UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

(Rule 14a-101)

INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(Amendment No.        )

Filed by the Registrant  x☒                             Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ¨☐

Check the appropriate box:

Sanderson Farms, Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

January 14, 201616, 2018

Dear Stockholder:

The 20162018 annual meeting of stockholders of the Company will be held in the Multi-Purpose Room of the Company’s General Corporate Offices in Laurel, Mississippi, at 10:00 a.m. Central Time on Thursday, February 11, 2016.15, 2018. The purposes of the annual meeting are set forth in the accompanying Notice and Proxy Statement.

The 20152017 Annual Report, which is enclosed, contains financial and other information concerning the Company and its business for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2015.2017. The Annual Report is not to be considered part of the proxy solicitation materials.

We cordially invite you to attend the annual meeting. If you cannot attend, please complete and return the enclosed proxy using one of the voting methods described in the enclosed materials so that your vote can be recorded.

Cordially,

Joe F. Sanderson, Jr.

Chairman of the Board

SANDERSON FARMS, INC.

P.O. Box 988

Laurel, Mississippi 39441

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS FOR THE

ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 11, 2016

15, 2018

The Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the Proxy Statement, and our 20152017 Annual Report are also availableon-line at:

www.sandersonfarms.com/proxyhttp://ir.sandersonfarms.com/annual-proxy.cfm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROXY STATEMENT FOR 20162018 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

GENERAL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Why am I receiving these materials?

Our Board of Directors is soliciting your proxy for use at our 20162018 annual meeting of stockholders to be held on Thursday, February 11, 201615, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. Central Time, as well as in connection with any postponements or adjournments of the meeting. The enclosed materials are being mailed to stockholders and postedon-line atwww.sandersonfarms.com/proxyhttp://ir.sandersonfarms.com/annual-proxy.cfm on or about January 14, 2016.16, 2018.

The annual meeting will be held in the Multi-Purpose Room of our General Corporate Offices, at 127 Flynt Road, Laurel, Mississippi, 39443. You are invited to attend the annual meeting and are requested to vote on the proposals described in this Proxy Statement.

As used in this Proxy Statement, “we,” “us,” “our,” “Sanderson Farms” or the “Company” refers to Sanderson Farms, Inc.

What is included in these materials?

These materials include:

The Annual Report is not to be considered part of the proxy solicitation material.materials.

What items will be voted on at the annual meeting?

ShareholdersStockholders will vote on the following items at the annual meeting:

The Board recommends that you vote your shares FOR:

In addition, if presented at the annual meeting, the shareholdersstockholders will be asked to vote on stockholder proposals to:

The Board recommends that you vote your shares AGAINST each of theboth stockholder proposals, if presented at the annual meeting.

1

Will there be any other matters considered at the meeting?

Only those matters that are properly before the meeting pursuant to ourBy-Laws will be considered. As of the date of this Proxy Statement, we are not aware of any matters to be presented other than those described in this Proxy Statement or those incident to the conduct of the meeting.

Where are the Company’s principal executive offices located, and what is the Company’s main telephone number?

Our principal executive offices are located at 127 Flynt Road, Laurel, Mississippi, 39443, and our telephone number is(601) 649-4030.

Who may vote at the annual meeting?

Only stockholders of record as of the close of business on December 17, 2015,21, 2017, the record date for the annual meeting, are entitled to receive notice of, and to vote at, the annual meeting.

What is the difference between a stockholder of record and a beneficial owner of shares held in street name?

Stockholder of Record. If your shares are registered directly in your name with our transfer agent, Computershare, you are considered the stockholder of record with respect to those shares, and the proxy materials were sent directly to you by mail.

Beneficial Owner of Shares Held in Street Name. If you hold your shares in an account at a brokerage firm, bank, broker-dealer, or other similar organization, then you are the beneficial owner of shares held in “street name,” and the proxy materials were forwarded to you by that organization. The organization holding your account is considered the stockholder of record for purposes of voting at the annual meeting. As a beneficial owner, you have the right to instruct that organization on how to vote the shares held in your account.

If I am a stockholder of record of the Company’s shares, how do I vote?

Stockholders of record have four ways to vote:

If I am a beneficial owner of shares held in street name, how do I vote?

If your shares are held in the name of a broker, bank or other nominee, you will receive instructions from your broker, bank or other nominee that you must follow in order for your broker, bank or other nominee to vote your shares according to your instructions. Many brokerage firms and banks have a process for their beneficial holders to provide instructions via the Internet or over the telephone. If you are a beneficial owner of shares held in street name and you wish to vote in person at the annual meeting, you must obtain a legal proxy from the organization that holds your shares.

How do I vote my shares held in the Company’s ESOP?

If you participate in the Sanderson Farms, Inc. and Affiliates Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the “ESOP”), you will receive a voting instruction form from the ESOP on which you may instruct the ESOP trustee how to vote your shares held in the ESOP. Under the terms of the ESOP, all allocated shares of Companythe Company’s common stock held by the ESOP are voted by the ESOP trustee, as directed by plan participants. All unallocated shares of Companythe Company’s common stock held by the ESOP and allocated shares for which no timely voting instructions are received are voted by the ESOP trustee in the same proportion for and against proposals as shares for which the trustee has received timely voting instructions, subject to the exercise of the trustee’s fiduciary duties.The deadline for returning your voting instruction form is February 5, 2016.2018.

2

Who may attend the annual meeting?

The annual meeting is not open to the public. Only stockholders of record and beneficial owners of shares held in street name, or their respective proxies duly authorized in writing, as well as invited guests, may attend the meeting.

As discussed above, stockholders of record may vote their shares in person at the meeting. Beneficial owners of shares held in street name must obtain a legal proxy from the organization that holds their shares in order to vote their shares in person at the meeting.

What is the quorum requirement for the annual meeting?

The holders of a majority of the shares entitled to vote at the annual meeting must be present in person or by proxy at the annual meeting for the transaction of business. This is called a quorum. Your shares will be counted for purposes of determining if there is a quorum, whether representing votes for, against or abstained, if you:

If a quorum is not present, the annual meeting will be adjourned until a quorum is obtained.

2

How are proxies voted?

All valid proxies received prior to the annual meeting will be voted. All shares represented by a proxy will be voted and, where a stockholder specifies by means of the proxy a choice with respect to any matter to be acted upon, the shares will be voted in accordance with the stockholder’s instructions.

What happens if I do not give specific voting instructions?

Stockholders of Record. If you are a stockholder of record and you:

then the proxy holders will vote your shares in the manner recommended by the Board on all matters presented in this Proxy Statement and as the proxy holders may determine in their discretion with respect to any other matters properly presented for a vote at the annual meeting. As of the date of this Proxy Statement, we have not received notice and we are not aware of any business to be transacted at the meeting other than the matters listed on the Notice and described in this Proxy Statement.

Beneficial Owners of Shares Held in Street Name. If you are a beneficial owner of shares held in street name and do not provide the organization that holds your shares with specific voting instructions, then the organization that holds your shares may generally vote your shares in its discretion on routine matters, but it cannot vote onnon-routine matters. If the organization that holds your shares does not receive instructions from you on how to vote your shares on anon-routine matter, the organization that holds your shares will not have the authority to vote, and therefore cannot vote, on that matter with respect to your shares. This is generally referred to as a “brokernon-vote.” The election of directors (Proposal No. 1), approvalthenon-binding advisory vote on the compensation of our amended and restated stock incentive planNamed Executive Officers (Proposal No. 2), matters relating to executive compensation (Proposal No. 3), and the shareholder proposals (Proposal No. 54 and Proposal No. 6)5) arenon-routine matters, so brokers may not vote your shares on Proposals 1, 2, 3,4 or 5 or 6 if you do not give specific instructions on how to vote. We encourage you to provide instructions to your broker or nominee regarding the voting of your shares on these proposals.

The ratification of the independent auditors (Proposal No. 4)3) is the only matter that will be considered routine. Therefore,Because brokers can exercise discretionary voting power on this matter, no brokernon-votes are expected to occur in connection with Proposal No. 4.3.

Assuming a quorum is present at the annual meeting, what vote is required for each of the proposals to be adopted?

Under ourBy-Laws, a nominee for election as director must receive the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares entitled to vote and represented (whether in person or by proxy) at the annual meeting. For any other proposal to be adopted at the annual meeting, more votes must be cast in favor of the proposal than votes cast against it.

How are brokernon-votes treated?

Brokernon-votes are counted for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present. However, brokernon-votes are not counted for purpose of determining the number of votes present or represented by proxy and entitled to vote with respect to a particular proposal, thus we believe they will have no effect on the vote on any matter at the meeting.

3

How are abstentions treated?

Abstentions are counted for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present, and they are considered present for the purpose of determining the number of votes present or represented by proxy and entitled to vote with respect to a particular proposal. Abstentions will have the effect of a vote AGAINST in the election of directors (Proposal No. 1), and will have no effect on the vote on the other proposals.

3

Can I revoke or change my vote after I have voted?

Even if you submit a proxy, you may still attend the annual meeting in person, and you may revoke your proxy by voting in person at the meeting. You may also revoke your proxy before it is voted at the meeting in any of the following ways:

Unless you revoke your proxy, it will be voted at the meeting according to your instructions, as long as you have properly completed and submitted it to us.

If you are a beneficial owner of shares, you may submit new voting instructions by contacting your broker, bank or other nominee. You may also vote in person at the annual meeting if you obtain a legal proxy from the organization that holds your shares.

Where can I find the voting results of the annual meeting?

The preliminary voting results will be announced at the annual meeting. The final voting results will be tallied by the inspector of election and published in a Current Report on Form8-K, which we are required to file with the SEC within four business days after the annual meeting.

4

CAPITAL STOCK

Our authorized capital stock consists of 5,000,000 shares ofnon-voting preferred stock, of which 500,000 shares have been designated Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock, par value $100.00 per share, none of which shares have been issued, and 100,000,000 shares of voting common stock, par value $1.00 per share, of which 22,569,53122,828,067 shares were outstanding and entitled to vote as of December 17, 2015,21, 2017, the record date for the annual meeting. Only stockholders of record at the close of business on suchthe record date are entitled to notice of and to vote at the annual meeting. Each such stockholder is entitled to one vote for each share of common stock held at that date.

4

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP

The following table sets forth information, as of January 4, 2016,2, 2018, concerning: (a) the only stockholders known by us to own beneficially more than 5% of our outstanding common stock, which is our only class of voting securities outstanding, (b) the beneficial ownership of common stock of our directors, director nominees and Named Executive Officers, and (c) the beneficial ownership of common stock by all of our directors, director nominees and executive officers as a group. On January 4, 2016,2, 2018, there were 22,571,57022,829,048 shares of our common stock outstanding.

Unless otherwise indicated, the address of each person named in the table is P.O. Box 988, Laurel, Mississippi 39441.

5

5

The report also states that Allianz clients have the right to receive or the power to direct the receipt of dividends or proceeds from the sale of the securities, but no one client holds more than five percent of the securities.

6

6

7

PROPOSAL NO. 1

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Our amended Articles of Incorporation provide that our Board of Directors shall be divided into three classes (Class A, Class B and Class C), with each class containingone-third, or as close toone-third as possible, of the total number of directors, and that the total number of directors shall be fixed by the Board of Directors in theBy-Laws. TheBy-Laws, as amended and restated as of October 24, 2017, provide the Board of Directors may fix the number of directors from time to time, not to exceed fifteen directors. The Board has fixed the number of directors at fifteen, resulting in there being five director positions in each class. Two Class B director positions are currently vacant. The Board has not identified candidates to fill those vacancies.thirteen.

At each annual meeting of stockholders, directors constituting one class are elected for a three-year term. At the 20162018 annual meeting, stockholders will elect fivefour Class CB Directors, whose terms will expire at the 20192021 annual meeting.

Nominees for Class CB Directors

The Board of Directors proposes for election as Class CB Directors the fivefour nominees listed below, each to serve as a Class CB Director until the 20192021 annual meeting or until his or her successor is elected and has qualified. Any vacancy on the Board of Directors may be filled either by the Board of Directors or by the stockholders, and under Mississippi law, the term of any director elected to fill a vacancy will expire at the next stockholders’ meeting at which directors are elected.

You may vote proxies in the enclosed form for the election as Class CB Directors of only the nominees named below or substitute nominees who may be named by the Board of Directors to replace any of the nominees who become unavailable to serve for any reason. No such unavailability is presently known to the Board of Directors. There are no arrangements or understandings relating to any person’s service or prospective service as a Class CB Director of the Company. No person listed below will be elected as a Class CB Director unless such person receives the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the shares entitled to vote and represented (whether in person or by proxy) at the annual meeting at which a quorum is present. If more persons than the number of directors to be elected receive a majority vote, then those persons receiving the highest number of votes will be elected. The Proxyholders named in the accompanying proxy card will vote FOR the nominees listed below (or substitutes as stated above) unless otherwise directed in the proxy. Abstentions by holders of shares entitled to vote and represented at the meeting will be counted as shares present but not voting for the purposes of calculating the vote with respect to the election of Class CB Directors and, accordingly, will have the effect of a vote cast AGAINST a director nominee. Brokernon-votes will be treated as not present for purposes of calculating the vote with respect to the election of the Class CB Directors, and will not be counted either as a vote FOR or AGAINST or as an ABSTENTION with respect thereto.

The Board expects a Director to tender his or her resignation if he or she fails to receive the required number of votes forre-election. The Board’s Corporate Governance Principles provide that the Board shall nominate for election orre-election as Director, and shall appoint persons as Directors to fill vacancies, only candidates who agree to tender, promptly following such person’s failure to receive the required vote for election orre-election, an irrevocable resignation that will be effective upon Board acceptance of such resignation.

The following table lists the nominees for Class CB Directors and the year that they began serving as a director. As discussed below, our Board of Directors has determined that each of Ms. Cooley, Ms. Mooney, Ms. Pittman,Mestayer and Messrs. Banks and KhayatMr. Baker is an independent director under the listing standards of The Nasdaq Stock Market.

The Board of Directors recommends a vote FOR the election of Ms. Cooley, Ms. Mooney, Ms. Pittman, Mr. Banks,Mestayer and Mr. Khayat.Messrs. Baker, Bierbusse and Cockrell.

8

Directors Continuing in Office

The following tables list the Class AC and Class BA Directors of the Company, whose terms expire at the 20172019 and 20182020 annual meetings, respectively, and the year that they began serving as a director.

Board Qualifications and Biographical Information

As discussed more fully below under “Corporate Governance — Nominating and Governance Committee,” weWe have sought director candidates with a diverse range of business, personal and geographic backgrounds, and the experience and perspective necessary to oversee effectively a multi-state operation of our size and type.

Board Diversity and Experience

Although the Board does not have a formal policy on diversity with respect to the Board, it has sought to identify director candidates who represent a diverse range of personal and business backgrounds. The Board has identified such persons through directors’ personal contacts in the local business communities where we operate. Board members currently reflect racial and gender diversity.

Our directors have also worked in a variety of fields, including finance, banking, investment management, law, higher education, heavy industry, agriculture, publishing and brand management. We believe our directors’ diverse professional backgrounds and experience have resulted in a highly qualified Board. The Board has also endeavored to identify directors from the various communities in which our operations are located. When searching for candidates for future Board positions, the Nominating and Governance Committee may focus its attention on candidates from areas where our newer plants are located.

Additionally, two of our outside directors, Ms. Cooley and Ms. Mestayer, serve or have served on the boards of directors of other public companies. We believe their other public board service is valuable to our board process and enhances the Board’s risk oversight capability. We expect that when seeking new director candidates, the Board will consider other public board service as an important factor.

Board Tenure

We also do not have a formal policy with respect to director tenure. This flexibility has allowed us and the Board to benefit from balancing the experience and institutional knowledge of our longer-tenured directors with the service of relatively newer directors who have brought new perspectives, skills and ideas to the board process. This balance has been an asset in managing our Company through the cyclical downturns that characterize our industry. It has ensured that during down cycles, the Board has the benefit of directors who have historical experience with our operations and the fluctuations in our industry.

The Board and the Nominating and Governance Committee have made planning for director succession a priority. They believe maintaining a system of overlapping tenures between veteran and newer directors is important for director succession. The Board and the committee annually assess the composition of the Board during their self-evaluation process, as well as the Board’s effectiveness at assembling a diverse and qualified group of directors. The self-evaluation allows directors to comment discretely but candidly on the effectiveness of other directors and to propose any skill sets or experience that the Board should look for in new director candidates.

9

Director Biographies

The following paragraphs identify the principal occupations of all continuing directors and nominees for director. We have also included the specific experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that led to the conclusion that the person should serve as a director in light of our business and structure. Except as otherwise indicated, each director has served for at least five years in the position shown.

John H. Baker, IIIis a native of Meridian, Mississippi and has been the sole proprietor of John H. Baker Interests, a real estate and development company in Houston, Texas, since 1968.

The Board believes Mr. Baker should serve as a director because of his extensive experience and contacts with both the Mississippi and Texas business communities, where a significant portion of our operations is located. Additionally, Mr. Baker is a successful entrepreneur who founded and has successfully grown and operated his own business. Mr. Baker has also been active in Mississippi and Texas state politics.

Fred Banks, Jr.has been a partner in the General Litigation Group in the Jackson, Mississippi office of the law firm of Phelps Dunbar LLP since 2001. Since 2008, he has been anon-equity senior partner with that firm. From 1991 to 2001, he was a Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court, and at the time of his retirement from the court in 2001, he was serving as Presiding Justice. Before serving on the Mississippi Supreme Court, Mr. Banks served as a Circuit Court Judge in Hinds and Yazoo Counties, Mississippi for six years. From 1976 until 1985, he served in the Mississippi House of Representatives.

The Board believes Mr. Banks should serve as a director because of extensive experience in law, both in the areas of business transactions and litigation, and because of his perspective on the legal landscape in Mississippi. Mr. Banks’ knowledge of Mississippi’s corporate law under which the company is organized eminently qualifies him to serve as chair of the Board’s Nominating and Governance committee. His professional experience has also been valuable to the Board in overseeing legal risk. Mr. Banks has extensive contacts in Mississippi’s legal and business communities, and is a visionary leader in numerous civic and philanthropic organizations.

John Bierbusse was employed by Duff and Phelps, Inc. from 1981 to 1987, and by A.G. Edwards from 1987 to 2004. Mr. Bierbusse served as Assistant Manager, Securities Research between 1999 and 2002 at A.G. Edwards, and as Manager, Research Administration from 2002 until his retirement in 2004. Mr. Bierbusse served on the New York Stock Exchange’s Series 16 Test Committee from 2002 to 2007 and on the New York Stock Exchange’s Research Analyst Qualification Examination Committee from 2003 to 2007. Mr. Bierbusse has been a Chartered Financial Analyst since 1987, and is currently retired.

The Board believes Mr. Bierbusse should serve as a director because of his experience as a financial analyst, particularly in the protein industry. He has extensive knowledge of the dynamics of poultry companies and the impact of poultry and grain markets and other external factors on the industry. This experience has been valuable to the Board’s risk oversight function.

9

Lampkin Buttsserved from 1996 to 2004 as Vice President-Sales for the Company. On October 21, 2004, Mr. Butts was elected President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company. He began his career with our Company in 1973. Mr. Butts is a member of the Company’s Executive Committee, which is a management committee, not a committee of directors.

The Board believes Mr. Butts should serve as a director because of his role as one of the top three executives in our Company and the extensive experience and insight he has gained from his over40-year tenure at Sanderson Farms. Mr. Butts’ experience in most every aspect of our operations, including processing and sales, and his knowledge of our operations, contribute significantly to the Board. Mr. Butts has served in management capacities in every facet of our business, and that broad perspective is valuable to the Board.

Mike Cockrellhas served, since 1993, as Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer for the Company. Before joining us, Mr. Cockrell was a shareholder and member of the law firm Wise Carter Child & Caraway, Professional Association, of Jackson, Mississippi. He is also a certified public accountant and was employed in the audit division of a public accounting firm from 1979 to 1980. Mr. Cockrell is a member of the Company’s Executive Committee, which is a management committee, not a committee of directors.

The Board believes Mr. Cockrell should serve as a director because of his role as one of our top three executives and his more than 20 years of experience as the CFO of our Company. In addition, Mr. Cockrell oversees or has a key role in many aspects of our operations and administration that are not typical for chief financial officers of public companies, including investor relations, our grain purchasing strategy, legal affairs and risk management. As a result, he contributes a broad perspective on our operations to the Board process.

10

Toni D. Cooleyfounded and has been president of Systems Electro Coating, LLC, a tier one supplier to Nissan of electro coated frames and other vehicle components, since 2001. She has also served as president of Systems Consultants Associates, Inc., a management training and consulting firm established with the express purpose of assisting Jackson, Mississippi-based minority firms with capacity building, since 1993. Ms. Cooley is alsoco-owner of Systems IT, Inc., in Jackson, Mississippi, and is chief executive officer and president of Systems Automotive Interiors, L.L.C., a tier one supplier of upholstered seats to Toyota Motor Manufacturing’s Mississippi plant, founded in 2011. From 1992 to 1993, Ms. Cooley worked as an International Contract Administrator for the international sales team of the former Turner Broadcasting Systems. She is a director of Trustmark National Bank and in 2013 was elected a director of Trustmark Corporation, which has a class of securities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Board believes Ms. Cooley should serve as a director because of her experience founding and significantly growing Systems Electro Coating in a very short period of time, as well as her experience in executive management. Her successful leadership of a manufacturing company has made her an asset to the Board in monitoring risk in areas such as regulation, insurance, employee relations and personnel management. Her experience leading one of Mississippi’s largest minority owned businesses provides to the Board a unique perspective on boardroom matters. Ms. Cooley’s active involvement in the Mississippi business community and service on a public company board of directors has also been advantageous to the Board process.

Beverly Wade Hoganhas served, since May 2002, as President of Tougaloo College in Jackson, Mississippi, a private, historically African-American, liberal arts college. Before becoming President of Tougaloo College, Ms. Hogan served for one year as Interim President. Before that, she served for ten years as a Commissioner for the Mississippi Workers Compensation Commission.

The Board believes that Ms. Hogan should serve as a director because of her25-year plus career in executive leadership, management and administration, and her experience and perspective on employment and training issues. In addition, the Board has benefitted from the experience and insight Ms. Hogan has gained from her active involvement in local, state and national civic affairs, and her work pioneering numerous Mississippi community programs.

Robert C. Khayat served as the Chancellor of the University of Mississippi from July 1995 until his retirement in July 2009. Before that, he served the university in various capacities, including as professor of law at the University of Mississippi School of Law from 1982 to 1995. Mr. Khayat served on the Board of Directors of Mississippi Power Company, a subsidiary of The Southern Company, and Mississippi Valley Title Insurance Company, until his retirement from both boards in 2009.

The Board believes Mr. Khayat should serve as a director because of his immense skill and experience as head of the University of Mississippi. During his14-year tenure, he led a major transformation of the university that resulted in higher academic standards, tripled African-American enrollment, significantly higher private financial support and recognition of the university by many independent organizations as one of the country’s leading public universities. Among countless other accomplishments, his efforts to “re-brand”“re-brand” the university culminated in unprecedented national attention from its successful bid, led by Mr. Khayat, to host the first 2008 U.S. presidential debate.

10

Phil K. Livingstonserved as President and Chief Executive Officer of Citizens National Bancshares, Inc. in Hammond, Louisiana, from its organization in 1983, until its merger into Deposit Guaranty Corporation on May 19, 1995. Mr. Livingston retired in 1998, but continued to serve as a banking consultant to AmSouth Corporation following his retirement until 2001.

The Board believes Mr. Livingston should serve as a director because of his extensive experience as a banking executive, in particular his experience in growing and selling one community bank, his involvement with several bank acquisitions and his involvement in the Louisiana and Mississippi business communities, where a large part of our operations is located. His banking experience has been valuable in monitoring financial and borrowing risk. The Board has also benefitted from his experience with executive compensation matters and past work with compensation consultants.

Suzanne T. Mestayer is owner and managing principal, since 2010, of ThirtyNorth Investments, LLC, an independent registered investment advisory firm in New Orleans, Louisiana. ThirtyNorth Investments provides investment management and consultation services to families, retirement plans,for-profit andnon-profit organizations and trusts. Since 2008, she has also been the managing member of Advisean Partners, LLC, a private investment and business consulting company, and from 2000 to 2008, she was Executive Vice President and President – New Orleans Market, of Regions Bank. She has served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, New Orleans Branch since 2014, and was a member of the board of directors of McMoRan Exploration Co., a NYSE-listed company, from 2007 until its acquisition in 2013, where she was a member of the audit and corporate personnel committees. She is active in civic and charitable organizations in New Orleans, including being the Chairperson of the Ochsner Health System, the largest healthcare system in Louisiana. In November 2017, she was elected to the Board of Directors of thePan-American Life Insurance Group. She is Certified Investment Management Analyst^® and a Certified Public Accountant (inactive).

The Board believes Ms. Mestayer should serve as a director given her successful and distinguished career in investment management, banking and accounting. Her professional background, public company board experience (including audit committee service), and leadership of several majornon-profit organizations make her an asset to the Board’s oversight of accounting and financial risk, internal controls, and executive compensation.

11

Dianne Mooneyfounded and served as Executive Director and Senior Vice President of Southern Living at Home, a direct sales division of Southern Progress Corporation, from 1999 until her retirement in 2007. Ms. Mooney was directly responsible for the launch and record growth of this $200 million division. Before that time, she was an employee of Southern Progress Corporation for over thirty years in various positions, including Vice President of Business Development and Vice President of Custom Publishing. Southern Progress Corporation is a division of Time, Inc.

The Board believes Ms. Mooney should serve as a director because of her vast experience in brand management and corporate growth at Southern Progress, as well as in marketing, market research, international sourcing, and new product development. In addition, Ms. Mooney brings to the Board significant experience in crisis and risk management, particularly in the areas of marketing and brand management.

Gail Jones Pittmanhas served, since its founding in 1979, as Chief Executive Officer of Gail Pittman, Inc., an entrepreneurial business creating individually hand-painted, semi-vitreous china dinnerware and home accessories. It is located in Ridgeland, Mississippi.

The Board believes that Ms. Pittman should serve as a director because of her success, skill, experience and perspective as a successful entrepreneur. Ms. Pittman is recognized by many as Mississippi’s preeminent female business executive, and one of the South’s most noted philanthropists. Her active involvement in the Mississippi business community brings a valuable perspective to the Board.

Charles W. Ritter, Jr.served, from 1967 to 2002, as President and a Director of the Attala Company, which is principally engaged in the business of milling and selling feed and corn meal. He now serves as a management consultant to the Attala Company. He has also served as President of JRS, Inc., a family owned real estate investment firm, since 1973. Mr. Ritter retired as a director of First M & F Corp. and Merchants & Farmers Bank, Kosciusko, Mississippi, and chair of the audit committee of First M & F Corp.’s Board of Directors in May 2011. First M & F Corp. has a class of securities registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Board believes Mr. Ritter should serve as a director because of his experience in and knowledge of both the banking and grain industries. He is our longest serving outside director. Mr. Ritter contributes a broad business perspective to the Board of Directors as well as a long-term perspective on the evolution of our Company from a family business to a large, publicly held corporation. He knew personally the founders of our Company and brings an understanding of their long-term vision and core values to the Board table.

Joe F. Sanderson, Jr.served as President of the Company from November 1, 1989 to October 21, 2004, and has served as Chief Executive Officer since November 1, 1989 and as Chairman of the Board of Directors since January 8, 1998. Mr. Sanderson continues to serve as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors. Before his tenure as an executive officer of the Company, he was continuously employed by Sanderson Farms in numerous positions starting in 1969. Mr. Sanderson is a member of the Company’s Executive Committee, which is a management committee, not a committee of directors. Mr. Sanderson’s father, Joe Frank Sanderson, was one of the founders of our Company.

The Board believes Mr. Sanderson should serve as a director because of his outstanding leadership of our Company since 1989. Under his tenure, our Company has experienced tremendous growth, including growth in annual revenues from $184 million in 1989 to over $2.8$3.3 billion in 2015,2017, and has opened six new plants. Mr. Sanderson is primarily responsible for the overall operation and strategic vision of our business, and as a result makes an invaluable contribution to the Board process.

11

Corporate Governance

Director Independence

Our Board of Directors has determined that the following directors and director nominees are “independent” under the listing standards of The Nasdaq Stock Market: Ms. Cooley, Ms. Hogan, Ms. Mestayer, Ms. Mooney, Ms. Pittman, and Messrs. Baker, Banks, Khayat Livingston and Ritter.Livingston.

Messrs. Sanderson, Butts and Cockrell are not independent because they are officers of the Company. In addition, Mr. Bierbusse does not meet The Nasdaq Stock Market’s definition of independent director because his brother is a “principal” in the business consulting division of Ernst & Young LLP, our independent registered public accounting firm. A “principal” is a partner who is not an accountant. Mr. Bierbusse’s brother has no involvement in Ernst & Young’sYoung LLP’s audit of our financial statements or any other services they provide to us and Ernst & Young LLP has concluded that his relationship to Mr. Bierbusse does not impair that firm’s independence. In addition, we believe that neither Mr. Bierbusse nor his brother have any interest in the fees we pay to Ernst & Young LLP, but if such an interest exists, it is not material. Therefore we have not entered into a “related party transaction” that must be approved by a special committee of qualified, independent directors pursuant to the charter of the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors.

Our independent directors meet regularly in executive session, usually in conjunction with each regular Board meeting.

Leadership Structure

Currently, Joe F. Sanderson, Jr. serves as both our Chief Executive Officer and the Chairman of the Board of Directors. The Board believesreassesses its leadership structure annually and has affirmatively determined that Mr. Sanderson is best qualified to hold eachSanderson’s combined role as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer provides the Company and the Board with strong leadership and continuity of those positionsexperience, and that it is in our stockholders’ best interestinterests. Chief among the factors the Board has considered is Mr. Sanderson’s leadership in setting a “tone at the top” that he do so because of his role overseeingpermeates all aspects of our operations,operations; his 46investor-driven viewpoint; the Company’s performance; his 48 years of experience with our Company and his long-term vision for our strategic plan.

12

OurBy-Laws provide that if at any time the Chairman of the Board is also an officer of the Company, the independent directors must appoint a Lead Independent Director. The Lead Independent Director must be “independent” under the rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market and is appointed by the other independent directors for aone-year term. He or she is responsible for:

The Lead Independent Director also has the authority to call meetings of the independent directors.

The independent directors have appointed Phil K. Livingston as the Company’s Lead Independent Director. Mr. Livingston has engaged with stockholders on important matters, and we expect he will continue to be available to meet with stockholders in the future.

The Board of Directors believes that its leadership structure is appropriate because it strikes an effective balance between management and independent director participation in the Board process. The Lead Independent Director role helps to ensure greater communication between management and the independent directors. It also increases the independent directors’ understanding of management decisions and Company operations and provides an additional layer of independent oversight of the Company. Moreover, the proper discharge of the Board’s fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders requires it to retain the flexibility to determine the person or persons best suited for the role of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The Board believes its selection of Mr. Sanderson for both roles is consistent with its fiduciary duties because he is the person best suited for both positions.

Governance Principles and Corporate Conduct

Our Board of Directors has adopted and periodically reassesses a set of Corporate Governance Principles as well as a Corporate Code of Conduct. The Board has also adopted a Code of Ethics for our CEO and senior financial personnel governing their responsibility for full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable disclosure in our periodic reports, internal controls over financial reporting, and other matters. The Corporate Governance Principles, Code of Conduct and Code of Ethics can be found under the “Corporate Governance” tab of the “Investors” section of our website atwww.sandersonfarms.com.

Risk Oversight

The Board takes very seriously its oversight role in the Company’s risk management. The Company’s senior management committee, called the Executive Committee, is primarily responsible for managing theday-to-day risks of the Company’s business, and is best equipped to assess and manage those risks. The Board or the Audit Committee receives reports on the Company’s exposure to risk and its risk management practices from the senior managers of the Company’s major divisions, including reportsas well as from third party experts, on topics such as:

13

The Board regularly receives updates about and reassesses the management of these risks

12

throughout the year. For some matters, such as cyber security, the Board or the Audit Committee receives at least quarterly updates from the appropriate managers on measures the Company has taken to mitigate risk. In addition, the Board reviews the Company’s risk disclosures in its draft periodic reports before they are filed and has the opportunity to question management about those risks. The Board is confident that the CEO, as the head of the Company’s Executive Committee, and other members of the Executive Committee, will promptly report new material risks or material changes in the Company’s risk profile to the Board. The Board also feels that, together with the CEO, it has cultivated a corporate culture and board leadership structure in which managers who report to the CEO and the other top officers of the Company have access to the Lead Independent Director and the other independent directors, and can communicate freely and candidly about risks to the Company.

In addition, for at least the last 12 years, the Board has visited each of our new facilities and has personally observed our production and processing operations, including our hatcheries and processing lines, and our biosecurity, worker health and safety, quality control, food safety, and live production disease prevention measures, among others.

Board Meetings and Committees of the Board

During our 20152017 fiscal year, the Board of Directors held ninetwelve meetings, fourseven of which were telephonic meetings. The Board of Directors strongly encourages all directors to attend the Company’s annual meetings of stockholders, and all but one of our directors then serving attended the 20152017 annual meeting. The Board of Directors has appointed three standing committees: the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Governance Committee. Each member of these committees is “independent” under the listing standards of The Nasdaq Stock Market. Every incumbent director attended at least 75% of the total of (i) all of the Board of Directors meetings held during the period for which he or she was a director and (ii) all of the meetings held by the committees of the Board on which he or she served (during the period in which he or she served).

Each of our three standing committees operates pursuant to a written charter. The current charter of each committee of the Board of Directors is available inunder the “Investor Relations”“Corporate Governance” tab of the “Investors” section of our website atwww.sandersonfarms.com. Written corporate governance principles addressing the composition, functions and leadership of the Board are also posted on the Company’s website.

Nominating and Governance Committee

The members of the Nominating and Governance Committee are Ms. Cooley, Ms. Hogan and Ms. Mooney (Vice Chair) and Messrs. Banks (Chair), Livingston and Ritter.Livingston. The committee considers all director candidates recommended for election to the Board of Directors. It also recommends all compensation paid to ournon-employee directors, leads the Board in its annual self-evaluation and from time to time makes recommendations concerning our corporate governance policies. In fiscal 2015,2017, the Committee held five meetings.

As noted above, the Nominating and Governance Committee considers potential nominees for director proposed by its members, members of the Board of Directors, our stockholders or management. The Nominating and Governance Committee will evaluate director nominees proposed by stockholders on the same basis as recommendations received from any other source. Stockholders who are not also members of our Board of Directors or management should submit notice of their proposed nominees for director in writing to the Nominating and Governance Committee at the Company’s general offices. That address is Post Office Box 988, Laurel, Mississippi 39441.

Stockholders should include the following information in their written notice:

Persons wishing to propose nominees for consideration at our annual meeting of stockholders must submit notice of their proposed nominee to the Nominating and Governance Committee in accordance with the procedures under “STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS, Procedure”PROPOSALS” in this Proxy Statement.

1314

Anyone proposing nominees to the Nominating and Governance Committee should consider the minimum qualifications, skills and qualities that the Nominating and Governance Committee believes are necessary for a director of the Company, as follows:

To date, the Board has ensured that these minimum qualifications were met by recommending to our stockholders only nominees whom our incumbent directors knew personally. In this way, the Board has had the benefit of reliable, first-hand reports about the nominees’ personal integrity and reputation.

Although the Board does not have a formal policy on diversity with respect to the Board, it has worked hard to identify director candidates who represent a diverse range of personal and business backgrounds. The Board has identified such persons through directors’ personal contacts in the local business communities where we operate. Board members currently reflect racial and gender diversity and our directors have worked in a variety of fields including finance, banking, law, higher education, heavy industry, agriculture, publishing and brand management. The Board has also endeavored to identify directors from the various communities in which our operations are located, including Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. When searching for candidates for future Board positions, the Nominating and Governance Committee may focus its attention on candidates from Georgia and North Carolina, where our newer plants are located.

The Nominating and Governance Committee annually assesses its effectiveness at composing a diverse and qualified group of directors through a self-evaluation process. The full Board also has the opportunity to comment on the size and composition of the Board.

The Nominating and Governance Committee may interview candidates for nomination for election as director who are not incumbent directors. The Nominating and Governance Committee may elect to invite members of our management to participate in the interviews. When all interviews are complete, the Nominating and Governance Committee votes to determine a slate of nominees to be submitted to the Board of Directors. The Nominating and Governance Committee uses the same process to evaluate potential nominees proposed by stockholders as it uses to evaluate any other potential nominee.

Nothing in the committee’s polices will prevent a stockholder from nominating persons for election as directors from the floor at any annual or special meeting of stockholders called for that purpose by following the advance notification procedures set forth in Article III of ourBy-Laws. These procedures are described under “STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS, Procedure”Other Proposals and Nominations” in this Proxy Statement.

Proxy Access

In October 2017, our Board of Directors adopted a “proxy access”By-Law that sets forth the circumstances under which stockholders may include nominees for director in our annual meeting proxy materials. See “STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS, Proxy Statement Proposals” in this Proxy Statement.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee is established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act. The members of the Audit Committee are Ms. Cooley, Ms. Pittman and Ms. Mooney and Messrs. Baker (Vice Chair), Banks, Khayat Livingston, and RitterLivingston (Chair), all of whom are independent under the listing standards of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC.LLC and Rule10A-3 of the Exchange Act applicable to members of the Audit Committee. The Board has determined that Phil K. Livingston is an audit committee financial expert. The committee, among other things, appoints or replaces the independent auditors, reviews the scope of the independent auditors’ audit, reviews our major accounting and financial reporting policies, practices and systems for compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, and reviews our internal auditing functions. The Audit Committee held eight meetings during fiscal 2015,2017, four of which were telephonic meetings.

14

Audit Committee Report

To the extent provided by Instruction 1 to Item 407(d) of RegulationS-K of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), this section shall not be deemed to be proxy “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the SEC or subject to its proxy regulations or to the liabilities imposed by Section 18 of the Exchange Act.

The Audit Committee has reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements with management, and the Audit Committee has discussed with the independent auditors the matters required to be discussed by the Statement on Auditing Standards

15

No. 16, Communications with Audit Committees. SAS 16 requires the independent auditor to provide the Audit Committee with information regarding the scope and results of an audit that may assist the Audit Committee in overseeing management’s financial reporting and disclosure process. The Audit Committee has received the written disclosures and the letter from the independent auditors required by applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, and has discussed with the independent accountants the independent auditors’ independence. Based on the review and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended that the audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended October 31, 20152017 be included in our Annual Report on Form10-K for that fiscal year for filing with the SEC.

The Audit Committee:

John H. Baker, III (Vice Chair)

Fred Banks, Jr.

Toni D. Cooley

Robert Khayat

Phil K. Livingston (Chair)

Dianne Mooney

Gail J. Pittman

Compensation Committee; Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

The members of the Compensation Committee are Ms. Cooley (Vice Chair), Ms. Hogan, Ms. Pittman (Vice Chair)(Chair) and Messrs. Baker, Banks, Khayat and Livingston, (Chair) and Ritter.all of whom are independent under the listing standards of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC applicable to members of the Compensation Committee. The committee determines the philosophy, components, levels and terms of our executive compensation. In fiscal 2015,2017, the Compensation Committee held five meetings, one of which was telephonic.

The committee’s processes and procedures for the consideration and determination of executive pay, as well as the role of management and outside consultants in that process, are more fully described in the “EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION” section, below.

The Compensation Committee may form and delegate its authority to subcommittees consisting only of persons who are members of the Compensation Committee.

During fiscal 2015,2017, none of the members of the Compensation Committee was an officer or employee of the Company and no member of the committeeCommittee is a former officer of the Company. In addition, during fiscal 2015,2017, none of our executive officers served on the board of directors of any entity whose directors or officers served on our Board of Directors.

Communications Between Stockholders and the Board of Directors

The Board of Directors has adopted a formal procedure that stockholders may follow to send communications to the Board of Directors. Stockholders may send communications to the Board by writing to:

Internal Audit Department

Sanderson Farms, Inc.

P. O. Box 988

Laurel, MS 39441-0988

Stockholders desiring to send a communication to the full Board of Directors should mark the envelope “Attention: Board of Directors.” Envelopes intended for a committee of the Board should be marked to the attention of the particular committee. Stockholders may also communicate with directors who are “independent directors” under the rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market by marking the envelope “Attention: Independent Directors” at the address given above.

15

We will forward all communications we receive as addressed on a quarterly basis, unless management determines by individual case that a communication should be forwarded more promptly. However, any stockholder communication concerning employee fraud or accounting matters will be forwarded as addressed, with a copy to the Audit Committee, immediately upon receipt.

Stockholder Engagement

We are committed to engaging with our stockholders to communicate with transparency our strategy, performance, business practices, governance and other matters. Throughout the year, our senior management team meets with holders of a significant portion of our outstanding stock across the country to discuss our Company and gain stockholder feedback. They also attendnon-deal roadshows and conferences related to our industry. In addition, we hold an annual investor day where our management gives presentations on our strategy and performance, and third party experts make presentations on poultry and grain

16

markets and other matters affecting our Company. Members of our Board of Directors attend the investor day as well as our annual stockholders meeting, and are available to engage with stockholders at those events.

Additionally, our Lead Independent Director has met with stockholders to discuss our business practices and governance, and we expect that he will continue to be available to engage directly with stockholders. As a result of the stockholder feedback we received at those meetings concerning the responsible use of antibiotics in our operations, we have developed a contingency plan under which we could adopt antibiotic-free animal husbandry practices should we determine that is in our Company’s best interest in the future. Our stockholder outreach and the contingency plan are discussed in more detail in this proxy statement under “PROPOSAL NO. 4.”

Corporate Responsibility

Conserving natural resources has been a core value of our Company since its founding. At each new complex we build under our internal growth plan, we strive to implement innovative environmental sustainability measures. Our Board receives reports from our Director of Development and other managers concerning our sustainability efforts at each new complex. In addition, the Board personally visits our new complexes and has observed our sustainability program firsthand.

We describe our sustainability program in more detail in our annual Corporate Responsibility Report, which can be found under the “Corporate Governance” tab of the “Investors” section of our website atwww.sandersonfarms.com. The report also includes information related to our programs and achievements on worker training and safety, animal welfare, our relationships with our contract growers, and our food safety practices. It also discusses our involvement in the community, including our charitable activities that have been approved at the Board level. For fiscal 2017, these included over $2 million in donations to hurricane relief efforts and our continuing sponsorship of the Sanderson Farms Championship, a PGA tournament from which 100% of the proceeds go to Mississippi charities. Since we became the title sponsor in 2013, the tournament has raised over $5 million for sick and injured children in Mississippi.

Review and Approval of Certain Transactions

The Audit Committee’s charter charges it with reviewing on anon-going basis certain transactions between the Company and its directors, officers, major stockholders and certain other persons for conflicts of interest. The types of transactions that are subject to this review are those “related party transactions” that must be disclosed in our proxy statement under the rules of the SEC, which are transactions, arrangements or relationships in which we or any of our subsidiaries was is or will be a participant, the amount of which involved exceeds $120,000, and in which any related person had has or will have a direct or indirect material interest. A “related person” means:means generally:

The Audit Committee must recommend to a special committee of qualified, independent directors whether or not the transaction should be approved. The special committee may retain independent legal, accounting or other advisors to advise it in this process. In determining whether to approve or disapprove entry into a related party transaction, our Audit Committee takes into account, among other factors, whether the related party transaction is on terms no less favorable than terms generally available to an unaffiliated third-party under the same or similar circumstances and the extent of the related person’s interest in the transaction. During our 20152017 fiscal year, there were no transactions between the Company and related persons that required review by the Audit Committee or that required disclosure in this Proxy Statement.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires our directors, officers and persons who own more than 10% of our outstanding common stock to file with the SEC reports of changes in their ownership of our common stock. Officers, directors and greater than 10% stockholders are also required to furnish us with copies of all forms they file under this regulation. Based solely on a review of such forms and written informationrepresentations provided by these persons that no other reports were required, our officers, directors and greater than 10% stockholders were in compliance with all Section 16(a) filing requirements for fiscal 2015, except that the following forms were inadvertently filed late:2017.

16

17

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Executive Summary

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) describes our compensation philosophies,philosophy, factors considered in developing our compensation packages and the decision-making process followed in setting compensation for our Named Executive Officers during our 20152017 fiscal year. It should be read in conjunction with the tables and accompanying narratives that follow. Other than our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, there were only two individuals at our Company who met the definition of “executive officer” under SEC rules in our 2015 fiscal year, and therefore those four executive officers were our onlyOur “Named Executive Officers” as defined under the SEC’s proxy statement rules. They are:rules for 2017 were:

Biographical information for Messrs. Sanderson, Butts and Cockrell can be found in this proxy statement under PROPOSAL NO. 1 –— ELECTION OF DIRECTORS. Mr. Rigney has served as Secretary and Controller since November 1, 2012, and before that date was our Corporate Accounting Manager since December 2005.

The goal of this CD&A is to describe our executive compensation philosophies and programs with transparency and clarity. Our Compensation Committee met five times during the year and retained Willis Towers Watson as its independent executive compensation consultant. We believe that our executive compensation programs reflect our Company’spay-for-performance philosophy, assist us in creating long-term value for our stockholders and are effective in retaining and motivating our current executives. Although we generally strive to appoint executives from within our Company, our compensation programs will allow us to attract top management candidates from outside our Company, should the need arise.

Sanderson Farms has always had apay-for-performance culture. We expect top performance from our people every year and are willing to pay for that success. Accordingly, a substantial part of the compensation package for each Named Executive Officer is at risk and is only earned if performance so warrants. In addition to base salary, we offer our Named Executive Officers the opportunity to earn an annual bonus if certain performance goals are met, and we also grant long-term incentives to our Named Executive Officers to align their pay with the long-term success of our Company. Our long-term incentives have both a performance-based component, as well as a time-based element to assist us in retaining our management team. We encourage our Named Executive Officers, other members of management and our Board of Directors to follow our stock ownership guidelines. In addition, our executives participate in our Employee Stock Ownership Plan and can elect to participate in our Management Share Purchase Plan, which further aligns themtheir interests with those of our stockholders.

We use a peer group and appropriate published surveys (based on appropriate industry and revenue size comparisons) to set compensation levels. We do not target our compensation levels at any particular point in the range established by data we gather, but we do consider the median of those markets as a general guide, along with a multitude of other factors, in setting our pay opportunity. However, with above-target performance, our Named Executive Officers can earn above-market pay.

The Committee regularly compares our executive officers’ total realizable pay against our total shareholder return for the past three years, to determine if there is alignment between our executive pay and our performance. Total realizable pay means the compensation our officers actually received, and equals the sum of an officer’s base salary, actual bonus paid, performance based awards paid out in the period and the value of restricted stock awards at the Company’s current stock price. Based on this analysis, the Committee believes our executive compensation and our Company’s performance have been strongly aligned over time, with less alignment in some years due to cyclicality in the poultry industry. In setting fiscal 20152017 compensation, the Committee took note of Willis Towers Watson’s finding that both the total realizable pay of the CEO was in the 75^th percentile of the applicable peer group, and was well-aligned with the total shareholder return of the Company over the prior three years, werewhich was in the 8063^thrd percentile of the applicable peerthat group.

For purposes of our annual bonus award plan, we measure operational performance using Agristats, a private industry benchmarking service that analyzes performance data submitted weekly by a significant majority of the poultry industry, and through earnings per share. Even if we meet the operational and earnings per share targets, our executives will not receive payments under the bonus award plan unless we also meet a return on equity threshold. For our long-term performance share plan, we measure performance by return on sales and return on equity, and our stock price also factors into the final amount of the award to the Named Executive Officers.

18

In fiscal 2015,2017, due in large part to record-high marketour sales volume, higher average sales prices for poultry sold to retail grocery store customers and slightly lower grainfeed costs per pound of chicken processed compared with 2014,2016, we reported net income of $9.52$12.30 per share. Based on our 20152017 performance, we paidyear-end cash bonuses under our bonus award plan at the end of 2015to our executives and oursenior management. Our Compensation Committee also determined that our fiscal year 20142016 performance shares were earned at between the target and maximum levels as described in the table below entitled “Performance Shares Earned.” Those shares are subject to a further one-yearone year holding period and will be paid out

18

in 2016.2018. There are two additional long-term performance share cycles currently in place under our long-term performance share plan, and the payouts on those awards, if achieved, will occur at the end of fiscal 20172019 and 2018.2020.

Our CEO, at his request, received no equity awards under the long-term incentive program from 2005 through our 2009 fiscal year. The Committee determined, and he agreed, that he again be considered for long-term incentive awards beginning in the 2010 fiscal year. In 2012, Mr. Sanderson informed the Committee that he would not accept any restricted stock awards for the 2013 fiscal year. However, Mr. Sanderson was granted, and he accepted, an award of performance shares for fiscal 2013, and he has received restricted stock and performance share awards for each fiscal 2014, fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2016.year thereafter.

At our 2011 and 2014last four annual meetings, our stockholders approved the compensation of our Named Executive Officers as disclosed in our proxy statement in anon-binding “Say on Pay” vote by 99at least 95 percent of the votes cast, and by 95 percent in 2015.cast. The Committee took these approvals into account in determining to follow the same policies, practices and framework to set our executive pay for fiscal 20162018 as it has used in the past. Our stockholders also voted in 2014 in anon-binding advisory vote, by a majority of the votes cast, to hold an advisory “Say on Pay” vote every year. Our Board subsequently determined to adopt this frequency. See “PROPOSAL NO. 2 – ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION” in this proxy statement. We are required to have our nextnon-binding advisory vote on the frequency of “Say on Pay” votes in 2020.

Principles and Objectives of the Executive Compensation Program

The main objectives of our executive compensation programs have been to reward outstanding performance by our executives appropriately and to ensure that management and stockholder interests are closely aligned. The Committee strives to structure compensation packages that create incentives for our executives to maximize long term stockholder value, rather than to maximize their individual pay. A significant portion of our executive compensation opportunity is related to factors that directly and indirectly influence stockholder value, including stock performance, earnings per share, operational performance, return on sales and return on equity.

Another significant factor in the Committee’s decisions to make equity-based awards to our executives is stockholder dilution, and the Committee strives to minimize the dilutive effect of those awards on our stockholders. Our Board of Directors also adopted a share repurchase program under which we were authorized to repurchase up to one million shares of our common stock, in part to offset the dilutive effect of our equity compensation plans. During fiscal 2015, we repurchased 700,003 shares under this program, and thereafter our Board of Directors extended the repurchase program andre-authorized the purchase of up to one million shares.

We believe our executive culture is unique within our industry. Our management team is motivated by a strong “tone from the top” that has fostered our core mission to create returns for our stockholders. We believe our executives should be rewarded fairly for their loyalty to that mission, especially in years when we perform at the top of our industry.

Management, the Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee recognize that our business is cyclical and seasonal, and often times the level of profitability we achieve is significantly influenced by factors beyond our control. These factors include swings in the market prices for our primary product, fresh chicken, and our two primary input costs, corn and soybean meal. Supply and demand factors for poultry products and feed grains also play a role in the cyclicality of our industry and are influenced by global macroeconomic conditions and weather patterns. Accordingly, the Compensation Committee believes it is important to measure and reward outstanding performance as much by operational performance relative to our industry peers as in absolute dollars per share and other typical measuring tools. This concept of placing significant emphasis on operational performance relative to our industry peers permeates our overall compensation plans and philosophy.

We expecttop-level performance from our management team even during downturns in our industry and during periods of Company expansion. Accordingly, the criteria that the Committee has established for our performance-based awards have been historically very challenging to achieve. Indeed, fiscal 2010, fiscal 2013, fiscal 2014 and fiscal 2015 were the only years in which any of our performance shares were earned since the inception of the program in 2005. Nevertheless, even in years for which we have incurred a net loss, our Company has still performed better than most of our industry peers. The Committee has considered these factors in evaluating our compensation plans and has made adjustments to the plans or discretionary awards to take into account our strong performance relative to the industry and our significant Company growth.

19

The Committee intends to continue its strategy of employing compensation programs that emphasize performance-based incentive compensation. We have structured our executive compensation packages with an understanding of the cyclical nature of our business, and with a goal to achieve an appropriate balance between our short and long-term performance. We have also tried to balance the focus of our pay elements between our operational performance versus the industry and our financial performance on the one hand, and stockholder return on the other.

Benchmarking and Competitive Analyses

The Committee uses information gathered by analyzing the compensation levels and programs of a peer group and, in some cases, composite survey data compiled from companies of appropriate size and industry (although the survey data does not

19

specifically identify contributing companies). The peer group serves as the chief point of comparison of the level and structure of executive pay, and is composed of companies similar to Sanderson Farms in size, industry, geographic location and/or performance. The group consists of companies with a median revenue generally comparable to ours. The Committee also uses data from a reference group of direct competitors that are considerably larger than Sanderson Farms as a comparator for components of executive pay, but not for pay levels. Selection of the peer and reference groups is based on the research of Willis Towers Watson, with input from the Committee. Each year, Willis Towers Watson considers whether the composition of the peer and reference groups continues to be appropriate and if not, recommends changes in the members of the groups. However, the Committee and Willis Towers Watson strive to minimize churn in the composition of the groups so that yearly comparisons remain stable.

The comparator groups yield information about the general level and components of pay for comparable executive positions at other companies. The Committee uses this information as a general guide in its deliberations, but it does not target our executive compensation levels at any point in the range established by the comparisons. Instead, the Committee bases its final decisions on its business judgment, which may be influenced by the median level of that range, as well as a variety of other factors discussed below. The companies comprising the comparator groups for fiscal year 20152017 are shown below:

For fiscal 2016, Chiquita Brands was2018, Mead Johnson Nutrition Company and WhiteWave Foods Company were removed from the peer group due to them being acquired, and PinnacleB&G Foods, Inc. and Post Holdings,SunOpta, Inc. were added. The reference group was unchanged from 2015.2017.

The Compensation Committee Process and the Role of Management and Compensation Consultants

Both management and the Compensation Committee recognize the importance of maintaining sound principles for the development and administration of compensation and benefit programs. Our Compensation Committee has taken steps to significantly enhance its ability to carry out its responsibilities effectively, as well as to ensure that the Company maintains strong links between executive pay and performance. Examples of actions that the Committee has taken include:

20

20

The Committee has the sole authority to retain or terminate Willis Towers Watson (or any other compensation consultant) and to approve the consultant’s fees and other terms and conditions of its engagement. In July 2014,April 2016, as in prior years, the Committee directly engaged Willis Towers Watson to review its executive compensation components and levels and recommend any changes for fiscal 20152017 necessary to bring our programs in line with market standards or Company performance. The Company paid Willis Towers Watson a fee of approximately $64,000$70,000 in connection with its fiscal 20152017 executive pay review, which included an assessment of the composition of the peer and reference groups for 2015,2017, a review of compensation trends, development of specific compensation recommendations and a presentation of its report to the Committee.

The Board and the Nominating and Governance Committee have also retained Towers Watson periodically, most recently in July 2015, to review the compensation of our outside directors. In October 2013, During fiscal 2017, the Committee also retainedengaged Willis Towers Watson uponto study and make recommendations to the recommendationCommittee on the design and effectiveness of management to performour Stock Incentive Plan, the goal-setting methodology underlying our performance based compensation plans, and report on market practices for such plans. To date, the Company has paid a limited review of the salary ranges of selected salaried employees, and the feesfee for this review which was completed during fiscal 2014, wereof approximately $74,000. $65,000.

In 2015,2017, the Committee formally assessed the independence of its advisors, including Willis Towers Watson, based on specific information requested of the advisors, and determined that Willis Towers Watson and its other advisors are independent. The Committee will take measures to ensure that any future engagement of Willis Towers Watson by our Company does not impair Willis Towers Watson’s independence.

Typically, the Committee chairmanchair meets with representatives from Willis Towers Watson at the outset of any engagement to discuss the Committee’s goals and objectives and to outline the parameters of the review that Willis Towers Watson will undertake. The CFO isCompany personnel are sometimes present for those meetings as a liaison with management, and Willis Towers Watson uses the CFO or other Company personnel to gather internal information necessary for its work. The Committee chairmanchair also corresponds with Willis Towers Watson directly during an engagement as questions arise. Because theThe CEO is the Committee’s chief source of information about the overall performance of the Company and of senior management,management. Therefore, the Committee or its chairman may also meetchair typically meets privately with the CEO to inform himseek his view of the Committee’s thinking on any particular issueWillis Towers Watson’s recommendations, and to getreceive his feedbackinput about factors specific to the Company that the Committee might consider in making its determinations with respect to the COO and recommendations.CFO, who are his direct reports. Although the CEO has substantial influence on the Company’s compensation and could contact or meet with Willis Towers Watson or the Committee if he chooses, he is not directly involved in the Committee’s decision-making process or in meetings with Willis Towers Watson.

In fiscal 2017, Ms. Pittman was appointed chair of the Compensation Committee. As part of the transition in committee leadership, Mr. Livingston, the immediate past chair and our Lead Independent Director, assisted with the process described above during 2017.

When compensation questions arise for the Committee’s consideration, senior management is generallymay be present for Willis Towers Watson’s presentations and to answer any questions by directors. However, when the Committee sets levels and components of compensation, management issenior managers are ultimately excused from the meeting to permit the Committee to meet with Willis Towers Watson and legal and accounting advisors, in executive session and to deliberate and vote. The Committee may ask the CEO to be present for the deliberations on the compensation of the other Named Executive Officers, but he is excused from the deliberations and vote on his own compensation.

21

Elements of Executive Compensation

The compensation of our executive officers consists of the following elements:

21

The Committee has used these elements of compensation to create a flexible package that reflects the cyclical nature of the poultry business and can reward both the short and long-term performance of the Company and the individual. Each item of compensation is considered individually, followed by consideration of the overall package, with the goal of treating executives equitably and rewarding and incentivizing outstanding performance. The Committee also considers how our executive pay compares to the peer group and reference group companies and to similar positions included in published survey data, with respect to both levels and components of total pay. Generally, the Committee does not consider the amounts realizable from prior compensation in setting future benefits. However, the Committee has restructured our long-term performance incentives to reflect more fairly the conditions in our industry when past awards have failed to vest because of cyclical downturns in the poultry market and inefficiencies stemming from our significant internal growth. This is discussed in more detail below.

The CEO’s 20152017 total compensation, as reported in the Summary Compensation Table below, was approximately 172%180% and 240%247%, respectively, higher than the total compensation for the COO and CFO because of his higher level of responsibility within our Company and his more pervasive influence over our performance. The compensation of the COO and CFO was likewise approximately 410%311% and 308%231%, respectively, higher than the Secretary’s for the same reasons.

In 2009,2015, we entered into new employment agreements with the CEO, the COO and the CFO. As described in more detail below under “Discussion of Summary Compensation and Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table,” the 20092015 agreements were superceded bysuperseded substantially similar agreements that we entered into on November 1, 2015.during 2009. The agreements provide those executives will remain employed until their agreements are terminated either by the Company or the executive for any reason. Among other benefits, the agreements provide for a severance payment to be paid to the officers if:

The amount of the severance payments will be, in the case of Mr. Sanderson, three times, and in the case of Messrs. Butts and Cockrell, two times, the following amounts:

The Committee believes these benefits are important officer retention tools that will protect the Company and its stockholders against an unexpected departure of our most senior management. In addition, the commitment to pay severance is counterbalanced by an agreement from the officers not to disclose confidential information about us during and after their employment, and not to engage in certain competitive activity during their employment and for two years after the termination of their employment for any reason other than poor performance. The Committee also believed it was crucial to structure the agreements so that, except in the case of a change in control, the officers will not be paid severance if they are terminated for poor performance. In the context of a change in control, the severance is not payable unless the officer is subsequently terminated without cause. This is

22

sometimes referred to as a “double trigger.” In the case of a merger or other transaction that would allow our stockholders to profit from a sale of control of our Company, such provisions can help ensure that management will not be distracted in the transaction negotiations by concerns that they will be arbitrarily terminated by new management without any economic protection after the change of control is complete.

22

The agreements are discussed further below in the narrative following the table entitled, “Grants of Plan-Based Awards.”

Base Salaries

Salaries are used to provide a fixed amount of compensation for the executive’s regular work. The Committee reviews the salaries of the Named Executive Officers annually in October, with input from the outside compensation consultant, and makes final salary decisions at that time. Salary increases are based on an evaluation of Company performance, the individual’s performance, and the individual’s level of pay compared to the pay levels for similar positions in the peer group. Although the peer group suggests a range of competitive levels for base salaries, exact levels are determined by the Committee based on each executive’s merit. The Committee also takes into account years of service, responsibilities, our future growth plans, industry conditions and our current ability to pay. For example, for fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013, the Committee determined, due to industry-wide challenges and the competitive nature of our then-current salaries, not to increase the base salaries of the CEO, COO and CFO.

For fiscal 2015,2017, the Committee determined to award a three percent merit based increase toleave unchanged the salaries of the CEO, COO and CFO because their salary levels were competitive with the peer group. In the case of the COO and CFO, the Committee determined in lightlieu of Company performance and considering that those officers had not had a salary increase for fiscal 2012 or 2013.to increase the multiples of base salary used to calculate their stock awards. The Committee also annually receives a recommendation from the CFO concerning the salary of Mr. Rigney, who reports directly to the CFO. For fiscal 2017, the Committee decided to increase Mr. Rigney’s salary by $20,0005% to $235,000,approximately $271,416, which is within the range of salaries of the Company’s senior managers.managers and close to the median for his position in the peer group. For more information about the factors the Committee considered in setting fiscal 20152017 compensation, see the subsection below entitled “Evaluation of Executive Performance.”

The effective date for salary increases typically is November 1 of each year. Salary increases can also occur upon an individual’s promotion.

Annual Cash Bonus Awards

We maintain a bonus award plan under which our salaried employees, including the Named Executive Officers, are eligible for fiscalyear-end cash incentive awards equal to a percentage of their base salary based on the Company’s performance (“Bonus Award Program”). These awards are designed to reward short-term performance and the achievement of designated operational results. For officers and key management employees, the total award has two components: a percentage based on our achieving certain target earnings per share goals, and a percentage based on our operational performance versus our industry peers as measured by Agristats.

The earnings per share targets established under the Bonus Award Program are set each year,annually, and reflect our growth and ability to generate earnings. We have experienced significant growth in production capacity over the past 20 years, and our ability to generate earnings has likewise grown significantly. As a result, the earnings per share targets established under the Bonus Award Program have moved higher to reflect our increased earnings capacity. We have historically performed at or near the top of the industry in operational measures, and the targets set for operational goals under the Bonus Award Program reflect our culture and expectations of achieving superior performance relative to our peers. However, it is possible that even if we operate at the top of the industry, we still might not achieve an acceptable level of profitability, due to factors such as the cyclical nature of the industry, external forces that influence profitability that are beyond the control of management, and our significant internal growth in recent years and resulting short-term inefficiencies. Therefore, unless we achieve at least an 8% return on average stockholders’ equity (computed after taking into account any bonus to be paid), no payments are made under the Bonus Award Program even if the operational targets are reached, and payments are not cumulative.

Generally, earnings per share targets are established by reference to our five-year average return on sales and whatan earnings level that would result in an acceptablea 20% return on average equity. Through this review, we establish a dollar earnings target that would generate acceptable levels of return on sales and return on equity, and that is then translated into an earnings per share target for purposes of the Bonus Award Program. While the Committee recognizes that there are many factors beyond the control of management that might affect our ability to achieve these results, it attempts to make the program competitive by awarding a relatively high percentage of salary payouts in years in which we achieve these aggressive targets. Likewise, the Committee sets aggressive targets when setting operational goals. Before fiscal 2014,The operational portion of the plan required the Company itself to rank in the top 30% of companies participating in Agristats in operating profit per head. In 2014, the Committee determined, after consulting Towers Watson, to modify the plan so that a bonus is payable if the Company’s chickens rank in the top 30% of all chickens included in Agristats. The Committee and Towers Watson agreed this change would be a better metric of Company performance.Agristats in bottom line profit per head. For participants to earn the top bonus, our chickens must rank in the top 10% of the industry. For some plan participants who are not executive officers, the operational component of the award is determined by assessing both the Company’s overall performance and its performance in the market segmenttype of complex in which the participant works (retail or big bird deboning)bird).

23

Also in 2014,As a result of the Committee asked Towers Watson to review the plan in comparison to plans of peer group companies to determine whether, inplan’s formulation, years of strong Companycompany performance can make bonus payouts under the plan mirrored total shareholder return. Towers Watson concluded that while the rate ofin future years more difficult to achieve, but bonus payouts, under the plan were commensurate with the peer group plans, the amount of awards paid was comparatively low, even though the Company’s return on equity outperformed the peer groupif earned, can be significant in years in which a bonus was paid. As a result, Towers Watson recommended that over a period of two years, starting with the fiscal 2014 plan, the maximum bonus opportunity should be increased to the 50^th percentile of market levels. The Committee adopted Towers Watson’s recommendation. The second phase of increases for the Secretary will commence with the fiscal 2016 plan.such years.

The following table shows, for fiscal 2015,2017, the percentage of base salary that the Named Executive Officers were eligible to receive from each component of the bonus award. These levels reflect the first phase of increases described above.

23

20152017 Bonus Award Opportunities

The following table shows, for fiscal 2015,2017, the earnings per share objectives and the corresponding percentages of the earnings per share component of a participant’s bonus award that could have been earned. The earnings per share component of the bonus award program is based on our net income net of the bonus. The program provides that the earnings per share targets will be adjusted to reflect changes in the number of shares outstanding due to business combinations, recapitalizations, stock splits or other changes in our corporate structure.

24

20152017 Bonus Awards — EPS Component

24* Net of bonus and net of extraordinary,non-recurring income items not related to the fiscal year’s operations.

The following table shows, for fiscal 2015,2017, the performance objectives based on our performance versus our industry peers as reported by Agristats and the corresponding percentages of the operational component of a participant’s bonus award that could have been earned.

20152017 Bonus Awards — Operational Performance Component

The following table shows, for the 20152017 fiscal year, the maximum percentages of base salary that the Named Executive Officers could have received under the Bonus Award Program. Actual cash awards for past years are shown in the “Non-Equity“Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table that follows this Compensation Discussion and Analysis. ForIn fiscal 2015, the Company’s actual performance reflected favorable market2017, our Named Executive Officers and senior managers earned bonuses due in large part to our volume of sales, higher average sales prices for poultry products and slightly lower grain prices compared with the prior year.feed costs per pound of chicken processed.

25

20152017 Bonus Award Payments

The Committee normally reviews and reconsiders the Bonus Award Program each January, along with the maximum bonus opportunities, the performance criteria under the program and the earnings per share targets for the then-current fiscal year. As part of its review, it receives reports from the outside compensation consultant concerning the level of similar short-term cash incentives paid by the peer group companies. It also receives management’s recommendations as to the appropriate targets for earnings per share and operational performance based on management’s estimates of what would qualify as superior performance.

The Committee generally adopts the program in January for the current fiscal year. The parameters of the program and the performance criteria are then communicated to the participants. In general, once the Committee adopts the program, the bonus awards are determined solely according to the program criteria and are not subject to the discretion of the Committee. The program does provide that adjustments can be made to awards in the event of extraordinary operating conditions, errors in Agristats reporting or significant changes in the number of Agristats participants, changes in law or accounting procedures or substantial and unforeseen fluctuations in sales pounds or dollars during the year. Bonuses earned for a completed fiscal year are usually paid in December following that fiscal year.

Long-Term Equity Incentive Awards

Equity-based compensation and ownership ensures that our executive officers and directors have a continuing stake in the long-term success of the Company. Generally, the Committee considers equity incentive awards to the Named Executive Officers each October, after its annual evaluation of executive pay. The awards, if made, usually become effective in November at the start of the Company’s new fiscal year.

Under the Stock Incentive Plan, the Board may grant restricted stock, performance shares, stock options, stock appreciation rights, phantom stock, management share purchase rights and other stock-based awards. Since its inception in 2005, awards to the Named Executive Officers under the plan have consisted of restricted stock, performance shares and management share purchase rights. The Committee strives to be conservative in the rate of usage, or run rate, of shares under the Stock Incentive Plan.

25

The Committee, with input from Willis Towers Watson, has made specific grants by comparing each executive’s current long-term incentive levels with the market range established by published survey and peer proxy statement data. Based on market studies, it has then identified a typical multiple of the average base salary for the individual’s management level that his or her long-term incentives should represent. These multiples are reconsidered annually based on the then-current market data. For fiscal 2015,2017, the Committee adopted Towers Watson’s recommended multiples of 300%were 325% for the CEO, 160%170% for the COO, 150%160% for the CFO, and 45%60% for the Secretary. The CEO had previously declined the increase in his multiple to 325% recommended by Willis Towers Watson for fiscal 2016. In the case of the Secretary, which werethe multiple is applied to the average salary for all positions at the same multiples used for 2014.management level.

The multiple of the officer’s salary yields a target annual long-term incentive award level that is then converted into a recommended number of shares to be awarded using the approximate stock price quoted on Nasdaq at that time. As discussed above, the Committee also bases its final decisions as to the award level on factors such as individual merit, responsibilities, individual and Company performance, and the dilutive effect of the award on our stockholders. The Committee then divides the total recommended share award equally between performance shares and restricted stock.

All of our restricted stock and Management Share Purchase Plan agreements provide that stock awarded under those plans will become fully vested in the event of a change in control of our Company and fully or partially vested upon certain other events, as described more fully in the “Potential Payments Upon Termination orChange-in-Control” section below. These provisions were adopted because they are customary for equity incentive awards of those types and because the Board of Directors deemed them to be reasonable and fair to our management. In the context of a merger or other transaction that would allow our stockholders to profit from a sale of control of our Company, such provisions can help ensure that management will not be distracted in the transaction negotiations by concerns that the value of their awards will decline after the change of control is complete. The potential payments under these provisions played no part in the Committee’s decisions regarding other elements of our executive compensation.

26

Shares of restricted stock are shares granted subject to a vesting period during which the shares may not be transferred. All of our restricted stock awards have a vesting period of four years. The CEO, COO, CFO and Secretary and certain other salaried employees of the Company received restricted stock as part of their long-term incentive award in November 20142016 for the 20152017 fiscal year. The fiscal 20152017 restricted stock generally will vest on November 1, 2018,2020, as long as the holder remains continuously employed by us during the restricted period.

Recipients of restricted stock have all the rights of a stockholder of the Company, including voting rights and the right to receive dividends, beginning on the grant date. In the event a recipient forfeits shares of restricted stock before such shares vest, the shares are cancelled.

Performance shares provide a material incentive to executives by offering potential increased stock ownership in the Company tied directly to our stockholders’ return. The CEO, COO, CFO, Secretary and certain other salaried employees received performance share grants as part of their long-term incentive awards in November 2014.2016. The performance share program entitles the holder to earn shares of Sanderson Farms common stock if we achieve certain relative levels of performance on stockholder return over a multi-year period following the grant, as long as the holder remains continuously employed by us until the end of the performance period and any additional vesting period. The length of the performance period reflects the cyclical nature of the poultry business, and is designed, generally, to measure our performance over an industry cycle. Currently, the performance period is two years and there is an additionalone-year service-based vesting period before the shares are issued.

Performance shares carry no dividend or voting rights until they are issued after achievement of the performance objectives and the expiration of any additional vesting period.

The Board of Directors may pay earned performance shares in cash, shares of Sanderson Farms common stock, or in a combination of both. Once the performance criteria are established and the awards are granted, the payment of earned shares is generally not subject to the discretion of the Committee or the Board, but adjustments can be made in limited circumstances.

Performance share awards are made in a target amount of shares based on our average return on equity (which we call ROE) and a target amount based on our average return on sales (which we call ROS). The award establishes three possiblenon-discretionary percentages of those target amounts that the recipient could actually receive, depending on our actual performance measured at the end of the performance period.

26

As a result, the performance criteria for fiscal 20152017 performance share awards were structured as follows:

20152017 Performance Share Criteria

If our average ROE or average ROS is otherwise between the threshold and maximum percentages, the number of performance shares for which the award recipient is eligible will be calculated using a straight-line interpolation. If average ROE or ROS is less than the threshold, the recipient will not be entitled to receive any shares of that portion of the target award measured by that metric.

The threshold level represents our median performance over the course of 2325 historicaltwo-year periods. The target level represents the 65th percentile of performance during the historical measurement period and the maximum level represents the 83rd percentile. Average ROE is equal to the mathematical average of the net return on average equity for each of the two years in the performance period. Net return on average equity is computed by adding together stockholders’ equity at the beginning and end of each fiscal year on our audited financial statements and dividing by two. The resulting number is then divided into net income for the fiscal year as reported on our audited financial statements to reach net return on average equity for the year. Average ROS is equal to the mathematical average of the net return on net sales for the two years in the performance period. Net return on net sales is computed by dividing net income by net sales, as both numbers are reported on our audited financial statements for the year.

UsingBecause the methodology described aboveperformance goals are based on our historical performance, years of past outstanding company performance can make the performance goals challenging to achieve in future years. For fiscal 2018, the Committee determined to set the threshold performance goal at the 33^rd percentile of Company performance over 26two-year periods, instead of at the 50^th

27

percentile. The Committee was concerned that the performance goals were overly aggressive since the performance shares were not paying out even in some years of strong company performance. Willis Towers Watson therefore recommended the change to make the plan more effective in rewarding our managers. The target and 24 two-year periods, themaximum levels were not changed. The performance criteria for the fiscal 20162018 awards were established as follows:

20162018 Performance Share Criteria

Since the inception of the Stock Incentive Plan, we have granted 1113 cycles of performance shares, one for each of the fiscal years from 2006 through 2016. Only the2018. The performance shares granted for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 20142016 have been earned. The Committee determined in December 20142016 and 2015,2017, respectively, that the fiscal 20132015 and 20142016 shares were earned at the levels shown in the table below. The fiscal 20142016 shares are subject to an additionalone-year holding period before they are paid out.

27

Performance Shares Earned

28

The following table shows the number of shares actually earned by each Named Executive Officer according to the percentage payouts reflected in the table above.

Under our Management Share Purchase Plan, executive officers and other key employees may elect to reduce their annual base salaries by up to 15% and their bonuses earned under the Bonus Award Program by up to 75% and instead receive those amounts in the form of restricted stock at the current market price. The Company matches 25% of the employee’s contribution to the plan to grant additional shares. The shares purchased or granted through the plan generally vest on the third anniversary of their acquisition by the participant. Recipients of the shares purchased or granted have all the rights of a stockholder during the restricted period. If the shares fail to vest, any dividends paid on the Company matched shares must be returned to us. In fiscal 2015,2017, the Secretary was the only Named Executive Officer who participated in the plan. You can find more information about the plan in the narrative accompanying the Grant of Plan-Based Awards table, below.

In-Service and Post-Employment Benefits

As mentioned above, we believe strongly in aligning the interests of management with those of our stockholders. We were among the first in our industry to adopt an Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and each of the Named Executive Officers participates in the plan on the same basis as all of our other employees. Participants are automatically enrolled in the plan after one year of service and become fully vested after six years. We contribute funds to the plan in profitable years, and on October 30, 2015,31, 2017, we contributed $15$18.0 million to the plan for the 20152017 fiscal year.

We also sponsor a 401(k) retirement plan that is available to all of our employees after one year of service. The Named Executive Officers participate on the same basis as all other employees. Eligible employees may contribute up to 15% of their salary to the plan on apre-tax basis through payroll deductions. We began matching employee contributions to the plan in 2000, and will match 100% of an employee’s contribution up to 3% of his or her salary, and 50% of such contribution that exceeds 3% but does not exceed 5% of his or her salary. Sanderson Farms common stock is not an investment option under the plan.

28

We also provide other benefits such as medical, dental and long-term/short-term disability (up to 66 2/3% of salary not exceeding $180,000 per year in long-term disability payments) coverage, as well as vacation and other paid holidays. Beginning with our 2001 fiscal year, we began paying premiums on term life insurance policies for all employees. The death benefit under these policies depends on the amount of the employee’s annual salary, up to a maximum benefit of $100,000 and a minimum of $50,000 for salaried employees. These benefit programs are comparable to those provided at other large companies. They are designed to provide certain basic quality of life benefits and protections to our employees and at the same time enhance our attractiveness as an employer.

In 2008, the Committee adopted a Supplemental Disability Plan for the CEO. The plan provides that if the CEO becomes disabled as defined in our long term disability plan for all our salaried employees, he will receive a monthly benefit equal to 66 2/3% of his salary beginning one year from the date of disability until the date that he has received five years of payments or his 70th birthday, whichever occurs first, with a minimum of 12 months of payments. This is the same benefit that is provided to all participants in our long term disability plan who are 60 years or older. Participants who become disabled before their 60^th60th birthday would receive the benefit until they reach age 65. The Committee adopted the supplemental plan because our long term disability plan places an annual dollar limit on the benefit that participants can receive, which would have resulted, if the CEO became disabled at the time the supplemental plan was adopted, in a benefit to him of only 26% of his then current salary. The employment agreements that the Company entered into with the COO and CFO in 2009 (and again in 2015) made those officers participants in the supplemental plan.

29

The Company’s portion of the cost of health benefits provided in the 20152017 fiscal year for the Named Executive Officers was as follows:

20152017 Health Benefits

The 401(k) contribution, health plan and life insurance premiums, as well as dividends paid on restricted stock and matching charitable contributions, under our charitable gift programeach as disclosed in the proxy statement, are ratified by the Committee in January of the year following the year for which they were made. The Board of Directors approves the annual ESOP contribution, if any, in October of each year.

All employees may elect to continue participating in our health benefit plan following their retirement, but they must pay 100% of the premium cost.

In rare instances, we have continued, because of the applicable circumstances, to pay the base salaries of certain key employees for a short period of time after their deaths. None of those employees served at any time as an executive officer of Sanderson Farms. However, the employment agreements we entered into with the CEO, COO and CFO provide that we will continue to make base salary payments to their designated beneficiary or estate for a period of one year from the date of the officer’s death.

Perquisites

We provide certain perquisites to our executives, which consist primarily of personal use of our Company aircraft by the CEO and his immediate family. This perquisite provides flexibility to the CEO and increases travel efficiencies, allowing more productive use of executive time, in turn allowing greater focus on Sanderson Farms-related activities. The Company also permits the COO and CFO to use Company aircraft in times of family or other emergencies. In some cases, the Company also permits and pays for the Named Executive Officers’ spouses to accompany them on the corporate aircraft. The amounts of these perquisites are ratified by the Committee in January of the year following payment. More detail on our perquisites may be found in the narrative following the Summary Compensation Table, below.

29

Compensation Recoupment Policy

In October 2010, the Committee adopted a policy requiring the Board or the Committee to seek to recoup incentive-based compensation paid to our directors, executive officers or other personnel whenever required by law or the rules of the Nasdaq Stock Market. In addition, the Board or the Committee, in its discretion, may determine, as a result of a restatement of our financial statements or misconduct that adversely affects us by a member of our management executive committee or a director, to take such actions it deems necessary or appropriate and in our best interests with respect to the executive committee member, or the director in the case of director misconduct, to address the restatement or misconduct. Such actions may include, to the extent permitted by law and our charter andBy-Laws:

The recoupment policy is in addition to the authority under the Stock Incentive Plan to cancel awards or recoup the value of shares in the event of detrimental activity by the participant.

30

Stock Ownership Guidelines

In October 2004, the Committee recommended and the Board of Directors adoptednon-binding stock ownership guidelines for our management, in an effort to encourage increased ownership of our Company by key employees and directors. Willis Towers Watson has periodically reviewed the guidelines and in 2013, at Willis Towers Watson’s recommendation, the Committee determined to recalculate the guidelines for officers using fiscal 2014 salaries. We believe that these guidelines are reasonable to achieve and will be a long-term benefit to all of our stockholders by helping to align management and stockholder interests. They also encourage officers and directors to hold purchased shares and vested option shares, restricted stock and performance shares, as applicable, for long-term investment. “Stock ownership” includes stock owned directly, indirectly through the 401(k) plan or Employee Stock Ownership Plan, restricted stock, and earned performance shares. The guidelines are based on a multiple of base salary and director annual retainer fees, and are set forth in the table below. As of our 20152017 fiscal year, the CEO, COO, CFOeach named Executive Officer and directorsdirector had exceeded the guidelines below. Timothy Rigney became our Secretary and Controller effective November 1, 2012, and has not yet reached the ownership guideline for his new position. Officers are encouraged to achieve the guidelines over a period of four years.

Stock Ownership Guidelines

It is Sanderson Farms’ policy that our directors and all employees, including the Named Executive Officers, not trade their vested Sanderson Farms stock, other than shares underlying options, on a short-term basis (i.e., shares must be held for a minimum of six months). Employees and directors may not purchase Sanderson Farms stock on margin, buy or sell put or call options linked to Sanderson Farms stock, or hold Company securities in a margin account. Finally, employees and directors may not pledge Company securities as collateral for a loan, although an employee or director can request a waiver of this policy where he or she can clearly demonstrate the financial capacity to repay the loan without resort to the pledged securities.

30

Tax and Accounting Considerations

For income tax purposes, we may not deduct any portion of compensation that is in excess of $1 million paid in a taxable year to the CEO CFO, COO and Secretary, unlesscertain other highly paid executives. In 2017 and prior years, this rule did not apply to compensation that compensation qualifiesqualified as “performance-based compensation” under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (referred to as the “Code”). Our Bonus Award Program and certain awards we may make under our Stock Incentive Plan, like the performance shares, are based on the Company meeting specified performance criteria. However, Section 162(m) of the Code requiresrequired that the performance criteria and material terms of these plans be approved by our stockholders every five years and that we comply with certain other requirements in order for awards to meet the definition of “performance-based” and thus be fully deductible. While the Committee generally strives to structure employee compensation in order to preserve maximum deductibility, it maymade from time to time make awards that dodid not meet the Code’s definition of “performance-based compensation.” For example, we havedid not sought to qualify our Bonus Award Program under Section 162(m) because Section 162(m) would requirehave required us to remove certain discretionary features of the program that we believe are critical for management retention, and therefore are in the best interest of our stockholders.

Under the federal tax reform legislation signed into law on December 22, 2017, the performance-based pay exception to Section 162(m) was eliminated, but a transition rule may allow the exception to continue to apply to certain performance-based compensation payable under written agreements that were in effect on November 2, 2017.

In the first quarter of our 2006 fiscal year, we adopted Revised Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, “Share-Based Payment” (FAS 123(R)). FAS 123(R) requires all share-based payments to employees, including grants of employee stock options, restricted stock and performance shares, to be recognized in our income statement based on their fair values. Before the adoption of FAS 123(R), we accounted for share-based payments to employees using an intrinsic value method and, therefore, we generally recognized no compensation cost for employee stock options. Based upon the provisions of FAS 123(R), we are required to accrue stock-based compensation expense as it is earned. This change in accounting rules has influenced the Committee to make restricted stock and performance share awards in lieu of option awards. Other factors that have made restricted stock and performance share awards more attractive than option awards include their generally smaller dilutive effect and the performance incentive they provide even in times when our stock price is depressed.

31

Evaluation of Executive Performance

In evaluating the performance of the individual Named Executive Officers before setting or adjusting compensation, the Committee and the Board of Directors do not rely solely on predetermined formulas. Rather, they focus on those officers’ individual objectives. The Committee evaluates the CEO’s performance in consultation with the Board, and it evaluates the other Named Executive Officers with the input of the CEO.

In 2014,2016, the Committee based its decisions for fiscal 20152017 compensation on the assessment of the Company’s fiscal 20142016 performance and the Named Executive Officers’ objectives and strategies, as follows: