Best States for Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers

Across the U.S., farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers see a national median annual salary of $89,900, with an estimated 6,500 people employed in this occupation. National employment for this role is projected to decline by 1.3%, which is a national projection and not a forecast for any particular state. Within that national context, LaborCove’s top ten state rankings highlight how geography can line up differently on salary, employment count, and overall Geography Score. California holds the #1 Geography Score ranking and also has the largest listed state employment count among the top geographies. By contrast, Nebraska has the highest median salary among the top-ranked states but is #2 in the LaborCove ranking. The top-ranked states also diverge in how their median salaries relate to the national benchmark. Nebraska, Montana, California, Washington, Kansas, Georgia, and Illinois all have median salaries above the national median, while New York and Texas have medians below that benchmark. New Jersey’s median salary sits slightly below the national median but still appears in the top three based on its Geography Score. Employment counts among these ten states range from California’s 1,650 jobs in this occupation down to Montana’s 30. California’s employment count is more than double Texas’s 610 and exceeds Nebraska’s 200 by a wide margin. Several states in the top ten—such as Montana and Kansas—show relatively small employment counts despite ranking in the top half of the list. Overall, the LaborCove rankings show that no single measure dominates. The state with the highest median salary is not the top-ranked state, and some states with modest employment counts still achieve relatively strong Geography Scores. For career planning, that means the best state depends on how closely a person wants to align with higher salaries, larger employment counts, or LaborCove’s overall Geography Score.

At the national level, farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers have a reported median annual salary of $89,900. National employment for this occupation is 6,500, and the national projection shows a 1.3% decline in employment. This national picture serves as context for the state list but does not translate into any specific forecast for individual states. The state rankings instead reflect how each state’s median salary, employment count, and LaborCove Geography Score compare with the national salary benchmark and with one another.

California ranks #1 in LaborCove’s state list for farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers, with a Geography Score of 85.81. Its median salary is $109,140, which is above the national median of $89,900. California also has the largest reported employment count among the top geographies, at 1,650. This count is higher than Texas’s 610 and higher than Nebraska’s 200. Even though Nebraska’s median salary of $111,460 is higher than California’s $109,140, California still holds the top Geography Score ranking. This illustrates that the LaborCove ranking is not simply a list of states ordered by salary alone.

Nebraska ranks #2 with a Geography Score of 54.15 and a median salary of $111,460, which is above both California’s $109,140 median and the national median of $89,900. Nebraska’s reported employment count is 200, which is smaller than California’s 1,650 and also smaller than Texas’s 610. Montana appears at rank #5 with a Geography Score of 48.17 and a median salary of $110,250. Montana’s median salary is higher than California’s $109,140 and higher than the national median of $89,900. Its employment count is 30, which is lower than Nebraska’s 200 and lower than California’s 1,650. These comparisons show that Nebraska and Montana both have median salaries above California’s but still rank below California in the LaborCove Geography Score. The rankings therefore reflect more than salary size alone.

Washington ranks #4 with a Geography Score of 50.95 and a median salary of $103,240, which is above the national median of $89,900. Its employment count is 140, which is smaller than California’s 1,650 and smaller than Texas’s 610. Texas holds the #6 spot with a Geography Score of 46.93 and a median salary of $85,990, which is below the national median of $89,900. With 610 people employed in this occupation, Texas has a larger employment count than Nebraska’s 200 and a smaller employment count than California’s 1,650. Illinois ranks #7 with a Geography Score of 44.75 and a median salary of $99,440, which is higher than the national median. Its employment count of 120 is smaller than Nebraska’s 200 and smaller than Texas’s 610. Kansas, at rank #8, has a Geography Score of 44.35 and a median salary of $102,490, above the national median, with an employment count of 40 that is smaller than Washington’s 140 and smaller than Nebraska’s 200.

New Jersey ranks #3 in the LaborCove list with a Geography Score of 52.14 and a median salary of $86,380. This median salary is below the national median of $89,900. Employment for New Jersey is not supplied, so no employment-count comparisons can be made for this state. New York appears at #9 with a Geography Score of 42.39 and a median salary of $89,370, which is slightly below the national median of $89,900. Its employment count of 130 is smaller than Nebraska’s 200 and smaller than Texas’s 610. Georgia rounds out the top ten at #10, with a Geography Score of 41.57 and a median salary of $95,900. Georgia’s median salary is above the national median. Its employment count is 50, which is smaller than Kansas’s 40? No: Kansas’s employment count is 40, and Georgia’s 50 is larger than 40. Georgia’s 50 is smaller than Nebraska’s 200 and smaller than Washington’s 140. Together, these states show that a state can rank in the top ten even when its median salary is at or below the national benchmark, as in New Jersey and New York, or above it, as in Georgia.

LaborCove’s Best States analysis for farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers uses national and state-level labor-market data combined with the LaborCove Geography Score. The national statistics cited in this article (median annual salary, employment, and projected national growth) are based on Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) observations from May 2025. The 2026 report year is the publication and product year for this dataset, not the underlying OEWS observation date. LaborCove’s Geography Score is a composite indicator that supports ranking states for a given occupation. The exact internal weighting of salary, employment, and other factors within the Geography Score is not disclosed in this evidence, so this article reports the scores and rankings without attributing them to any specific driver. All projected employment growth figures provided here are national occupational projections, not geographic forecasts. No state-level or metro-level projected growth rates are supplied, and none are inferred. Geographic comparisons in this article are limited to the supplied median salary, employment counts, rankings, and LaborCove Geography Scores. Readers should consider these rankings alongside their own priorities, such as preferred regions, personal networks, or other non-labor-market factors that are outside the scope of this data.