Authors: Andrew Wright and Manuel Garcia



Many producers hire custom operators to perform production activities on their farms. The costs of these services vary by state, service, and provider, and are often not publicly advertised. For this reason, many state extension services survey producers and custom operators to estimate the cost of custom services in their states. In February of this year, Texas A&amp;M AgriLife Extension published its most recent survey of custom rates in Texas. The results offer additional insight into how rising costs have affected farmers&#8217; bottom lines in the state.



The survey was conducted from August through October 2025 and is based on responses from 391 individuals, including producers, custom operators, farm managers, and extension agents. While we cannot summarize all results here, we can highlight some general conclusions about row-crop operations.&nbsp;



Figure 1 summarizes the average percentage change in the reported custom rate for each category of operations included in the survey since 2020, the last time this survey was conducted. On average, the largest cost increases were observed in the tractor rental and application services categories. Custom rates for row crop operations (i.e., tilling, planting, harvesting, and application services) increased by 30 to 39 percent in Texas.



As we consider these results, we might ask two questions: 1) How do the observations from the Texas survey compare with the general rise in costs across the national economy, and 2) How do the Texas custom rates compare with those of other Southern states?&nbsp;



To help answer the first question, Figure 1 also includes two measures from the Producer Price Index (PPI), which tracks the average change in selling prices producers receive for their output. The first measure shown in the figure is the percentage change in the average annual PPI from 2020 to 2025 across all goods and services. The second shows the percentage change in the average annual PPI for farm machinery and equipment manufacturing over the same period. Both measures fall within the range of increases we’ve seen for custom rates for row-crop operations in Texas.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The second question is more difficult to answer. Many states conduct surveys of custom rates, like the Texas survey (see Table 1 for links to the most recent reports on custom rates in other southern states). Table 2 compares selected Texas custom rates from our most recent survey with those for similar activities in other states.&nbsp;



Overall, the custom rates reported for Texas are not dissimilar to those reported in other states. However, keep in mind these surveys are not conducted on the same schedule or using the same methods, so direct comparisons are limited.



Most of the custom rates we report here for Texas include the cost of machinery, fuel, and operator labor. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the increase in custom rates we observe can be explained in large part by increases in the retail price of farm machinery, higher interest rates (the cost of financing machinery purchases), and, more recently, higher fuel costs.



While it is no secret that farm operating expenses have risen recently, the conversation typically focuses on fertilizer, fuel, and chemical costs. The 2026 Texas Custom Rate Survey highlights a broader rise in operating expenses beyond these categories. That said, we think it is important to note that since 2020, the sticker price for new and used farm machinery has increased significantly as well. While custom rates have certainly increased, many producers may still find it more cost-effective to hire custom work than to finance machinery purchases and perform these operations themselves.



Figure 1. Average percentage increases in Texas custom rates, 2020-2026



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="968" height="400" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.31.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44453" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.31.1-1.png 968w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.31.1-1-768x317.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 968px) 100vw, 968px" /></figure>



Table 1. Links to recent custom rate surveys conducted in southern states



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>State</td><td>Year</td><td>Link</td></tr><tr><td>TX</td><td>2026</td><td><a href="https://agecoext.tamu.edu/resources/custom-rate-survey/">https://agecoext.tamu.edu/resources/custom-rate-survey/</a></td></tr><tr><td>OK</td><td>2021-2022</td><td><a href="https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/print-publications/cr/cr-205-farm-and-ranch-custom-rates-2021-2022.pdf">https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/print-publications/cr/cr-205-farm-and-ranch-custom-rates-2021-2022.pdf</a></td></tr><tr><td>AR</td><td>2025</td><td><a href="https://www.uaex.uada.edu/publications/PDF/fsa-21.pdf">https://www.uaex.uada.edu/publications/PDF/fsa-21.pdf</a></td></tr><tr><td>MS</td><td>2024</td><td><a href="https://extension.msstate.edu/sites/default/files/publications/P4048_web.pdf">https://extension.msstate.edu/sites/default/files/publications/P4048_web.pdf</a></td></tr><tr><td>GA</td><td>2024</td><td><a href="https://agecon.uga.edu/content/dam/caes-subsite/ag-econ/documents/extension/Decision%20Aids/Georgia%20Custom%20Rate%20Survey%20Summary%202024.pdf">https://agecon.uga.edu/content/dam/caes-subsite/ag-econ/documents/extension/Decision%20Aids/Georgia%20Custom%20Rate%20Survey%20Summary%202024.pdf</a></td></tr><tr><td>TN</td><td>2023</td><td><a href="https://utia.tennessee.edu/publications/wp-content/uploads/sites/269/2024/07/D239.pdf">https://utia.tennessee.edu/publications/wp-content/uploads/sites/269/2024/07/D239.pdf</a></td></tr><tr><td>KY</td><td>2024</td><td><a href="https://agecon.mgcafe.uky.edu/sites/agecon.ca.uky.edu/files/CustomMachineryRatesApplicableKentucky%282024%29.pdf">https://agecon.mgcafe.uky.edu/sites/agecon.ca.uky.edu/files/CustomMachineryRatesApplicableKentucky%282024%29.pdf</a></td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



Table 2. Comparison of custom rates across similar activities in southern states



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td colspan="5">Average rate ($/acre)</td></tr><tr><td>Category</td><td>Custom work</td><td>Texas (2026)</td><td>Arkansas (2025)</td><td>Mississippi (2024)</td><td>Georgia (2024)</td><td>Kentucky (2024)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Land tillage</td><td>Disk/Disk-harrow</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;24.2&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15.3&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16.8&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;21.7&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.0&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Field Cultivator</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;19.0&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10.5&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16.5&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;15.9&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;19.0&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Fertilizer application</td><td>Liquid fertilizer</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10.8&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;16.5&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;12.3&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;18.4&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9.0&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Aerial fertilizer</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.6&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.6&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;25.1&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Dry fertilizer</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.4&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4.6&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;9.0&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;13.0&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;7.5&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Combine</td><td>Combine corn</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;34.7&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;66.6&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;47.0&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;58.5&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;42.0&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Combine soybeans</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;39.7&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;43.1&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;43.0&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;54.7&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;40.0&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Combine wheat/small grains</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;31.3&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;40.7&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;41.0&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;52.3&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;$&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;38.5&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Note: Arkansas rates are based on: Disk harrow (28&#8242;), Field cultivator (24&#8242;), Liquid fert appl (8R-30), and combines for corn (6R-30), soybean (25&#8242; flex), and wheat/sorghum (22&#8242; rigid).</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



References



U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Index by Commodity: All Commodities [PPIACO], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PPIACO,&nbsp;June 20, 2026.&nbsp;&nbsp;



U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Index by Industry: Farm Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing [PCU333111333111], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCU333111333111,&nbsp;June 25, 2026.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Wright, Andrew, and Manuel Garcia. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/rising-custom-rates-add-to-producer-cost-pressures/">Rising Custom Rates Add to Producer Cost Pressures.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(31.1). July 27, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/rising-custom-rates-add-to-producer-cost-pressures/">Permalink</a>

Rising Custom Rates Add to Producer Cost Pressures

Authors: Kimberly L. Morgan and Maria Bampasidou



Specialty crop operations are navigating the complex intersection of economic, environmental, and regulatory pressures that continually test their financial resilience. Producers must strategically balance decisions related to farm size, geographic market access, crop diversification, and resource allocation while adhering to evolving local, state, and federal regulations. The foundational economic principle of maximizing revenue while minimizing costs is straightforward in theory but executing it in practice demands careful evaluation of both internal capabilities and external market conditions.



Labor scarcity and technological adaptation represent two of the most pressing operational challenges facing specialty crop growers today. Because these crops require significant hands-on attention, especially during peak production cycles, securing a reliable and affordable workforce leads to sustainable growth of farm operations. Emerging technologies including robotics, precision agriculture tools, sensors, and AI-driven systems offer meaningful potential to improve productivity and reduce crop loss, but only when paired with a skilled workforce capable of deploying them effectively. Investing in education and training pipelines, from certification programs to technical degrees, is essential to developing the next generation of agricultural professionals who can operate at the intersection of traditional farming knowledge and modern innovation.



Potential pathways to fruition exist for specialty crop growers who prioritize data-driven decision-making, strategic market responsiveness, and collaborative industry relationships and are best positioned to manage risk and maintain competitiveness. Technologies like citrus under protected structure (CUPS) systems demonstrate how targeted innovation can simultaneously improve yield quality, accelerate growth, and provide resilience against pests and extreme weather events. However, technological investment alone is not sufficient, as long-term success also depends on the trusted partnerships and community commitments that have historically defined the industry. Farms that integrate careful planning, supply chain awareness, and strong professional networks will be better equipped to differentiate their products, control costs, and adapt to the economic uncertainties that define specialty crop production in 2026 and beyond.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>

Pathways to Profit Fruition for Southeastern U.S. Specialty Crops

Authors: Bart L. Fischer and Joe Outlaw



In June 2024, we wrote (<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/06/06/examining-farm-bill-base-acre-proposals/">link</a>) about a novel new concept for adding base acres to farms that had been proposed in the House Ag Committee-passed version of the 2024 Farm Bill (Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024). The concept ultimately was adopted in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1) that was signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025. As we noted in July 2025 (<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2025/07/31/addressing-questions-about-additional-base-acres-in-the-one-big-beautiful-bill/">link</a>), the provision allowed up to 30 million additional base acres across the nation. Over the past year, USDA has been working to implement the provision. On June 1, 2026, USDA began notifying producers about the opportunity to add base acres to farms. The notification includes a “Base Allocation Summary” that provides the farm’s reported acres by covered commodity for any planted, prevented planted, failed, double crop, and subsequent acres (acres planted after an initial commodity)—along with the total number of acres of non-covered commodities—for each year from 2019 to 2023.&nbsp;&nbsp;While the calculations in the worksheet can be a little confusing to follow, the good news is that the additional base allocation will occur automatically (and can only increase the base acres on your farm—in other words, the additional base allocation cannot take base acres away from you nor reallocate existing base acres).&nbsp;&nbsp;Since the process is largely automated, you really only have to make some basic decisions by the August 31, 2026, deadline.&nbsp;&nbsp;Specifically, according to USDA, you should notify your local FSA office if:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>the acreage history data in your Base Allocation Summary is incorrect or missing;</li>



<li>there are “subsequent acres” listed and you would like to choose the subsequent acreage for base allocation; or</li>



<li>you elect to opt out of receiving any additional base acres.</li>
</ul>



It is clear from the implementing rule and the Base Allocation Summary that the additional base allocation process first converts unassigned base acres on an acre-for-acre basis, so long as the converted acres do not exceed the total amount of additional allocation on the farm. To read more on the implications for unassigned base acres, see this February 2026 article by Dr. Amy Hagerman (<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/02/19/bringing-unassigned-base-back-into-program-eligibility-for-cotton-producers/">link</a>). Finally, you will note that the Base Allocation Summary refers to “Potential Allocation” because USDA will have to apply an across-the-board pro-rata reduction if the total calculated additional base acre allocation exceeds 30 million acres. Notably, neither the 30-million-acre limit nor the pro-rata reduction apply to the converted unassigned base acres.



Beyond decisions about the allocation of additional base acres, producers will soon have to make the annual election and enrollment decisions for ARC and PLC for the 2026 crop year.&nbsp;&nbsp;This decision is typically made in the Spring before most crops are planted, but it has been delayed for the 2026 crop year as USDA has been implementing various provisions in the&nbsp;One Big Beautiful Bill Act. USDA has made it clear that they will announce ARC/PLC election/enrollment timeframes once the additional base acre allocation process has been completed. This is beneficial for producers because they will have much more knowledge about how the 2026 crop year is unfolding before having to make the decision. Once USDA announces the election/enrollment timeline, you can utilize the Agricultural &amp; Food Policy Center’s ARC/PLC decision tool (which will be available at this&nbsp;<a href="https://afpc.tamu.edu/tools">link</a>) to run the latest payment projections.&nbsp;&nbsp;While you can find a number of ARC and PLC payment projections online, we’d encourage you to use AFPC’s decision tool to compare both ARC and PLC projected payments and to make decisions based on your own level of risk tolerance.&nbsp;&nbsp;It is also important that you consider any implications for crop insurance as you are making your decisions about ARC and PLC.&nbsp;&nbsp;



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>

Upcoming Farm Policy Decisions for Producers

USDA’s July World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report, released July 10, projects U.S. rice production at one of its lowest levels in nearly four decades. Total rice production is estimated at 153.3 million hundredweight, which would be the smallest crop since 1987. Long-grain rice, the predominant type grown in the Mid-South, is projected at 104.1 million hundredweight, its lowest level since 1993. The total rice production estimate was lowered by nearly 13 percent from the June 2026 WASDE following the reduction in planted acreage reported in USDA’s June Acreage report.



Total U.S. rice planted acreage is estimated at 2.02 million acres in 2026, its lowest level since 1972 (Table 1). Acreage is projected to decline in every major rice-producing state, with several states reaching historically low levels. Arkansas is estimated to plant 851,000 acres, its lowest acreage since 1977. Mississippi acreage is projected at only 45,000 acres, the lowest level since 1961. Texas rice acreage is estimated at 113,000 acres, its lowest level since USDA began reporting state rice acreage in 1929.



Reduced acreage and production have substantially tightened the U.S. rice supply outlook. Long-grain rice ending stocks are projected at 17.7 million hundredweight for the 2026 marketing year, down 52 percent from last year. In response to tighter supplies, USDA raised its projected season-average farm price for long-grain rice to $13.50 per hundredweight, compared with $10.40 last year. Although reduced acreage has improved the price outlook, profitability remains a concern for many producers because prices are still unlikely to offset high production costs.&nbsp;



In the Mississippi Delta, the nation’s largest rice-producing region, producers are projected to experience a sixth consecutive year of negative returns (Figure 1). Recent USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates place the total cost of producing an acre of rice in the region at $1,411. Production costs are up more than 12 percent from the previous year, driven largely by higher fertilizer and fuel expenses. Based on the assumed 2026 price ($13.50/cwt) and yield (80 cwt), producers would face an estimated loss of $331 per acre. Although these estimates will not reflect the circumstances of every operation, they indicate that many U.S. rice producers will continue to face a difficult profitability environment in 2026.



<figure class="wp-block-table aligncenter has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td colspan="5">Table 1. Rice Planted Acreage by State, 2025–2026, and Historical Low Comparison</td></tr><tr><td></td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2025</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">2026</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Lowest Acres Since</td></tr><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">March</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">June</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>Arkansas</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1,284,000&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1,001,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">851,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1977</td></tr><tr><td>California</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;524,000&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">508,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">455,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2022</td></tr><tr><td>Louisiana</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;482,000&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">430,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">400,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2017</td></tr><tr><td>Mississippi</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;164,000&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">80,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">45,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1961</td></tr><tr><td>Missouri</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;213,000&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">175,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">153,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2011</td></tr><tr><td>Texas</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;145,000&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">125,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">113,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1929</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2,812,000&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2,319,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">2,017,000</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">1972</td></tr></tbody></table></figure>



Source: USDA WASDE&nbsp;July 2026,&nbsp;NASS Quickstats



Figure 1. Rice Production Costs and Returns for the Mississippi Delta Region



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2140" height="1283" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.30.3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44495" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.30.3.png 2140w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.30.3-1024x614.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.30.3-768x460.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.30.3-1536x921.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.30.3-2048x1228.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2140px) 100vw, 2140px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Source: USDA Economic Research Service Cost of Production Estimates. The 2026 revenue estimate is based on USDA’s projected season-average farm price of $13.50 per hundredweight and an assumed yield of 80 hundredweight per acre.</figcaption></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format:

U.S. Rice Production Projected Near a 40-Year Low

As of early July 2026, pasture and rangeland conditions across much of the country remain drier than they were a year ago, though several regions have improved some in the past month. USDA details pasture and rangeland conditions in weekly crop progress reports. The share of pasture rated poor or very poor is a useful gauge of overall forage condition, and it often reflects moisture stress in particular.



In the Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, and WV), pasture and rangeland rated poor or very poor started near 36 percent in early May when the report began. Conditions have improved, easing to about 26 percent by the week ending July 5. Even with that improvement, the region is running well behind last year, when only about 6 percent of pasture was rated poor or very poor at this point in the year. Current ratings also sit above the five-year average of roughly 15 percent for early July, indicating that forage is noticeably drier than producers have grown accustomed to.



The Southern Plains (Texas and Oklahoma) show a similar pattern. Poor and very poor ratings started near 38 percent in early May and have eased to about 29 percent in early July. That is higher than the roughly 12 percent rated poor or very poor a year ago, but close to the five-year average near 26 percent for this time of year.&nbsp;



Conditions in the other regions are mixed. In the West, poor and very poor ratings have held in the high 20 percent range, an improvement over last year near 38 percent and slightly better than the five-year average. The Great Plains remain the trouble spot, with ratings near 40 percent in early July. That is down from more than 50 percent in mid-May, but still well above last year near 24 percent and above the five-year average, making it the region most stressed relative to normal.



While range and pasture condition improvement in recent weeks is certainly positive, overall conditions continue to hold back cattle herd expansion.&nbsp;&nbsp;Beyond moisture, producers across southern pastures are also contending with the pasture mealybug, an invasive insect that is damaging bermudagrass and other forages.&nbsp;&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="922" height="598" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.30.2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44471" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.30.2-1.png 922w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.30.2-1-768x498.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 922px) 100vw, 922px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="936" height="606" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.30.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44472" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.30.2-2.png 936w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.30.2-2-768x497.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 936px) 100vw, 936px" /></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Maples, Josh. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/pasture-and-rangeland-conditions/">Pasture and Rangeland Conditions.</a>&#8220; Southern Ag Today 6(30.2). July 21, 2026. <a href="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/?p=44470">Permalink</a>

Pasture and Rangeland Conditions

Authors: Michael Deliberto and Stacia Davis-Conger



As crops enter the summer growing season, irrigation activities will be closely monitored as rising energy prices and drought have the potential to substantially increase irrigation costs. The conflict in the Middle East has caused fuel prices to increase, impacting farm production costs as the agricultural economy continues to struggle.&nbsp;



Examples of a surface water and a deep well irrigation system (both furrow irrigation via poly pipe) were created using the performance assumptions presented in Table 1. Both diesel and electric power sources are explored.&nbsp;&nbsp;A noticeable difference in system design is the required engine size (120 hp vs 100 hp) to achieve a common flow rate of 2,500 GPM as energy needed to pump water to the surface increases with depth. For a wide range of recent electricity and diesel fuel prices, the electric power source is generally more efficient and cost effective.&nbsp;



Table 1. Performance and Energy Consumption assumptions for surface and well irrigation systems with diesel and electric power.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">Surface</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">Well</td></tr><tr><td>2500 GPM / Engine</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">100 hp</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">120 hp</td></tr><tr><td>Run time per Acre-foot*</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">2.172 hours</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center" colspan="2">2.172 hours</td></tr><tr><td>Fuel Type</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Diesel</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Electric</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Diesel</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">Electric</td></tr><tr><td>Fuel Consumption rate**</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">6.78 gal / hr</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">84.7 kW</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">8.136 gal / hr</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">101.64 kW</td></tr><tr><td>Fuel Consumption per Acre-foot</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">14.73 gal</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">183.99 kWh</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">17.67 gal</td><td class="has-text-align-center" data-align="center">220.79 kWh</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">* 1 acre-foot = 325,851 gallons ** diesel consumption = 0.0678 gallons/horsepower/hour &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;electric consumption = 0.847 kW / horsepower</figcaption></figure>



Using Louisiana as an example, in an average year, furrow irrigation using poly pipe is expected to deliver 10.5 acre-inches of water in three applications throughout the growing season for corn, soybeans, and cotton crops. However, in a continuous flood system for rice, the number of acre-inches can vary from 20-26 in upwards of six applications.&nbsp;&nbsp;Irrigation pumping costs per acre are estimated for diesel and electric (Table 2) power options in surface and well irrigation systems.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Table 2. Irrigation diesel costs per-acre for varying fuel prices and applications&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-table has-small-font-size"><table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Diesel Fuel Price per gallon</td><td colspan="3">Surface</td><td colspan="3">Well</td><td rowspan="2">Electricity Price per kWh*</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">Row Crop Application at 10.5”</td><td>Rice Application at 24”</td><td colspan="2">Row Crop Application at 10.5”</td><td>Rice Application at 24”</td></tr><tr><td>$1.50</td><td>$19.33</td><td colspan="2">$44.19</td><td>$23.20</td><td colspan="2">$53.02</td><td>$0.1201</td></tr><tr><td>$2.00</td><td>$25.77</td><td colspan="2">$58.91</td><td>$30.93</td><td colspan="2">$70.70</td><td>$0.1601</td></tr><tr><td>$2.50</td><td>$32.22</td><td colspan="2">$73.64</td><td>$38.66</td><td colspan="2">$88.37</td><td>$0.2001&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>$3.00</td><td>$38.67</td><td colspan="2">$88.38</td><td>$46.39</td><td colspan="2">$106.04</td><td>$0.2401&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>$3.50</td><td>$45.11</td><td colspan="2">$103.10</td><td>$54.13</td><td colspan="2">$123.73</td><td>$0.2802&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>$4.00</td><td>$51.55</td><td colspan="2">$117.83</td><td>$61.86</td><td colspan="2">$141.39</td><td>$0.3202&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>$4.50</td><td>$57.99</td><td colspan="2">$132.56</td><td>$69.59</td><td colspan="2">$159.07</td><td>$0.3602&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>$5.00</td><td>$64.44</td><td colspan="2">$147.30</td><td>$77.32</td><td colspan="2">$176.74</td><td>$0.4002&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>$5.50</td><td>$70.88</td><td colspan="2">$162.10</td><td>$85.06</td><td colspan="2">$194.42</td><td>$0.4403&nbsp;</td></tr><tr><td>$6.00</td><td>$77.32</td><td colspan="2">$176.74</td><td>$92.79</td><td colspan="2">$212.04</td><td>$0.4803&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">* electricity price resulting in the same per acre irrigation cost.&nbsp;</figcaption></figure>



Variability in irrigation pumping costs can be observed in the following example for rice. Earlier this year, the diesel price was $3.00 per gallon. For a diesel-powered surface irrigation system applying 24 acre-inches of water, the total pumping costs would be $88.38 per acre. However, with a $5.00 per gallon fuel price, the pumping costs increase to $147.30 per acre. To irrigate a corn crop at 10.5 acre-inches for a surface system, pumping costs would increase from $38.67 to $64.44 per acre. These costs would only be magnified for a well system, as the cost per acre-inch is higher.&nbsp;



Table 2 also illustrates the general efficiency of electricity over diesel.&nbsp;&nbsp;The last column includes electric prices that would result in equivalent irrigation costs per acre for each level of diesel fuel price.&nbsp;&nbsp;With diesel at $5.00 per gallon, any electricity price less than $0.40/kWh would be more cost effective.&nbsp;&nbsp;Commercial electricity rates are generally in the range of $0.15 to $0.20/kWh.&nbsp;&nbsp;To match electric efficiency, diesel would have to be below $2.50/gallon.



This analysis illustrates the direct impact of energy prices on irrigation costs. Lingering drought conditions can further increase water pumping costs by increasing the frequency of application across all systems. The benefits obtained from utilizing existing strategies (e.g., weather-based scheduling, surge irrigation, bulk purchasing fuel) and cost-effective technologies (e.g., soil moisture sensors, automated pump control) to increase irrigation efficiency can produce long-term cost savings.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation Format: Delbierto, Michael, and Stacia Davis-Conger.&#8221;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/fuel-pricing-impacts-irrigation-pumping-costs-across-all-systems/">Fuel Pricing Impacts Irrigation Pumping Costs Across All Systems.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(30.1). July 20, 2026. Permalink

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities