Southern Ag Today

Blog

“No lowballs, I know what I’ve got…”

The term ‘fair market value’ or (FMV) is often used in conversation or as part of a calculation. The term itself conveys some meaning, but what is the true definition? Fair market value is the price any asset (land, machinery, equipment, etc.) would sell for in an open market where the buyer and seller are knowledgeable about the facts and reach an agreed-upon price. It is also assumed that the seller is not under a strong compulsion to sell (i.e., that the seller is experiencing liquidity problems and is selling an asset quickly to get cash), which could lead to adverse outcomes. In those instances, it may be that the seller advertises the asset at a price to quickly attract a buyer that does not reflect the full value of the property. The same is true of the buyer, that they are not under an unnecessary compulsion to buy.

Fair market value appears in numerous contexts. It can arise in estate planning, tax preparation, contracts, or other legal situations. It can play an important role in all of these. Not always does a sale have to occur for FMV determination to be necessary. One example would be when a farm passes through an estate to heirs. The heirs can receive the farm assets at FMV (with what is known as a step-up in basis) without paying tax, but that means the FMV of the assets passing through must be determined.

Buyers and sellers often conduct some due diligence before engaging in the marketplace. They may check public records of sale, online listings, databases, or local markets to get an idea of what an assets value may be. These can all be examples of fair market value. In certain situations, it may be necessary for the fair market value to be a more ‘official’ number, which can be obtained through a qualified appraisal. Depending on the assets involved, specific appraisals may be required. For instance, an appraiser with experience in antiquities would not be the right person for valuing rural land. An appraiser will consider factors such as comparable assets or sales, the ability of the asset to generate income, and its current replacement cost. It is not an exact science, so results may vary, or the process may provide a range of values.

During such discussions, other terms such as original cost or basis may appear. At the time of purchase, the 1) original cost, 2) FMV, and 3) basis are all essentially the same. Usually, this is the only time that happens. That is because after acquiring the asset, the cost will stay the same, but the FMV of the asset in the marketplace can change (either higher or lower), and the asset (except for land) will be depreciated or expensed. An example would be a farmer purchases a field implement for $10,000, which on that day is the cost, the FMV, and the basis in the asset. After 5 years, they are planning to sell the implement. The original cost is still $10,000, but let’s assume the FMV of the asset has declined to $7,000 (what it would currently sell for in the marketplace between a willing buyer and seller), and they have fully depreciated the item, giving them a basis of $0. This shows that while sometimes these terms are connected, they are different and used for different purposes.

For farms, it is important to be able to understand and determine fair market values in the case of sales, purchases, transitions, negotiations, and planning. Farms can request help on these issues through trusted advisors such as lawyers, accountants, tax professionals, appraisers, and consultants.

Burkett, Kevin. “No lowballs, I know what I’ve got…” Southern Ag Today 5(49.1). December 1, 2025. Permalink

December 1, 2025
Reiterating Agrifood Safety Education to Further Reduce Southern U.S. Farm Markets’ Product Waste

The State of Georgia, according to the USDA’s 2022 Census of Agriculture, accounted for 39,264 farms, with a market value of roughly $13 billion in animal and plant products across poultry, peanut, cotton, pecan, fruit, and vegetable sectors. It is well known that small-scale farms are largely family owned and contribute significantly to the U.S. agricultural landscape, being of higher concentration in the south compared to other regions. Specifically, over 60% of U.S. farms in the southern region are small-scale (gross cash farm income under $350,000), and contribute significantly to the total farmland and food production. The specialized nature of Southern U.S. farmers’ markets makes them uniquely positioned with ever-increasing resilience, despite their economic struggles to sustain value-added products (Schupp, 2016). By consumer intervention and farm-vendor complexities, Woods and Wolff (2023) articulated agricultural commodities, climate adaptation, diverse needs of technical assistance, and (market) pricing confront U.S. South farmers’ markets opportunities. Consider the global picture of agrifood waste, estimated at roughly 1.3 billion tons (Adedeji, 2022), consumers in the U.S. are estimated to contribute 30-40% of this waste. This reported level, nearly 103 million tons, is more than any other country in the world. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, almost 14% of the world’s food production is lost before it reaches the retail stage, from roots, fruits and vegetables to cereals and pulses (FAO, 2011).

Figure 1 shows a global account of how major food production goes to waste. USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) estimated that16% total food waste across the U.S. occurs at the farm level. Such losses may be attributed to climatic conditions, improper logistics/transport, incorrect harvesting techniques/times, etc. (Buchholz, 2019). Moreover, agrifood waste levels of U.S. Southern states appear to be on the rise as a result of a range of farm- and non-farm-related challenges such as inefficient farm-to-plate systems and inadequate storage infrastructure. These issues have placed significant pressure on farmers’ markets and highlight the need for increased agrifood safety education. Strengthening hygiene, safety and quality practices in harvest and post- harvest handling practices can help alleviate this pressure and reduce waste across the supply chain. In line with farm quality management policies and procedures, all (farm) workers should understand why it is important for them to elevate their personal/self-hygiene levels, their continuous use of clean/sanitized (farm) facilities/tools, and their deliberate/intentional care/effort to ensure the lowest contamination levels.

Farmers’ markets in the U.S. South can play a role in reducing the agrifood waste that largely emanates from contaminated, poorly handled, including damaged food produce that can occur at any stage of the supply chain. Emphasizing the four well-known and established food safety key areas, namely: cleaning, separation, cooking, and chilling can support reductions in food waste. Key areas include regular washing of hands/surfaces, separating raw and cooked/processed agrifood produce, cooking to a safe (internal) temperature, and prompt/rapid refrigeration. Regardless of farm type, all farm workers require food safety training to strengthen their best practices and prevent/reduce microbial proliferation of farm food produce. Enhanced delivery of agrifood safety education would improve overall consumer protection as well as the empowerment of diverse farmers’ markets (Okpala & Korzeniowska, 2023; Okpala, 2024).

It is well-known that extension education, among other useful services, has been crucial in helping farmers improve their productivity and output quality by providing them with evidence-based research information. In fact, extension education, available across the land-grant institutions in the southern states, is well positioned to provide agrifood safety training to many farmers’ markets across diverse communities. For the farmers’ markets to thrive, a continuous and persistent implementation of agrifood safety education is paramount Prioritizing agrifood safety education would increasingly equip farmers’ markets towards achieving greater implementation of good practices, for example, good agricultural practices (GAP), good hygiene practices (GHP), good storage practices (GSP), good transport practices (GTP), good manufacturing practices (GMP), and others (Okpala & Korzeniowska, 2023).

Figure 1: A global account of waste by major food category (FAO, 2016).

Source: Buchholz, 2019

References:

Adedeji, A.A. (2022). Agri-food waste reduction and utilization: A sustainability perspective. Journal of the ASABE, 65(2), 471-479.

Buchholz, K. (2019). 14 Percent of Food Goes to Waste. In Food Loss/Food Waste in the US. Statistica (Published, 16 October 2019). https://www.statista.com/chart/19672/global-shares-of-different-agricultural-products-thrown-away/ (Accessed 24 April 2025, 3.47 pm EST).

FAO (2011). Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. Rome, Italy: United Nations FAO. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/mb060e/mb060e02.pdf

Okpala, C. O. R., & Korzeniowska, M. (2023). Understanding the relevance of quality management in agro-food product industry: From ethical considerations to assuring food hygiene quality safety standards and its associated processes. Food Reviews International, 39(4), 1879-1952.

Okpala, C.O.R. (2024). Food safety activities for Augusta-Richmond County gardening community. Poster presented at Garden Club event in honor of Late Revd. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 15 January 2024.

Schupp, J.L. (2016). Just where does local food live? Assessing farmers’ markets in the United States. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(4), 827-841.

Woods T & Wolff B. (2023). Farmers Markets and the South. Southern Ag Today. August 25, 2023. https://southernagtoday.org/2023/08/25/farmers-markets-and-the-south/.

Okpala, Charles. “Reiterating Agrifood Safety Education to Further Reduce Southern U.S. Farm Markets’ Product Waste.” Southern Ag Today 5(48.5). November 28, 2025. Permalink

November 28, 2025
Sweet Potatoes: A Southern Crop for Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving is a time to slow down, gather with the people who matter most, and enjoy the dishes that feel like home. For many Southern families, no holiday table feels complete without one standout ingredient: the sweet potato. Whether baked, mashed, candied, or topped with toasted marshmallows, this humble crop has become a Thanksgiving staple across the country. Each year, the United States (U.S.) plants more than 150,000 acres of sweet potatoes, making it a major commercial crop, especially in states across the South.

Sweet potato production is largely centered in three states: North Carolina, Mississippi, and California. North Carolina is the clear leader, planting 87,000 acres in 2024, which accounted for 58 percent of all U.S. sweet potato acreage (NASS). Mississippi ranked second with 32,000 acres, followed by California with 18,000. Together, North Carolina and Mississippi produced roughly 80 percent of the nation’s planted acres. In Mississippi, production is clustered in the north central region around Vardaman, often celebrated as “The Sweet Potato Capital of the World.” In North Carolina, Wilson, Nash, and Johnston counties anchor the state’s industry.

Louisiana, while still an important producer, has experienced a significant decline over the past decade. In 2011, producers planted 13,000 acres, but by 2024 that number had fallen to just over 5,000 (LSU AgCenter). High production costs, persistent pest pressure from the sugarcane beetle, and an aging grower population have all contributed to this downward trend.

Of all U.S. sweet potatoes produced, about 70 percent are made available for domestic consumption. In recent decades, however, U.S. sweet potatoes have also seen strong growth in export demand. In 2000, exports accounted for only 3 percent of total use, but by 2022 that share had increased to 21 percent. Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands are the top three destinations for U.S. sweet potatoes. While Canada has steadily increased its imports and remains the largest buyer, most of the export growth since 2000 has come from expanding markets in Europe.

Sweet potato producers face unique marketing challenges compared to traditional row crops. Not every sweet potato is the same, and roots are graded based on size. U.S. No. 1s are considered the premium grade, preferred for the fresh market, and command the highest price. U.S. No. 2s include smaller roots, known as canners, and larger roots, known as jumbos, which are typically used by the processing industry. However, jumbos and canners bring lower prices, and depending on market conditions, canners may not be economical to harvest. This season, Mississippi growers have faced particular challenges with a higher share of smaller roots, resulting in lower overall economic returns.

Sweet potatoes remain a key crop in the Southeast, and producers continue to navigate significant challenges to deliver them to your Thanksgiving table. If you haven’t planned to include sweet potatoes in your meal tomorrow, there is still time. To make it easier, I am happy to share the best way to enjoy sweet potatoes for a Thanksgiving meal. This recipe comes straight from my wife’s Mimi, who grew up in the heart of Mississippi sweet potato country. Her sweet potato casserole has been a family staple for generations, and I hope your family enjoys it just as much as ours does. Happy Thanksgiving!

References

LSU AgCenter. (n.d.). Research station profile: Sweet Potato Research Station. https://www.lsuagcenter.com/portals/our_offices/research_stations/sweetpotato/features/profile

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS). (2025). Quick Stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

Maples, Will. “Sweet Potatoes: A Southern Crop for Thanksgiving.” Southern Ag Today 5(48.3). November 26, 2025. Permalink

November 26, 2025
A COF Report Comes Out Among Other Headlines

Amid the drumbeat of bad news in the cattle market over the last month, including on-again, off-again tariffs, jawboning for lower beef prices, and now Tyson’s announcement that they will close their beef packing plant in Lexington, NE, in January, USDA released a cattle on feed report.  (We’ll look at the impact of the plant closure on packing capacity in a future SAT).    USDA caught up on cattle on feed following the shutdown when they released the COF report on Friday, November 21^st.

The report did not contain many surprises.  Placements and marketings were down 10 percent and 8 percent, compared to October 2024.  The combination left the number of cattle on feed down 1.6 percent compared to November 1, 2024.

The most interesting, and important, number in the report was the number of heifers on feed.  Heifers on feed is normally reported in the October report, but that was delayed due to the shutdown.  There were 4.355 million heifers on feed on October 1, 2025.  That was 245,000 fewer than October 1, 2024, and the fewest heifers on feed for an October since 2018.  It also represented the 5^th consecutive quarter of year-over-year declines in the number of heifers on feed.  That would seem to be positive news if looking for evidence of herd expansion.

But the heifer data on feed for October 2024 would have included spayed heifers imported from Mexico.  Over the April-September 2024 period, 266,559 spayed heifers were imported.  So, the decline in heifers on feed reflects no imported heifers from Mexico this year and any decline in domestic heifer feedlot placement.  The expectation is that fewer spayed heifers would have been imported this year compared to last year, but considering imports, the report doesn’t indicate a lot of heifer retention.

The report included a rare event with Texas slipping to number 2, reporting 10,000 fewer cattle on feed than Nebraska, 2.63 million head versus 2.64 million head.  The last time Nebraska had more cattle in feedyards than Texas was May 2018.  The lack of Mexican feeder cattle imports is the most important factor in this ranking reversal.

There were a couple of other interesting numbers to think about.  More steers were reported on feed than a year ago.  At first glance, we might think that seems surprising given the decline in cow numbers, but days on feed is boosting total cattle on feed inventories, given overall declines in cattle numbers.

All of us livestock economists at Southern Ag Today wish you all a blessed Thanksgiving with as many of your family and friends as possible!

Anderson, David. “A COF Report Comes Out Among Other Headlines.” Southern Ag Today 5(48.2). November 25, 2025. Permalink

November 25, 2025
Cash Rents for Irrigated Cropland Across the Mid-South

Cash leases have grown in favor relative to crop share leases in the Mid-South. Eastern Arkansas still has a high proportion of cropland rented under crop share leases (ASFMRA, 2024). In contrast, other regions in the Mid-South have a higher proportion of cropland rented under cash leases (Paulson and Schnitkey, 2016). Much of the impetus for choosing cash leases stems from their simplicity. Crop share arrangements are perceived by some landowners, particularly absentee landlords or non-farm operators, as more difficult to monitor or manage, while tenants may find it easier to bid for additional tracts of land using cash bids. (Bigelow et al., 2016).

The amount of cash rent paid for cropland is affected by many factors, including: land productivity, the presence of land improvements (in particular, precision leveling and field typography that allow for greater ease of water flow and drainage for Mid-South crop production), access to groundwater for irrigation, and the ability to grow several different cash crops (or crop diversification). Higher commodity prices and inflation also tend to push cash rents upward, as these have an upward impact on cropland value.

This article compares cash rents for irrigated cropland across the Mid-South region, as most Mid-South crops (rice, soybeans, corn, and cotton) are grown with irrigation. County-level irrigated cropland cash rents are obtained for seven Mid-South subregions for the period 2019 – 2025 from the USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA, NASS, 2025). Cash rents are averaged across counties within each subregion by year. Figure 1 illustrates the average 2025 irrigated cropland cash rent by subregion.

Cash rents vary greatly by subregion, largely due to differences in land productivity, irrigation infrastructure, and groundwater availability observed throughout the Mid-South. Average irrigated cropland cash rents in 2025 ranged from $146/acre in East Central Arkansas to $228/acre in Southeast Missouri. The lower average irrigated cropland cash rent in East Central Arkansas reflects a greater proportion of unimproved irrigated cropland in this region relative to Southeast Missouri. Unimproved irrigated cropland is land not conducive to precision leveling because of undulating or rolling terrain with varying slopes (ASFMRA, 2024).

Nominal annual average irrigated cropland cash rents are presented by Mid-South subregion from 2019 through 2025 in Figure 2. Nominal cash rents significantly increased for all seven subregions during this period (+9% for Southeast Arkansas, +17% for the Mississippi Lower Delta, + 20% for East Central Arkansas, +21% for Northeast Arkansas, +24% for the Mississippi Upper Delta, +25% for Southeast Missouri, and +27% for Northeast Louisiana). Sorting out the cause of rising rental rates is challenging with the combination of increasing crop prices and increasing input costs resulting from market disruptions (the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine during 2021 and 2022) followed by general inflation across the economy after 2022.

Real annual average irrigated cropland cash rents are presented by Mid-South subregion from 2019 through 2025 in Figure 3. Cash rents are adjusted to 2025 dollars using the Gross Domestic Product Price Index (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2025). Figure 3 reveals that when adjusting for inflation, cash rents have remained relatively steady since 2019. Thus, the escalation in nominal cash rents observed since 2019 is mostly explained by inflation.

References and Resources

ASFMRA (2024). 2024 Mid-South Land Values and Lease Trends Report. American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, Mid-South Chapter. https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads//assets/Conferences/2024-Mid-South-ASFMRA-Land-Values-and-Lease-Trends-Report.pdf

Bigelow, D., A. Borchers, and T. Hubbs. U.S. Farmland Ownership, Tenure, and Transfer (2016). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin No. 161. https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/74672/EIB-161.pdf?v=75942

Paulson, N., G. Schnitkey (2016). Farmland Leasing: Where are We Going? Farmland in Perspective. Volume 34, No. 3 https://www.glaubfm.com/sites/default/files/u5/Farmland%20in%20Perspective%20Vol.37%2C%20No.3.pdf

USDA-NASS (2025). United States Department of Agriculture, Quick-Stats. https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2025). Gross Domestic Product: Chain-type Price Index [GDPCTPI], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPCTPI

Watkins, Brad. “Cash Rents for Irrigated Cropland Across the Mid-South.” Southern Ag Today 5(48.1). November 24, 2025. Permalink

November 24, 2025