Key Takeaways

• Desalination may help expand municipal and industrial supplies, but its cost, energy and infrastructure requirements make it unfeasible as a direct replacement for large-scale agricultural irrigation.

• Estimates for new seawater desalination in California reach $3,400 to $3,700 per acre-foot — more than twice the roughly $1,444 in average gross farm revenue generated per acre-foot of applied water.

• Even at $3,000 per acre-foot, desalinated water would add roughly $6,900 to $11,250 per acre for representative lettuce, strawberry and almond operations already facing negative margins.

• Farm and household water are not the same product. City water must be treated to drinking-water standards and pumped through pressurized systems to homes and businesses, while irrigation water generally requires much less treatment and distribution infrastructure.

The Colorado River is one of the most economically important water systems in the West, supporting communities, businesses and some of the nation's most productive agricultural regions. It also underpins food supply chains Americans depend on most heavily during the winter, when areas such as Yuma, Arizona, and California's Imperial Valley become major sources of fresh vegetables.

At the same time, the basin faces a long-term imbalance between available water and existing demands, intensifying debate over conservation, infrastructure and potential new sources of supply. One option that regularly enters that discussion is ocean desalination.

The appeal is easy to understand. Rather than reallocating an existing water supply among users, desalination can create new, drought-resistant freshwater from the ocean. It is already used in communities around the world and could supplement municipal or industrial supplies in parts of the Western U.S.

For agriculture, however, the central question is not whether desalination works. It is whether the water it produces can be supplied at a price compatible with commercial food production. On that question, the economics are difficult to overcome.

Desalinated Water Comes at a Very Different Price

Most large ocean desalination plants use reverse osmosis, forcing seawater under high pressure through membranes that remove salts. The technology is well established, with roughly 16,000 to 17,000 desalination plants operating worldwide, but it has not experienced the dramatic cost declines seen in technologies such as solar and wind.

For California, the most relevant estimates are measured in thousands of dollars per acre-foot. The California State Water Resources Control Board cites projected seawater desalination costs of $3,400 to $3,700 per acre-foot in 2025. The Pacific Institute estimated roughly $2,100 per acre-foot for large California projects and $2,800 for smaller facilities, while water from the Carlsbad Desalination Plant is estimated at roughly $2,500 to $2,800 per acre-foot when adjusted for electricity prices.

Lower costs are often cited overseas. Israel’s Sorek B facility has contracted water near $505 per acre-foot, while Dubai’s Hassyan project reached roughly $450. Those projects show what desalination can achieve under favorable conditions, but differences in energy costs, scale, infrastructure, financing and regulation make them difficult to replicate in the American West.

The economic mismatch becomes clearer when those costs are compared with what agricultural water produces. California agriculture generated about $1,444 in gross farm revenue per acre-foot of applied water in 2020. Agricultural output per unit of water has nearly doubled since 1967, while total applied water increased only 8%.

Even after those efficiency gains, desalinated water costing $3,400 to $3,700 per acre-foot would cost more than twice the average gross farm revenue generated by an acre-foot of applied water — before labor, land, fertilizer, equipment and other production expenses are paid.

This is also not a simple comparison between what farmers and households pay for the same water. Drinking water must be treated to higher standards and delivered through pressurized systems to homes and businesses, while irrigation water generally requires much less treatment and distribution infrastructure. The relevant question is whether agricultural production can support a replacement water source costing several thousand dollars per acre-foot. For open-field production, the numbers suggest it cannot.

What $3,000 Water Means on the Farm

The statewide comparison is stark, but crop-level budgets show how quickly desalination costs would overwhelm farm economics.

Using UC Davis and University of California Cooperative Extension cost-of-production studies, Farm Bureau estimated that under 2025 market conditions California lettuce growers would lose about $2,533 per acre, strawberry growers about $4,525 per acre and almond growers about $2,658 per acre after accounting for production costs. These are not crops operating with large margins that could simply absorb a higher water bill.

Applying a desalination cost of $3,000 per acre-foot (below the State Water Resources Control Board’s $3,400 to $3,700 estimate) would translate into roughly $11,100 per acre for lettuce, $6,900 for strawberries and $11,250 for almonds based on their representative water needs.

Those figures represent the total cost of purchasing desalinated water before subtracting existing irrigation-water expenses. Farmers would no longer pay the water costs already included in their production budgets, but removing those smaller expenses does little to change the overall result. The replacement water bill alone would exceed or consume a substantial share of the value generated by crops already facing negative returns.

For open-field agriculture, the use of desalinated water would therefore do more than tighten margins. At current costs, it would make commercial-scale production economically unworkable.

Why Desalination Remains Expensive

The high cost of desalination is not tied to one piece of technology that can simply become cheaper over time. Producing freshwater from the ocean requires large amounts of electricity, major coastal infrastructure and systems to manage both seawater intake and the concentrated brine left behind.

Energy is a major part of the equation. Seawater reverse osmosis requires roughly 4,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per acre-foot of water produced, about twice the energy needed just to move an acre-foot of Colorado River water through the Colorado River Aqueduct to Southern California. The Carlsbad Desalination Plant alone uses about 38 megawatts of electricity continuously.

The facilities themselves are also expensive. Carlsbad cost roughly $1 billion to build and produces about 56,000 acre-feet of water per year. That price does not include the broader challenge of building pipelines, pumping systems and other infrastructure needed to move newly produced water to where it is ultimately used.

Then there is the ocean side of the equation. Desalination plants must pull in large quantities of seawater without causing excessive harm to marine life and safely discharge concentrated brine after the freshwater is removed. California requires projects to address those impacts through intake design, dilution, monitoring and other mitigation measures. Those protections can add both time and cost. In 2022, the California Coastal Commission rejected a proposed Huntington Beach desalination plant similar in size to Carlsbad, citing concerns that included marine-life impacts and environmental mitigation.

Despite decades of use around the world, desalination still supplies only about 1% of global freshwater needs, with total capacity of roughly 28 million acre-feet per year. That reflects the practical limits of scaling a process that requires substantial electricity, billion-dollar facilities, pipelines, pumping and environmental safeguards.

Technology can continue to improve, but many of desalination’s largest costs are tied to the basic physical task of turning seawater into a dependable freshwater supply.

Why This Matters for the Food Supply

The economics of desalination matter because Colorado River water supports some of the nation’s most important food-producing regions. Yuma, Arizona, and California’s Imperial Valley together produce roughly 90% of the leafy vegetables consumed in the U.S. from November through March. Across the broader basin and adjacent supply areas, irrigation supports more than $10 billion in annual agricultural production. A 2024 study also estimated that Colorado River irrigation supports 28% of U.S. milk production, 15.5% of beef production and 8.6% of egg production.

If production declines because replacement water is too expensive, it cannot simply be shifted elsewhere. Western growing regions combine climate, soils and irrigation infrastructure that are difficult to replicate at scale. Greater reliance on imports would likely fill part of the gap, but the U.S. already imports about 35% of its fresh vegetables and 59% of its fresh fruit, increasing exposure to transportation disruptions, extreme weather and policy decisions abroad.

Desalination can still add drought-resistant water to the West’s supply and may make sense for municipal, industrial and other higher-value uses. But water costing several thousand dollars per acre-foot is not an economically realistic substitute for the irrigation supplies supporting these major food-producing regions. The challenge is not simply creating more water but maintaining water supplies at a cost that allows domestic agriculture to keep producing.

Read Article on FB.org

Key Takeaways

• Two recent USDA reports were followed by some of the largest single-day declines in December corn futures during 2026, emphasizing estimates’ impacts on commodity prices.

• USDA corrected its September corn production estimates after identifying a processing error that affected plant populations, ear counts, yields and production in Kansas and Nebraska.

• The correction raised September’s national production forecast by 28.4 million bushels, shrinking the reported September-to-October production increase by about 12%.

• Accurate, timely USDA estimates are essential to market transparency, price discovery and the marketing decisions farmers make throughout the year.

USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) announced corrections to its September 2026 Crop Production report on Oct. 23 following concerns about differences between its September and October corn estimates. In a follow-up notice on Oct. 24, NASS explained that incorrect acreage weights had been used to combine irrigated and non-irrigated corn observations in Kansas and Nebraska. The error affected September plant populations and ear counts, resulting in revisions to state-level yields and production, as well as national estimates and 10-state objective-yield averages. The agency corrected the affected September estimates, reviewed its October calculations and confirmed that October forecasts remain unchanged.

USDA production estimates give farmers, grain buyers and other market participants a common source of information used for price discovery, marketing and risk management. Unfortunately, revisions, especially market-moving revisions, undermine trust in the accuracy of the reported data and may discourage future participation in these critical surveys.

Market Surprises Heighten Concerns

Two recent USDA reports were followed by some of the largest single-day declines in December corn futures during 2026. On Sept. 30, December corn futures declined 21.25 cents per bushel after USDA reported Sept. 1 corn stocks of 2.095 billion bushels, above market expectations of approximately 1.924 billion bushels. On Oct. 9, futures declined another 20.5 cents after USDA raised its national corn yield forecast to 181.2 bushels per acre, compared with market expectations near 177.7 bushels.

Together, these two trading sessions represented a decline of 41.75 cents per bushel. Actual farm revenue impacts depend on marketing arrangements, hedging decisions, basis, and the portion of production remaining unpriced. These price movements also reflected broader market expectations and are not all a result of the changes to the September report.

These developments are more significant for farmers already facing tight or negative margins. Lower commodity prices, combined with elevated fertilizer, fuel, interest and other expenses, continue to pressure farm viability. The September Grain Stocks report and October production estimates both exceeded market expectations, contributing to sharp price reactions. The subsequent correction to September's production data has added concern about the reliability of the information farmers use to evaluate supplies and make marketing decisions.

What Changed in the September Report?

NASS identified a processing error involving acreage weights used to combine irrigated and non-irrigated objective-yield observations in Kansas and Nebraska. The correction increased Nebraska's September corn yield estimate by 5 bushels per acre to 182 bushels and lowered Kansas' estimate by 3 bushels to 118 bushels per acre. Nationally, September's yield estimate increased from 178.5 to 178.8 bushels per acre. These revisions added approximately 48 million bushels to Nebraska's production forecast and reduced Kansas' by nearly 20 million bushels, resulting in a net increase of 28.4 million bushels in estimated U.S. production.

While the national production adjustment was relatively small at approximately 0.2%, the state-level changes were more substantial. Nebraska's September production forecast increased nearly 3%, while Kansas' decreased approximately 2.5%. These offsetting adjustments demonstrate how errors in individual state estimates can affect the national production outlook and the information available to market participants.

How do the Corrections Affect the October Comparison?

When USDA released its October Crop Production report on Oct. 9, the national corn production forecast increased by approximately 234 million bushels to 16.03 billion bushels. Part of that increase, however, reflected the September error, which the market forecasted at a lower production estimate.

The revised September production estimate increased from approximately 15.80 billion to 15.83 billion bushels. As a result, the September-to-October production increase narrowed from approximately 234 million bushels to 206 million bushels.

Looking back to August, USDA initially forecasted national corn production at 16.01 billion bushels before lowering its estimate to 15.83 billion bushels in corrected September figures. By October, production was forecast at 16.03 billion bushels, approximately 21 million bushels, or 0.13%, above August's estimate.

The correction also changes the comparison of corn yields between the two months. Nationally, the reported yield increase narrowed from 2.7 to 2.4 bushels per acre. The difference is especially noticeable in Nebraska, where the September error made October's yield increase appear to be 11 bushels per acre. With the corrected September estimate, that increase is 6 bushels per acre. In Kansas, the reported increase grows from 4 to 7 bushels per acre.

The broader comparison shows how September's lower production forecast influenced the apparent size of October's increase. USDA’s corrections narrowed the month-to-month change, although it still represents a large increase in production estimates from September to October.

Maintaining Confidence in Agricultural Statistics

USDA's decision to correct the September report and provide additional information about the error is an important step in maintaining confidence in its estimates. NASS has confirmed its October forecasts are accurate and announced additional checks of acreage weights and objective-yield calculations before future reports are published.

The September revisions demonstrate how errors in earlier estimates can affect markets and the interpretation of subsequent reports. Continued improvements to data processing, verification and quality-control procedures can help strengthen the accuracy and consistency of future estimates. USDA is also pursuing broader data modernization efforts, including an Oct. 24 agreement with NASA to explore how satellite observations, geospatial analysis and improved statistical methods can strengthen agricultural estimates.

Agricultural markets depend on reliable information to support transparent price discovery. Farmers make production, financing and marketing decisions based in part on the supply expectations reflected in USDA reports. As financial pressures across agriculture continue, maintaining accurate and timely agricultural statistics remains essential to allowing markets to function efficiently and helping farmers make informed business decisions.

Read Article on FB.org

The American Farm Bureau Federation, with support from Farm Credit, recognized James “Jim” Hartman, a former U.S. Army major from North Carolina, with the Veteran Farmer Award of Excellence during the Farmer Veteran Stakeholders Conference. The award honors veterans and service members who demonstrate excellence in agriculture while making a positive impact in their communities.

Hartman is the third recipient of the award and has dedicated his post-military career to helping veterans, beginning farmers and rural communities thrive.

Hartman served for 10 years as a paratrooper and bomb disposal technician, including two deployments to Iraq. He later spent 14 years as a defense contractor training soldiers to identify and avoid improvised explosive devices, helping save lives and enhance mission readiness.

After turning to beekeeping as a way to manage post-traumatic stress disorder, Hartman transformed a hobby into a thriving business. Founded in 2020, Secret Garden Bees has grown into a successful business with honey products distributed in 27 states at more than 180 stores. The farm also offers agritourism experiences, welcoming RV travelers who want to learn more about beekeeping and honey production.

Today, Secret Garden Bees employs three full-time staff members, including two disabled veterans enrolled in Department of Veterans Affairs-certified apprenticeship programs. The farm partners with local, state and federal agencies to introduce veterans to careers in agriculture and provide hands-on training opportunities.

“We’re proud to recognize this distinguished veteran for his service to our nation and his continued commitment to agriculture and his community,” said AFBF President Zippy Duvall. “Veterans and active-duty service members embody the values of dedication, leadership and sacrifice. We’re honored to celebrate Mr. Hartman’s contributions and the important role that military families play in strengthening American agriculture.”

Hartman’s farm is federally certified as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, allowing access to programs that provide government surplus equipment for agricultural use. He regularly shares his knowledge with fellow veterans to help them take advantage of similar opportunities.

“I speak and lead webinars at every opportunity to show other veterans how to use little-known resources to help them with their agricultural business,” Hartman said. “I am convinced there is enough success to go around if we all work together and share knowledge.”

Beyond his own operation, Hartman has become a leader in agricultural education and workforce development. Secret Garden Bees serves as a training site for Cumberland County’s Boots to Agriculture program, which connects veterans with opportunities in North Carolina agriculture, and hosts both The Veteran’s Farm of North Carolina training program and the state’s Upward Bound high school agricultural training initiative.

Hartman was also among the first farmers to partner with the North Carolina Department of Commerce to develop agricultural work-based learning programs. His leadership has helped dozens of participants gain valuable training and employment experience in the agricultural sector.

Throughout his career, Hartman has advocated for policies that create new opportunities for farmers, beekeepers and veterans. Those efforts helped secure recognition of honey production in state agricultural programs, expand agricultural-use property tax eligibility for commercial apiaries and improve farmers’ access to workforce training resources that offset hiring and training costs.

Hartman’s contributions to agriculture and rural communities have earned statewide and national recognition. In 2024, he was named AFBF’s Ag Innovation Challenge People’s Choice Award winner and North Carolina Small Farmer of the Year.

Through his service, mentorship and entrepreneurial leadership, Hartman continues to create opportunities for fellow veterans and strengthen agriculture in North Carolina and beyond.

Read Article on FB.org

The share of foreign-owned U.S. land continues to increase. Chad Smith tells us despite growing numbers, overall foreign-owned farmland remains a small percentage of total acreage.

Read Article on FB.org

Farm Bureau’s newest national Member Benefits partner has tools to help solve a longtime problem in rural America: reliable communications products that go the distance where cellular service may be limited. Kansas City, Missouri-based Midland is a leader  in two-way radio communication technology designed to improve safety, coordination and efficiency across agricultural operations.

Midland is the only communications company participating in the national Farm Bureau Member Benefits Program, providing access to reliable communication tools to help producers stay connected in the field. From managing crews across large properties to maintaining connectivity in remote areas, Midland radios meet the real-world demands of farm life.

Designed for environments where traditional connectivity may fall short, Midland’s portfolio of general mobile radio service (GMRS) radios and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather alert technology provide farmers with reliable, easy-to-use tools that enhance preparedness.

“We’re excited to welcome Midland Radio to our national Member Benefits portfolio of partners,” said Joanne Hogan Daugherty, director, member benefits at the American Farm Bureau Federation. “Communication is one of the most consistent challenges our members face every day, whether they’re coordinating across the fields or staying connected in areas where cell service simply isn't reliable. Midland’s radios are built for exactly those conditions. Adding a dependable, purpose-built communication tool to our lineup of member benefits gives members real value, and we're proud Midland has chosen Farm Bureau as its partner in serving the agricultural community.”

Matt Sirgo, who manages member benefits for Louisiana Farm Bureau, said Midland’s focus on addressing challenges on the farm and ranch is appreciated.

“Midland has been a great addition to our Member Benefits program here at Louisiana Farm Bureau. We have a bunch of great partners, but it’s always special to have a benefit geared toward the agricultural community,” Sirgo said.

Farm Bureau ® Member Benefits

It pays to be a Farm Bureau member. Farm Bureau is working to help members achieve their goals through savings on the products and services they need. On behalf of Farm Bureau’s nearly 5.5 million members, Farm Bureau is thankful for our national member benefit partners and the value they add to every membership.

In 2025, national Member Benefits programs saved members over $11 million*, creating over $1.4 million* in revenue to support the Farm Bureau mission. Learn more about Farm Bureau® Member Benefits here  or contact your state Farm Bureau.

* Based on available figures and estimated average prices.

Read Article on FB.org

Key Takeaways

• The share of foreign-owned U.S. land continues to increase. In 2024, foreign entities held approximately 47.24 million acres of U.S. agricultural land, up 91% since 2010, accounting for 3.6% of agricultural land in the United States.

• Entities from Canada and Europe hold the most U.S. land. Canadian investors hold around 16.1 million acres while European countries combined hold more than 18 million acres of U.S. farmland.

• Chinese investment in U.S. farmland has been a large topic of conversation. In 2024, Chinese investors held approximately 245,000 acres. This is less than 1% of foreign-owned agricultural land.

• It is important to note that most of this land is not used in farming. In fact, nearly half is forestland and large amounts are used for renewable energy projects such as solar and wind.

Foreign ownership of U.S. land is a widely debated issue, driven by concerns about national security, agricultural productivity and long-term implications for U.S. agriculture. USDA released updated foreign ownership data for 2024, detailing what foreign investments exist on farmland, where those investments are concentrated and which countries account for the largest holdings.

The latest data show foreign investors holding or leasing around 47.2 million acres of U.S. agricultural land in 2024, representing 3.6% of privately held agricultural land. While this continues a long-term upward trend, the pace has slowed. Most foreign-held agricultural land is forestland or tied to renewable energy projects.

Background

The Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 (AFIDA) requires foreign entities to self-report purchases, sales and other interests in U.S. agricultural land to USDA's Farm Service Agency. Reporting is mandatory, with penalties of up to 25% of the land’s fair market value, but it relies on self-reporting, and enforcement has historically been limited. USDA has proposed regulatory changes to broaden the categories that require reporting and increase penalties for non-compliance. Agricultural land reported under AFIDA includes cropland, pastureland and forestland.

Reportable interests include purchases and leases of 10 years or more, so a foreign-held acre is not always a foreign-owned acre. Much of the land tied to wind and solar projects is leased from U.S. landowners who still own it.

Foreign-Held Agricultural Land Reaches 47.24 Million Acres

According to USDA's 2024 AFIDA report, foreign investors held interests in approximately 47.24 million acres of U.S. agricultural land, an increase of roughly 2.34 million acres compared to 44.9 million acres in 2023. This represents an increase of approximately 3% over the previous year.

Foreign-held acreage has increased substantially since 2010, when foreign investors held approximately 24.8 million acres. The 2024 total represents an increase of approximately 22 million acres, or 90%, over that period.

Land use remains an important distinction. Forestland accounted for approximately 22.2 million acres of foreign holdings in 2024, nearly half of the reported acreage. Cropland accounted for approximately 13.7 million acres, with the remainder consisting largely of pastureland and other agricultural land.

The large share of forestland reflects substantial investment by foreign-owned timber and forest products companies. It also underscores why foreign agricultural land holdings should not be interpreted exclusively as foreign purchases of actively cultivated farmland.

Canadian and European Investors Dominate Foreign Holdings

Canadian investors hold 16.1 million acres, about one-third of the total, after adding roughly 781,000 acres in 2024. Investors from the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom hold another 12.8 million acres, mostly in timber, renewable energy and farming operations. Dutch-linked holdings fell by about 498,000 acres in 2024, while German-linked holdings rose by about 274,000 acres.

Chinese investors held about 245,000 acres in 2024, according to USDA, down roughly 30,000 acres (11%) from 2023 and about 136,000 acres from the 2021 peak. That is 0.02% of privately held U.S. agricultural land, though national security, location and use matter more than acreage.

Where Foreign Holdings are Growing

Texas has the most foreign-held agricultural land at 5.9 million acres, a mix of forestland, renewable energy leases and ranchland. Maine follows at 3.5 million acres, nearly all of it timber. As a share of a state's privately held ag land, Maine leads at 21.3%, followed by Hawaii at 17.1%.

In 2024, 34 states gained foreign-held acreage while 12 lost foreign-held acreage. The largest gains came in New Mexico (+235,000 acres), Texas (+231,000), Oklahoma (+198,000), Oregon (+147,000), and Mississippi (+113,000). Wind and solar leases drove the growth in New Mexico and Texas, while Oklahoma's increase came from a mix of timber and wind. Montana's 108,000-acre gain was almost entirely renewable energy leases.

North Carolina posted the largest decline, down 181,000 acres (23%), almost entirely from one foreign timber company reducing its holdings. Arkansas fell by 64,000 acres.

Renewable Energy Remains an Important Driver

In previous analyses, AFBF looked at the role of renewable energy development in increasing reported foreign agricultural land holdings. Because AFIDA includes long-term leases, foreign energy companies may report substantial acreage associated with wind and solar projects without purchasing the underlying land. In many cases, agricultural production may continue alongside renewable energy development. USDA reports that less than 1% of land tied to foreign wind energy companies is owned outright, and the vast majority keeps the same operator after the lease is signed.

Using the same approach as AFBF's previous analysis, we examined foreign-held acreage associated with entities whose names included terms such as "wind," "solar," "renewable" or "energy." Acreage associated with these companies increased from 2.9 million acres in 2010 to 14.2 million acres in 2024, a nearly 390% increase.

Conclusion

Foreign-held agricultural land grew to 47.2 million acres in 2024, driven mostly by Canadian and European timber and renewable energy interests rather than purchases of working cropland. Holdings linked to China remain small and are shrinking. For farmers and ranchers, the bigger question is how long-term energy leases reshape land use and competition for ground in their communities. Accurate, enforced AFIDA reporting remains essential to tracking these trends.

Read Article on FB.org

Farmers continue to operate in the red even as grocery prices rise. Chad Smith tells us despite that, many consumers don’t know the challenges facing farm country.

Read Article on FB.org

By Dr. Lorin Harvey

Every harvest season, I get some version of the same question:

“Why don’t farmers hire Americans workers to harvest the sweet potatoes in Mississippi?”

The difficult reality is that, in many rural communities, a sufficiently large and dependable domestic seasonal workforce simply does not exist.

Why? Consider the job.

Agricultural harvest work can be physically demanding, outdoors and highly seasonal. A farm may need 100 or 150 additional employees during a relatively short harvest window but cannot necessarily provide those same jobs 12 months of the year. It’s a temporary job.

Hard physical work plus seasonal employment is a difficult combination for building a large permanent local workforce.

That does not mean farmers are allowed to skip American workers and immediately hire workers from another country. In fact, quite the opposite.

Before receiving H-2A certification, an employer must recruit U.S. workers. The Department of Labor requires employers to document those recruitment efforts, record U.S. applicants and, generally, hire qualified and eligible U.S. workers who apply. U.S. workers must also be offered wages and working conditions that are no less favorable than those offered to H-2A workers.

And the numbers illustrate the scale of the problem.

In fiscal year 2025, American agricultural employers requested 415,496 H-2A positions, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Of those, 398,258 positions were ultimately certified – meaning DOL acknowledges there is no U.S. workers available for them, and hiring foreign workers would have no adverse effect on similarly employed domestic workers.

An American Farm Bureau Federation analysis of this labor situation reported something even more striking: only 182 of the nearly 415,000 advertised positions received a domestic applicant. That is less than 0.04%.

Agriculture also operates under a constraint most industries don’t face: The crop doesn’t wait.

When fruits and vegetables are ready for harvest, they’re ready. They wait for no one.

A sweet potato farmer doesn’t need 150 people who might show up sometime this month. They need a dependable crew today, tomorrow and the next day until hundreds of acres of a perishable crop are safely harvested.

So, who are those busloads of migrant workers who do this work? Many of them participate in the H-2A Temporary Agricultural Worker Program, the majority of whom come from Mexico. H-2A is not an undocumented labor program. It is a federal program that allows agricultural employers experiencing a shortage of domestic workers to hire foreign workers temporarily for seasonal agricultural jobs.

The program is administered through multiple federal agencies, and workers enter the United States for a specific temporary or seasonal agricultural purpose.

There is also a misconception that H-2A is simply a source of “cheap labor.”

H-2A employers are subject to federally prescribed wage requirements. Employers must pay the highest applicable required wage rate depending on job duties, skill and experience. Employers may also have significant obligations involving paperwork and documentation, housing, transportation, workers’ compensation and other program costs.

None of this means the H-2A system is perfect. Agricultural labor policy, wages, working conditions and mechanization are all legitimate topics for discussion.

But simply eliminating access to seasonal agricultural workers does not mean those jobs will suddenly be filled by Americans.

It will instead mean fewer labor-intensive crops are grown domestically, higher production costs and greater reliance on imported fruits and vegetables.

That trend is already worth paying attention to. USDA’s Economic Research Service reports that imports supplied about 59% of U.S. fresh fruit availability and 35% of fresh vegetable availability in 2023, with import dependence increasing substantially over the past several decades.

That's why I think this conversation is bigger than immigration or farm labor. It is also a conversation about food security.

We can maintain a regulated, legal pathway that allows temporary workers to help American farmers produce food here ... or we can increasingly import the food itself.

If we value American-grown food, then we also have to have an honest conversation about the workforce required to grow, harvest and pack it.

American agriculture requires an agricultural workforce. Food security depends not only on our ability to grow crops but also on our ability to get them out of the field.

Dr. Lorin Harvey is an assistant professor and Extension sweet potato specialist at Mississippi State University. He is a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation’s Partners in Advocacy Leadership Class 13.

This article was originally shared on LinkedIn.

Read Article on FB.org

The White House announced an aid package to help farmers battle the high cost of diesel. Chad Smith says increased fuel prices have added to already elevated expenses on the farm.

Read Article on FB.org

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall commented today on President Trump’s announcement to provide $8 billion in relief for farmers facing higher diesel prices this fall.

“Farmers and ranchers welcome the administration’s announcement of $8 billion in relief through the Harvest Fuel Relief program to help farmers struggling with high diesel prices. We appreciate President Trump and Secretary Rollins recognizing that higher diesel prices have squeezed farmers’ bottom lines. By building on the Farmer Bridge Assistance program, USDA will be able to quickly deliver this relief to farm country.

“We look forward to working with the president and USDA to ensure specialty crop growers, livestock producers, fishermen and others get the support they need so they can continue growing the food America’s families rely on. We also value the president’s continued support for Congress passing a modernized farm bill, allowing year-round E15 and addressing agriculture’s labor needs.”

Read Article on FB.org