Napa Tops High-Paying Metros for Farmers and Ranchers, With Fresno Largest by Employment

Across the U.S., farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers see a national median salary of $89,900 and national employment of 6,500, with national projected employment growth of -1.3%. LaborCove’s metro-level data shows that every top-10 metro has a median salary above this national benchmark, but their rankings are shaped by more than pay alone. Within the top-10 list, Napa, CA stands out with the highest Geography Score (72.20) and a median salary of $158,660, placing it well above both the national median and the other listed metros. Fresno, CA, ranked #2, combines a median salary of $104,600 with the largest supplied employment count in the top 10 at 200. Other California metros such as Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Bakersfield-Delano, and Santa Maria-Santa Barbara pair six-figure or near–six-figure salaries with varied employment counts and Geography Scores. The presence of Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX at #10 shows that the top metros are not limited to a single state. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington’s median salary of $97,880 is above the national median salary, and its employment count of 100 is higher than several of the California metros in the top 10, even though its Geography Score (44.60) is lower than all higher-ranked metros on this list. LaborCove’s results also reveal that a metro can offer a relatively high median salary without holding the top rank. Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA has a median salary of $142,560 yet ranks #5 with a Geography Score of 53.52, below Napa’s 72.20 and below Fresno’s 62.57. This illustrates that the Geography Score is not a simple reflection of salary or employment alone. For people considering relocation, the main takeaway is that top metros for this occupation differ along three measurable dimensions in LaborCove’s data: salary, employment count, and overall Geography Score. Comparing these directly against the national median salary and employment gives a structured way to interpret how each metro stands out, while keeping in mind that the national projected growth rate is a broad occupational context rather than a metro-specific forecast.

For farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers, the national median annual salary is $89,900, with 6,500 people employed in this occupation nationally. The national projected employment growth rate of -1.3% indicates a modest projected decline at the national level. This national benchmark helps frame the metro results. Every metro in the top-10 list has a median salary above the national median salary of $89,900. Employment counts in individual metros are much smaller than the national employment total but still range up to 200 in the largest listed metro. Because the growth rate is national-only, it does not describe what will happen in any specific metro area. Instead, the metro rankings in this article rely on observed salaries, employment counts, and LaborCove’s Geography Score for each location, with the national figures providing background context rather than metro-level forecasts.

Napa, CA ranks #1 among the listed metros, with a LaborCove Geography Score of 72.20. Napa’s median annual salary of $158,660 is notably higher than the national median of $89,900. Among the metros for which employment counts are supplied, Napa’s employment of 150 is one of the larger counts in the top 10. Compared with Fresno, CA, which ranks #2, Napa has a higher median salary and a higher Geography Score. Napa’s median salary of $158,660 is greater than Fresno’s $104,600, and Napa’s Geography Score of 72.20 is higher than Fresno’s 62.57. Napa’s employment count of 150 is smaller than Fresno’s 200, showing that a metro can rank higher in the Geography Score even with a smaller employment count. Napa also stands apart when compared with Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX, which ranks #10. Napa’s median salary of $158,660 exceeds Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington’s $97,880, and Napa’s employment count of 150 is higher than Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington’s 100. Napa’s Geography Score (72.20) is also higher than Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington’s 44.60, consistent with Napa’s #1 rank versus Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington’s #10 rank.

Fresno, CA ranks #2 with a Geography Score of 62.57, a median salary of $104,600, and an employment count of 200. Its median salary is above the national median salary of $89,900, and its employment count of 200 is the largest supplied employment figure among the top-10 metros. When compared with Bakersfield-Delano, CA, ranked #4, Fresno shows higher values on several measured dimensions. Fresno’s median salary of $104,600 is lower than Bakersfield-Delano’s median salary of $123,340, yet Fresno holds a higher Geography Score (62.57 versus 54.93) and a larger employment count (200 versus 130). This illustrates that the Geography Score does not simply follow the highest median salary. Relative to Visalia, CA (#9), Fresno also has a higher median salary and a higher Geography Score. Fresno’s median salary of $104,600 is greater than Visalia’s $98,040, and Fresno’s Geography Score of 62.57 is higher than Visalia’s 44.89. Fresno’s employment count of 200 also exceeds Visalia’s 130, highlighting Fresno’s role as the metro with the largest supplied employment count in the top-10 list.

Several metros in the top 10 report high median salaries relative to the national median but hold different rankings and Geography Scores. Santa Maria-Santa Barbara, CA ranks #5 with a Geography Score of 53.52 and a median salary of $142,560. Bakersfield-Delano, CA ranks #4 with a Geography Score of 54.93 and a median salary of $123,340. Both metros therefore show median salaries that are substantially higher than the national median salary of $89,900. Comparing Santa Maria-Santa Barbara with Napa underscores how salary and Geography Score can diverge. Santa Maria-Santa Barbara’s median salary of $142,560 is lower than Napa’s $158,660, and its Geography Score of 53.52 is also lower than Napa’s 72.20. Santa Maria-Santa Barbara’s employment count of 70 is smaller than Napa’s 150, and this combination corresponds with its lower Geography Score and #5 rank compared with Napa’s #1 rank. A comparison between Santa Maria-Santa Barbara and Fresno shows a similar pattern. Santa Maria-Santa Barbara has a higher median salary than Fresno ($142,560 versus $104,600) but a lower Geography Score (53.52 versus 62.57). Santa Maria-Santa Barbara’s employment count of 70 is also smaller than Fresno’s 200. These comparisons reinforce that LaborCove’s Geography Score and ranking incorporate more than just having the highest median salary.

Some of the listed metros cover large, multi-county regions. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA ranks #3 with a Geography Score of 58.35 and a median salary of $125,070. Its employment count is not supplied, so no direct employment comparison can be made between Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim and other metros. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA and Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA, ranked #7 and #8 respectively, also have median salaries above the national median. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont has a median salary of $111,470 with an employment count of 60, while Santa Rosa-Petaluma has a median salary of $108,310 and an employment count of 90. San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont’s Geography Score of 45.63 is slightly higher than Santa Rosa-Petaluma’s 45.04, even though its employment count is smaller. Visalia, CA and Bakersfield-Delano, CA, both in California’s Central Valley, rank #9 and #4, respectively. Visalia’s median salary of $98,040 is lower than Bakersfield-Delano’s $123,340, and Visalia’s Geography Score of 44.89 is lower than Bakersfield-Delano’s 54.93. Visalia’s employment count of 130, however, is slightly higher than Bakersfield-Delano’s 130 only if they were different, but in this data they are equal, so no difference in employment count exists between the two metros.

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX appears at #10 with a Geography Score of 44.60, a median salary of $97,880, and an employment count of 100. Its median salary is above the national median salary of $89,900, and its employment count is one of the larger figures in the top-10 list. When compared with Visalia, CA (#9), Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington shows a mixed profile. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington’s median salary of $97,880 is slightly lower than Visalia’s $98,040, while its Geography Score of 44.60 is also slightly lower than Visalia’s 44.89. However, Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington’s employment of 100 is smaller than Visalia’s employment of 130. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington also differs from Fresno, CA (#2). Fresno’s median salary of $104,600 is higher than Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington’s $97,880, and Fresno’s Geography Score of 62.57 is higher than Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington’s 44.60. Fresno’s employment count of 200 is also greater than Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington’s 100, emphasizing the size of Fresno’s reported employment base within the top-10 list.

LaborCove’s analysis for farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers (occupation code 11-9013) is built from authoritative labor-market sources combined with LaborCove’s Geography Score methodology. National statistics and metro-level data in this article use Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) observations referenced to May 2025. The report year 2026 is a product year and not the OEWS observation year. For this article, we use the supplied national median annual salary, national employment, and the national projected employment growth rate as context for the occupation across the U.S. The projected growth rate of -1.3% is a national projection and is not applied to any individual metro area. At the metro level, LaborCove’s data includes median annual salary, employment counts, and a LaborCove Geography Score, along with each metro’s rank in the top-10 list. The Geography Score is a composite indicator produced by LaborCove’s internal methodology; this article reports the resulting scores and ranks but does not break down the internal weighting of individual components. Because geographic projected growth rates are not supplied, this analysis does not make any claims about future employment trends for specific metro areas. Likewise, employment counts are treated strictly as the number of jobs reported for this occupation, not as a measure of job openings or hiring probability. Rankings and scores are intended as structured decision support to be considered alongside an individual’s own career, family, and location priorities.