The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognizes several groups of farmers as historically underserved, including socially disadvantaged individuals, women, and limited resource producers. Socially disadvantaged farmers include those who identify as Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic or Latino, and Asian or Pacific Islander. Limited resource farmers are those with both low farm sales and low household income for two years in a row. Despite targeted USDA programs, there’s limited information about the farms these groups operate.

A report from the USDA’s Economic Research Service helps fill this gap by providing a detailed overview of these farms. The report aims to summarize farm financial health, credit use, and participation in agricultural programs, along with operator and household characteristics. For animal advocates, this data offers crucial insights into the inequities within the U.S. agricultural system and highlights opportunities to support a more just and sustainable food system.

The findings are based on data gathered between 2017 and 2020 via the Agricultural Resource Management Survey, an annual survey of farms across the contiguous United States. Researchers classified farms into three distinct comparison groups to analyze the data:

• Socially disadvantaged: Farms operated only by non-Hispanic white producers were compared to farms with at least one Hispanic producer and farms with at least one non-Hispanic socially disadvantaged producer.
• Gender: Farms operated only by men were compared to farms operated only by women and farms operated jointly by men and women.
• Limited resource: Limited resource farms were compared to non-limited resource farms with low sales and farms with high sales.

Socially Disadvantaged Farms

About 9% of all U.S. farms were operated by at least one socially disadvantaged producer. This included 5% with a Hispanic producer and 4% with a non-Hispanic socially disadvantaged producer. Compared to farms run solely by non-Hispanic white producers, these farms showed significant differences:

• Specialization: Hispanic and non-Hispanic socially disadvantaged farms were more likely to specialize in raising farmed animals. Half (50%) of all non-Hispanic socially disadvantaged farms focused on beef production. They were less likely to specialize in cash grains like wheat, corn, and soybeans.
• Government payments: Because government programs often cover cash grains, Hispanic and non-Hispanic socially disadvantaged farms were less likely to receive payments. Just 11% of Hispanic farms and 21% of non-Hispanic socially disadvantaged farms received payments, compared to 34% of non-Hispanic white farms.
• Farm size and finances: Hispanic and non-Hispanic socially disadvantaged farms operated fewer acres on average. They were also less likely to hold loans from the Farm Credit System or commercial banks. Notably, 20% of non-Hispanic socially disadvantaged farms were also classified as limited resource farms — more than double the rate among non-Hispanic white farms (9%).

Farms With Women Producers

Over half (51%) of all farms had at least one woman operator, but only 7% were run entirely by women. Another 44% were run jointly by men and women. Women-only farms were distinct from men-only farms in several ways:

• Farm size and scale: The average value of production was much lower on women-only farms ($28,492) compared to men-only farms ($209,083). Women-only operations were also significantly smaller, operating an average of 155 acres compared to 437 acres for men-only farms.
• Specialization: Compared to men-only operations, women-only farms were more likely to specialize in raising farmed animals other than beef and dairy cows and less likely to specialize in cash grains.
• Finances and support: Women-only farms were less likely to hold loans and were twice as likely as men-only farms to be classified as limited resource (22% versus 11%).

Limited Resource Farms

About 9% of all U.S. farms were classified as limited resource, meaning they had persistently low sales and household income. These farms differed from high-sales farms on a number of counts:

• Demographics: The principal operators of limited resource farms were more likely to be women, older, and socially disadvantaged. In fact, 21% of limited resource principal operators were women, compared to just 4% on high-sales farms.
• Specialization: Compared to high-sales farms, limited resource farms were more likely to specialize in beef production and less likely to grow cash grains.
• Finances: Only 17% of limited resource farms held loans at the end of the year, compared to 73% of high-sales farms. Their households had an average total income of just $6,551, well below the federal poverty level, and relied heavily on off-farm income sources.

Why This Matters For Animal Advocates

This report confirms that farms operated by socially disadvantaged people, women, and limited resource producers are smaller, generate less income, and are less likely to receive government payments or access credit than their counterparts. The data shows a significant overlap among these underserved groups — for example, women-only and non-Hispanic socially disadvantaged farms are far more likely to be limited resource farms, compounding their financial challenges.

For advocates, this information provides a clear, data-driven foundation for pushing for more equitable agricultural policies. It highlights that many underserved farmers specialize in raising animals, particularly for beef production, which could be an area for targeted advocacy. Understanding the financial precarity of these operations can help advocates tailor programs that support farmers in transitioning away from animal agriculture toward more sustainable and profitable models. By addressing these systemic inequities, advocates can help build a food system that is more just for both people and animals.

This summary was drafted by a large language model (LLM) and closely edited by our Research Library Manager for clarity and accuracy. As per our AI policy, Faunalytics only uses LLMs to summarize very long reports (50+ pages) that are not appropriate to assign to volunteers, as well as studies that contain graphic descriptions of animal cruelty or animal industries. We remain committed to bringing you reliable data, which is why any AI-generated work will always be reviewed by a human.