulatory costs in competing countries, particularly Mexico, place additional pressure on U.S. producers. In 2024, nonsupervisory farmworkers in the United States earned an average of $18.13 per hour (USDA ERS, 2025), compared to substantially lower minimum wages ($2.08-2.76) for farmworkers in Mexico (CONASAMI, 2024). As the review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) approaches, specialty crop groups are seeking stronger seasonal protections during peak U.S. production periods to remain competitive. These efforts include support from southern commodity groups affected by increasing low-priced import competition, including the Florida Blueberry Growers Association, Florida Tomato Exchange, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, and Georgia Watermelon Association, among others.
Despite these challenges, consumer demand for specialty crops continues to grow, driven in part by increasing interest in healthier diets. For example, industry organizations such as the North Carolina Sweet Potato Commission have invested in marketing campaigns and influencer partnerships to encourage year-round consumption. Opportunities remain for southern producers through product differentiation, branding, improved flavor and quality, and direct-to-consumer marketing. Examples include regional branding initiatives such as Georgia Grown, Kentucky Proud, Pick Tennessee Products, and Genuine Mississippi, as well as breeding programs focused on enhancing flavor, quality, and consumer appeal. The Southeast has become a leading center for blueberry innovation and has also advanced cultivar development in crops such as sweet potatoes and watermelons. Research on emerging specialty crops, including passion fruit in Florida and Mississippi, further illustrates opportunities for diversification and value creation within the region. In addition, continued growth in farmers markets, local procurement programs, agritourism, and U-pick operations (particularly for crops such as blueberries) provides producers with opportunities to capture additional value and connect directly with consumers.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). (2025a). Farm Labor. Available at: https://ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor
Authors: Hunter D. Biram, University of Arkansas and Francis Tsiboe, Agricultural Risk and Policy Center at North Dakota State University
Prevented planting insurance, a component of the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP), provides compensation when adverse weather conditions prevent farmers from planting insured crops. This protection is embedded within standard crop insurance policies and is directly linked to the elected coverage level: higher coverage levels mechanically translate into higher prevented planting payments.
Historically, farmers could purchase additional prevented planting protection through a “buy-up” option, which increased prevented planting payments without expanding exposure to other types of losses. This structure allowed early-season planting risk to be managed in a targeted manner while keeping overall FCIP risk largely confined to within-season production losses. That adjustment margin was eliminated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) through the Expanding Access to Risk Protection (EARP) final rule issued on November 28, 2025. Beginning with the 2027 commodity year, producers can no longer purchase prevented planting buy-up coverage. As a result, farmers seeking to maintain similar levels of prevented planting protection must instead increase their overall insurance coverage. While higher coverage can raise prevented planting payments, it also increases premiums and broadens exposure to non-prevented planting losses, limiting farmers’ ability to target planting risk alone and requiring the FCIP to assume greater risk and higher costs across the entire policy for a given producer.
The earlier removal of the 10 percent prevented planting buy-up option in 2018 provides important context for how producers adjust when targeted prevented planting protection is no longer available. Evidence from recent analyses (Tsiboe, 2026; Biram and Tsiboe, 2026) shows that some farmers responded by gradually increasing their base coverage over time rather than making large or immediate changes, reflecting constraints related to higher premiums, program limits, and farm-specific conditions (Figure 1). When the prevented planting buy-up of 10 percent was removed, insured producers who purchased this coverage shifted out of the 75% coverage level into the 80-85% coverages levels four years after the policy change took effect (Figure 1, top panel). Those producers who had insurance but did not purchase the prevented planting buy-up of 10 percent made essentially no change (Figure 1, bottom panel).
One reason why the switch into higher coverage levels took place is to compensate for a lower prevented planting coverage level. For example, a rice producer faces the base prevented planting coverage level of 55% of liability (i.e., the product of the underlying coverage level and expected revenue). Buying 10% more in prevented planting coverage increases the prevented planting coverage level to 65% of liability. Assuming a rice producer purchases the 75% coverage level on their underlying coverage level, their prevented planting coverage would be 48.75% (i.e., the product of 65% and 75%). A rice producer would need to purchase 88% coverage on their underlying insurance policy to maintain their prevented planting coverage, an option that is above the highest available coverage level of 85%. This highlights the limited flexibility of risk protection for those with relatively high coverage levels on their underlying coverage.
Figure 1: Observed Farm-Level Coverage Adjustment Following the Removal of 10 Percent Prevented Planting Buy-Up in 2018.
Note: The horizontal axis does not represent calendar time or a balanced panel. Instead, it indexes the chronological order of observed coverage elections within each farm, normalized so that the year in which the buy-up option was removed is coded as zero. Earlier and later observations reflect the sequence of policy elections as they appear in the administrative record. The figure focuses on only the six major commodities (corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, rice, and sorghum) by insured liabilities in the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) Source: NDSU Agricultural Risk Policy Center (ARPC), using data from USDA, Risk Management Agency Summary of Business as of June 04, 2025.
References
Biram, H.D. and Tsiboe, F., (2026). “Analyzing the Expanding Access to Risk Protection (EARP) USDA Final Rule: Coverage Substitution and Cost Effects of Prevented Planting Buy-Up Elimination in Rice Insurance.” Fryar Price Risk Management Center of Excellence White Paper #FC-2026-002.
Francis Tsiboe (2026). Prevented Planting After Buy-Up Elimination: Coverage Level Substitution, Producer Costs, and the Role of Enhanced Premium Subsidies Under the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). ARPC White Paper 2026–01. Agricultural Risk Policy Center, North Dakota State University.
