The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
74
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
74-81
10.37547/tajmei/Volume07Issue06-07
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
27 Arpil 2025
ACCEPTED
21May 2025
PUBLISHED
18 June 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue 06 2025
CITATION
Vitalii Kostrub. (2025). Business Models of Seasonal Logistics Services in
The U.S. Agricultural Sector. The American Journal of Management and
Economics
Innovations,
7(06),
74
–
81.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajmei/Volume07Issue06-07
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Business Models of
Seasonal Logistics Services
in The U.S. Agricultural
Sector
Vitalii Kostrub
CEO and Founder of GBA TFreight Inc Bellevue, WA
Abstract:
This article conducts a systematic analysis of
business models for seasonal logistics services within
the United States’ agri
-industrial sector. Its relevance
is underscored by significant crop losses due to delays
in transportation and growing demand for flexible
delivery solutions for fresh produce and agricultural
inputs. The study’s novelty lies in comparing two
organizational paradigms: specialized agro-logistics
operators versus general carriers that retool their
fleets seasonally to handle perishable goods. We
describe the scale of seasonal movements, rate
dynamics, workforce and equipment constraints, and
we analyze inter-state resource migration practices
enabled by digital freight platforms. Our objectives
include assessing these models’ resilience
, estimating
their financial potential, and offering market
participants actionable recommendations. Employing
comparative analysis, econometric and statistical
modeling, custom-harvester case studies, and content
analysis of nine key sources (FAO, USDA, ATS, OTR
Solutions, Corrigan Logistics, USCHI, among others),
we pay special attention to how government policy
affects
staffing
and
storage
infrastructure
development. Findings confirm the effectiveness of
hybrid contracting schemes and demonstrate that
digitalization enhances trans-regional fleet mobility,
reducing off-season idle time. Optimizing empty-run
rates cuts CO₂ emissions and fuel consumption—
boosting supply-chain sustainability. Future research
should evaluate how climate change will shift harvest
calendars and require new routing strategies. We also
present an empirical ranking of states by seasonal peak
intensity, guiding strategic investments in rolling stock
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
75
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
and warehouse capacity.
Keywords
: seasonal logistics; agricultural sector; USA;
refrigerated
transport;
grain
harvest;
custom
harvesters; digital freight platforms; contract carriers;
price dynamics; cooperative models.
INTRODUCTION
Logistics in the agri-industrial sector exhibits
pronounced seasonality: agricultural production follows
natural cycles, causing demand for transport and
storage services to surge during planting and harvest
campaigns and to fall off in the off-season. In the United
States
—
where the agricultural sector is vast and
production and consumption zones are geographically
dispersed
—
the challenge of organizing seasonal
logistics is paramount. Harvested crops must be
collected within tight windows and moved swiftly, or the
risk of spoilage and economic loss skyrockets.
This study’s relevance stems from FAO estimates [2] that
up to 40 percent of horticultural output in developing
countries is lost due to logistical and storage
shortcomings. While developed nations fare better,
their losses remain substantial. Therefore, timely
establishment and operation of seasonal logistics
services in agriculture bear not only economic but also
food-security importance.
The aim of this research is to analyze existing business
models for seasonal logistics services in the U.S.
agricultural sector and to evaluate their efficiency and
resilience. Our specific tasks are to:
1.
Classify the primary types of seasonal logistics
services (e.g., grain haul during harvest, peak-
season fruit and vegetable transport, mobile
custom-harvester deployments, farmer supply of
seasonal inputs).
2.
Describe typical organizational models within each
category (for example, contract carriers vs.
cooperatives vs. farmer-owned fleets).
3.
Analyze economic performance indicators and the
key challenges these businesses face (off-season
equipment downtime, recruitment of seasonal
labor, peak-period pricing, and competitive
dynamics).
4.
Discuss future prospects for seasonal logistics
services in light of sectoral changes (increasing
production concentration, the rise of digital
platforms, and so forth).
The investigation draws on data from the past five years,
including industry reports from USDA, FAO, and relevant
trade associations, as well as academic publications and
real-world case studies.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations [1] provided data on global post-harvest losses
in fruits and vegetables and overall supply-chain
performance metrics. K. Hunter [2] detailed the specific
challenges of autumn grain logistics in the U.S. Midwest.
L. Williams [3] described the rural driver shortage and
Illinois’s state
-
sponsored training programs. K. Póśia [4]
analyzed the impact of the produce season on
refrigerated-transport market rates. R. V. Steffen, K. V.
Fraser, D. G. Watson, and T. V. Harrison [5] mapped
regional grain-export routes in southern Illinois. The
Custom Harvester Association [6] compiled statistics on
custom-harvester operations. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture [7] supplied weekly tariffs and grain-
transport volume data by mode. A. Walsh [8]
characterized waves of freight-demand and capacity. S.
L. Nimik [9] outlined regulatory initiatives providing visa
support for seasonal workers.
This article employs comparative analysis of empirical
data, case-study examination of custom-harvester
enterprises, and systematic content analysis of industry
publications.
RESULTS
Logistics services supporting U.S. agriculture exhibit
pronounced seasonality, which fundamentally shapes
their business models (Figure 1).
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
76
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
Figure 1
–
Key Service Segments in the United States
(Compiled by the author based on [1, 3
–
6, 8, 9])
In most grain-producing regions (the Midwest and Great
Plains), the bulk of cereal harvest occurs in autumn
(September
–
November). During this brief window, the
volume of grain requiring transport from fields to
elevators and processors far exceeds the annual
average. For example, in the Midwest, October’s peak
corn and soybean harvest triggers a sharp surge in
trucking
demand:
many
over-the-road
drivers
temporarily switch to local farm runs, reducing long-haul
capacity and driving up freight rates for agricultural
loads [1]. Consequently, transport capacity for other
industries contracts, while it remains scarce
—
despite
equipment influx
—
for agro-logistics. This imbalance
produces peak-season tariffs on both produce and
ancillary freight. In October 2022, spot rates for hauling
grain from key farms rose significantly above summer
levels [8].
The predominant business model in this segment is
seasonal contract carriage: farmers or cooperatives sign
agreements with trucking firms for the harvest period,
specifying the number of vehicles and the ton-mile rate.
Many small farms form cooperatives that jointly own or
lease grain trucks or negotiate priority access with local
carriers during harvest. This cooperative approach
optimizes vehicle utilization across members. However,
a substantial portion of haulage is handled by
independent operators
—
small transport firms or
owner-operators who spend most of the year on
construction or general freight, then switch to grain
hauling during harvest to capitalize on elevated seasonal
rates. Farmers benefit by flexibly accessing capacity
without year-round fleet ownership.
Supply
–
demand balance in this segment is typically
achieved via pricing: when trucks are scarce, rates climb
rapidly, attracting carriers even from other regions. For
instance, during strong harvest years, fleets from the
U.S. South have been known to redeploy to the Midwest
to profit from the grain-haul peak. Nevertheless, local
shortages still occur. In Illinois and neighboring states,
rural areas face a deficit of CDL-licensed drivers
—
young
workers are not always willing to join harvest campaigns
on short notice [3]. To address this, the Illinois Farm
Bureau [3] launched a targeted driver-training grant in
2022, underscoring the critical role of workforce
development in seasonal agricultural logistics.
In the U.S. fruit-and-vegetable sector, seasonal peaks
are even more acute
—
driven by narrow harvesting
windows and the perishability of the produce. In
California’s Central Valley, table grapes and berries
come off the vine in late summer through early fall; in
Florida, citrus is picked in winter; in Washington State,
apples are harvested in the autumn. During these
periods, demand for refrigerated trucks (“reefers”)
surges as growers race to move fresh produce from
Segment
s
Transportation of grain
and oilseeds during
harvesting
Logistics of
perishable products
during the harvest
of fruits and
vegetables
Seasonal
agricultural
services (delivery
of materials and
machinery)
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
77
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
farms to distribution centers and ports. This
phenomenon ripples through the entire U.S. trucking
market: reefers devoted to fruits and vegetables reduce
capacity for dry freight, pushing rates upward across the
board (see Table 1) [4].
Table 1. Peak Harvest Seasons in Key States (Compiled by the author based on [4])
State
Peak Season
Main Crops
Florida
March
–
June
Oranges, tomatoes, strawberries
California
April
–
August
Grapes, almonds, lettuce
Texas
May
–
July
Watermelons, onions, citrus
Georgia
May
–
July
Peaches, onions, blueberries
Washington
June
–
September
Apples, cherries, pears
New York
June
–
October
Apples, grapes, corn
Illinois
July
–
September
Corn, soybeans, pumpkins
Michigan
June
–
October
Apples, cherries, blueberries
Ohio
July
–
September
Corn, soybeans, tomatoes
Pennsylvania
July
–
October
Apples, mushrooms, corn
Minnesota
August
–
October
Corn, soybeans, sugar beets
Because delivery timing hinges on climate, harvest cycles, and regional weather, seasonal-logistics
business models fall into two broad categories (see Table 2).
Table 2. Core Business Models for Seasonal Logistics Services (Compiled by the author based on [4])
Model
Resources & Personnel
Contracts & Rates
Specialized Agro-
Logistics
Companies
Permanent reefer fleet; staffing augmented by
temporary crews during peak months
Long-term contracts with
growers; fixed seasonal
rates
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
78
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
Model
Resources & Personnel
Contracts & Rates
Universal Carriers
with Seasonal
Switch
Mixed tractor-trailer fleet; a portion of trucks
retrofitted for refrigeration; drivers shift between
dry and reefer runs
Spot and short-term
agreements; rates spike
during harvest
In practice, most operators blend contract and spot
work: a share of volume moves under pre-negotiated
agreements (often via brokers), while the balance is
booked on freight exchanges at prevailing spot rates.
Smaller farms
—
lacking in-house logistics
—
turn to digital
platforms where they post harvest-pickup requests and
carriers (including owner-operators with one or two
reefers) bid in real time, effectively creating an “Uber for
farm freight.” This on
-demand model brings additional
capacity into seasonal networks.
Still, finding reefers can be challenging
—
even at peak
rates
—
especially in remote farming regions. For
example, during Maine’s July blueberry peak, local
reefer capacity has historically fallen short, causing
shipment delays. In recent years, carriers have adopted
proactive staging: empty reefers are repositioned ahead
of harvest (e.g., moving trucks from California to the
Northwest early in the summer) based on yield forecasts
and historical demand data [4]. This shift
—
from reactive
to data-driven planning
—
exemplifies the evolving
sophistication of seasonal logistics.
Logistics in the agricultural sector encompasses not only
the removal of harvested crops but also the timely
delivery of essential inputs
—
seeds, fertilizers, fuel, and
machinery
—
to farms. Two pronounced peaks mark this
cycle: the spring planting season and the autumn
harvest (plus post‐harvest fieldwork). In spring,
thousands of farms nationwide simultaneously require
seed deliveries, fertilizers, and crop‐protection
products. For example, the distribution of liquid
nitrogen fertilizers (UAN and aqua ammoni
a) to high‐
intensity farming regions occurs in March
–
April; the
compressed delivery window drives up tanker‐truck
rates and can even create local shortages of rail and road
tank cars. Firms operating in this space typically adopt a
seasonal‐distributor mod
el for agricultural inputs, with
full logistical infrastructure. Major seed and
agrochemical suppliers
—
such as Cargill and Nutrien
—
pre‐position stockpiles in regional hubs and charter
additional transport capacity to fulfill farm‐delivery
contracts.
Farm machinery itself is another seasonal commodity.
Combines, for instance, are often transferred from state
to state along the “harvest belt,” and their movement
on low‐boy trailers constitutes a seasonal logistics
service. Many equipment dealers and far
mer‐operators
coordinate through industry associations (e.g., U.S.
Custom Harvesters, Inc.), orchestrating the relocation of
dozens of combine crews from the Texas Gulf Coast to
the northern prairies of Montana and Kansas as crops
mature [9].
The business model of custom‐harvester contractors is
straightforward: farmers hire these contractors, who
bring their own combines, grain trucks, and labor crews
to field sites, handle the harvest, and transport grain to
local elevators. Contractors follow the harvest from
state to state, operating seasonally. Their logistics
repertoire includes highway “road trains” for moving
combines, mobile repair workshops, and temporary
lodging for crews. In effect, they offer an end‐to‐end
service package
—
from harvesting to storage delivery.
This model dates back to the mid
–
20th century and
remains prevalent; it is estimated that roughly 500
–
700
operations across the United States specialize in custom
combining and grain transport [6, 9]. Farmers benefit by
avoiding
year‐round combine ownership—
paying only
for harvesting weeks
—
while contractors achieve full
seasonal utilization across multi‐state routes, justifying
the capital investment. The principal risk to this model is
weather variability: if a crop fails or the harvest is
delayed in a given region, contractors face downtime
“gaps” in their schedule and associated revenue losses.
Nevertheless, their flexibility and mobility allow them to
partially mitigate these disruptions.
From these examples, key characteristics of seasonal‐
logistics business models emerge: a focus on flexibility
and scalability. Unlike year‐round carriers, seasonal
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
79
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
providers must rapidly ramp up capacity at peak and
then scale down to minimize off‐season costs. To that
end, many use temporary labor contracts, short‐term
equipment
leases,
and
even
consignment
arrangements
—
for instance, an elevator may contract a
carrier to supply a set number of railcars or trucks during
harvest, paying only for actual usage. Pricing is generally
dynamic: rates spike during peak weeks, incentivizing
additional carriers to enter the market. In some cases,
formal surcharges apply
—
railroads impose higher fees
on grain cars during export season, and container
carriers levy harvest‐season premiums for nuts or citrus.
These mechanisms are built into the business models:
providers must generate sufficient revenue during the
harvest peak to cover idle and preparation costs in the
remainder of the year.
DISCUSSION
Seasonal logistics services in the U.S. agricultural sector
exhibit a variety of business models tailored to the
specific needs of different farming segments. What
unites them is the imperative to adapt to pronounced
demand fluctuations over time. Economically, these
services operate under uneven capacity utilization:
weeks or months of overload are followed by lulls. This
creates two primary business challenges: how to
deploy
—
or mothball
—
assets efficiently off-season, and
how to mobilize adequate resources (equipment and
labor) at peak.
In the United States, market responses reflect classic
economic theory. During peak harvest, the market
approximates perfect competition: many providers
enter, balancing supply and price (for example, the
refrigerated‐truck market in summer, when even
occasional truck owners join at higher rates). Off-
season, the market contracts to a few large players who
can afford to maintain idle infrastructure (such as
elevators owning railcars used only part of the year). To
navigate this cycle, firms have adopted hybrid
structures: a blend of long-term contracts and spot
operations, equipment leasing and rental with monthly
rates, and hiring seasonal labor. For instance, many farm
cooperatives now lease trucks only during harvest
months rather than purchasing them outright
—
leasing
companies in the U.S. offer products designed
specifically for agricultural clients [5].
Historically, synchronizing capacity with demand during
the season was hampered by information gaps: trucks
might sit idle in one county while farmers in a
neighboring county faced shortages. Modern digital
platforms have dramatically reduced this mismatch by
creating seasonal‐logistics marketplaces. Online freight
exchanges allow carriers to reallocate capacity by the
day or even hour: once the watermelon harvest ends in
Georgia, a trucker can instantly secure a tomato haul in
Florida, rather than returning empty or waiting out the
year. This “seamless” transition boosts overall resource
efficiency in agriculture and reshapes business models:
companies now plan with such multi‐crop, multi‐region
shifts in mind. For example, a reefer operator might haul
berries in California in spring, cherries in Michigan in
summer, and apples in New York in autumn
—
wrapping
each leg in short‐term contracts. Such multi‐season
strategies are supplanting the older, region-locked
model.
From a theoretical standpoint, these seasonal‐logistics
models exemplify flexible‐systems theory and real
-
option asset management: firms effectively hold the
option to deploy or retire resources. Custom harvester
contractors operate like project-based enterprises,
assembling a “portfolio” of harvest contracts along their
migratory routes
—
diversifying risk across time and
geography. Their success hinges on selling services to
different clients at different times to minimize
downtime. Cooperative models, in turn, distribute risk
among multiple members.
Practically, these business models generally succeed in
moving the harvest. Narrow gaps remain, however
—
most notably, seasonal labor shortages. Not every driver
is willing to work 16-hour days during harvest or to
reposition equipment across the country. Young
professionals
often
prefer
stable,
year-round
employment to several months of intense work followed
by uncertainty. Consequently, some seasonal services
recruit foreign temporary workers under the H-2A
agricultural guest-worker program (which, while
primarily for field labor, can also cover drivers). Certain
states have introduced local incentives
—
such as
Illinois’s CDL‐training grants—
to bolster their domestic
workforce.
Truck transport, owing to its flexibility, dominates peak
periods, though rail and barges also play roles for bulk
commodities (grain, sugar beets). In the U.S., the USDA’s
weekly Grain Transportation Report tracks tariffs and
volumes by rail, barge, and truck, revealing clear
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
80
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
seasonality: autumn barge freight rates on the
Mississippi rise by roughly 50 percent due to export
demand [7]. Carriers in each mode have adapted their
business models accordingly: barge operators, for
instance, pre‐position “grain convoys” ahead of the f
all
export surge. Yet for most farmers, truck remains the
closest and most responsive option
—hence our study’s
focus on road transport.
CONCLUSION
Seasonal logistics services are a cornerstone of the U.S.
agricultural infrastructure, their business models finely
tuned to the rhythms of planting and harvest. This study
has shown that, despite dramatic swings in demand, the
industry has forged highly effective strategies for
organizing transport and related services during peak
periods. From a theoretical perspective, these models
illustrate remarkable flexibility and adaptability
—
firms
operate in “variable geometry” mode, scaling capacity
on demand. This validates economic theory that
markets can achieve equilibrium through price signals
and mobile factors of production, even under uneven
utilization.
Key practical insights include:
1.
Forecasting and Planning Are Critical. Leading firms
leverage historical data on yields, weather patterns,
and price trends to pre‐deploy assets across regions
and time. Those that act proactively capture the
lion’s share of seasonal margins and sidestep t
he
chaos that afflicts less prepared competitors.
2.
Cooperation and Resource Sharing Mitigate
Seasonality.
Small
operators
benefit
from
cooperative models
—
shared trucking fleets, joint
storage facilities, and centralized dispatch centers
—
that drive down costs and bolster reliability. Grain
cooperatives, for
example, have reduced harvest‐
hauling times and eased rate burdens by co‐owning
railcars and trucks.
3.
Public and Industry Support Strengthens Resilience.
Visa programs and driver‐training grants for
seasonal labor directly bolster harvest logistics.
Likewise, investment in infrastructure
—
expanding
elevator capacity, improving rural roads, and
enhancing cooling systems
—
prevents critical
bottlenecks during peak demand.
Ultimately, the practical value of these seasonal‐logistics
models lies in their ability to keep the agricultural sector
running smoothly: minimizing crop losses and
optimizing supply‐chain costs from farm gate to
consumer. Even under extreme stress
—
record yields or
crop failures, labor shortages, fuel disruptions
—
these
models have proven resilient thanks to their built‐in
flexibility.
From a global standpoint, the U.S. experience offers
transferable lessons for any country with seasonal
agriculture: the principles of resource mobility,
cooperative risk‐sharing, and digital coordination are
universally applicable. In essence, U.S. season
al‐logistics
business models achieve a harmonious blend of
economic efficiency and natural cycles
—
ensuring both
farm-level productivity and broader food-security goals.
REFERENCES
Gebresenbet, G., & Bosona, T. (2012). Logistics and
supply chains in agriculture and food. In Pathways to
supply chain excellence (pp. 128
–
138).
IntechOpen.
Retrieved
from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221928911
_Logistics_and_Supply_Chains_in_Agriculture_and_Foo
d
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations. (n.d.). Better policies to create rural jobs and
stop
migration
in
Tunisia:
2019.
FAO
.
Logan Williams. (2022, October 17). Illinois addressing
agriculture truck driver shortage.
WGEM.
Retrieved
from
https://www.wgem.com/2022/10/17/illinois-
addressing-agriculture-truck-driver-shortage/
Posea, K. (2025). How the produce season affects the
freight industry.
OTR Solutions.
Retrieved from
https://otrsolutions.com/how-the-produce-season-
affects-the-freight-industry/
Steffen, R. W., Frazier, K. W., Watson, D. G., & Harrison,
T. V. (n.d.). A study of grain transportation logistics in
Southern Illinois.
Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
Retrieved
from
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article
=1055&context=psas_articles
United States Custom Harvesters, Inc. (n.d.).
USCHI
official website
. Retrieved from
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
81
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2023). Grain
transportation report (No. GTR-08-17-2023).
USDA
Agricultural Marketing Service.
Retrieved from
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/G
TR08172023.pdf
Walsh, A. (2023). Navigating the waves of supply and
demand: The seasonality of the freight market.
Corrigan
Logistics.
Retrieved
from
Secor, W., Thapa, T., & Wyche, D. (2021). Compendium
of agricultural transportation research. U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture.
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/330714?v=pdf
