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

Fuel Pricing Impacts Irrigation Pumping Costs Across All Systems 

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a 7-2&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1068_n7ip.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">decision</a>&nbsp;in&nbsp;Monsanto v.&nbsp;Durnell,&nbsp;holding&nbsp;that state‑law failure‑to‑warn claims related to pesticide labeling are expressly preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The case arose after John Durnell, a longtime Roundup user diagnosed with non‑Hodgkin’s lymphoma, sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging the company failed to warn consumers about cancer risks. Monsanto argued that FIFRA preempted such claims because federal law requires manufacturers to use EPA‑approved labels—and Roundup’s label, repeatedly reviewed and approved by the EPA since 1974, contains no cancer warning.&nbsp;



Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion emphasized FIFRA’s “uniformity” clause, which prohibits states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” federal requirements. Because&nbsp;Mr.&nbsp;Durnell’s&nbsp;failure-to-warn&nbsp;claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning not included on the EPA‑approved label, the Court held the claim constituted an additional labeling requirement and was therefore preempted.&nbsp;The majority&nbsp;relied&nbsp;heavily on the fact that this was a safety claim, and during the registration process, the EPA thoroughly reviews all safety-related issues.&nbsp;&nbsp;The majority stressed that EPA’s label approval reflects its determination that the label is not misleading and contains all necessary warnings; allowing states to impose additional requirements would undermine FIFRA’s regulatory structure.&nbsp;



Justice Thomas concurred but questioned FIFRA’s constitutionality, arguing Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause authority and improperly delegated legislative power to the EPA.&nbsp;He also seemed to question whether agriculture in general could be regulated pursuant to the Commerce Clause.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented.&nbsp;The dissent believed&nbsp;Mr.&nbsp;Durnell’s claim was equivalent to FIFRA’s misbranding standard, not “different from” it. Because EPA had not set specific cancer‑related warning requirements, she contended that Missouri’s failure‑to‑warn law merely duplicated federal obligations. The dissent emphasized that registration is only prima facie evidence of compliance and does not eliminate the possibility that a registered pesticide may still be misbranded. Jackson also rejected implied preemption, noting Monsanto could comply with both federal and state law by halting sales or seeking EPA approval for a revised label.&nbsp;



To read a more detailed summary,&nbsp;<a href="https://agrilife.org/texasaglaw/2026/06/26/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">click here</a>.&nbsp;



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



Recommended citation format: Lashmet, Tiffany Dowell. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/united-states-supreme-court-holds-roundup-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-federal-law/">United States Supreme Court Holds Roundup Failure to Warn Claims Preempted by Federal Law.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(29.5). July 17, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/united-states-supreme-court-holds-roundup-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-federal-law/">Permalink</a>

United States Supreme Court Holds Roundup Failure to Warn Claims Preempted by Federal Law 

Established following the May 2026 summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the U.S.-China Board of Trade is a new bilateral initiative aimed at rebuilding commercial ties between the U.S. and China by reducing trade barriers, addressing tariff disputes, and encouraging trade between countries (USTR, 2026). Implementation details, including which products will be covered, how procurement commitments will be measured, and how compliance will be enforced, are still being finalized.&nbsp;



In a recent bipartisan letter to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, members of Congress urged the Administration to explicitly include “American hardwood lumber” in the newly established framework, to ensure that China’s procurement commitments prioritize U.S. hardwood lumber. The lawmakers argue that restoring access to the Chinese market is critical for the U.S. hardwood industry. As noted in the letter, the industry has suffered nearly $10 billion in lost sales and a 48% decline in domestic hardwood lumber production since the onset of the U.S. trade war with China in 2018. See the following link for a full copy of the letter:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.shaheen.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ustr_hardwood_letter.pdf">https://www.shaheen.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ustr_hardwood_letter.pdf</a>.&nbsp;



The importance of this letter becomes clearer when viewed in the context of the hardwood industry and declining export sales, especially to China.&nbsp;



The U.S. is one of the world’s leading producers and exporters of hardwood logs and lumber, with exports providing an important source of income for forest landowners, sawmills, and rural communities. Hardwood exports are particularly significant in the U.S. South, a region characterized by abundant timber resources and a strong dependence on international markets for sales. For instance, the largest hardwood export category, oak lumber (red and white), was valued at $873 million in 2025, led by exports from the South ($327 million) where North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky are top suppliers. It is important to note that prior to the 2018 trade war, U.S. oak lumber exports were $1.3 billion. In 2017, China accounted for more than 60% of U.S. oak lumber exports. This decreased to 34% in 2025 (USDA, 2026).



Trade data show just how important the Chinese market has been for southern hardwood producers (See Figure 1). Exports of hardwood products from the South experienced strong growth after 2010, driven largely by rising demand from China. Southern hardwood lumber exports to all destinations increased from roughly $500 million in 2010 to more than $1.2 billion in 2017, while exports to China alone grew from less than $200 million to nearly $700 million over the same period. This pattern highlights the central role that China played in expanding markets for southern hardwood producers. Hardwood log exports also benefited from Chinese demand, although growth was more modest than for lumber.



The 2018 trade war marked a clear turning point. Following retaliatory tariffs imposed by China, hardwood lumber exports to China fell sharply, dropping by nearly half between 2018 and 2019. Exports have never returned to their pre-trade-war levels and continued to decline through 2025. Lumber exports from the South to all countries also trended downward after 2018, suggesting that losses in the Chinese market were only partially offset by sales to other destinations. Southern hardwood log exports have also weakened, although they have generally been more stable than lumber exports. Overall, the figure shows how deeply the southern hardwood industry depended on China before 2018 and how the trade war fundamentally altered exports.&nbsp;



Rebuilding trade with China could help strengthen the southern hardwood industry. Among overseas markets, China emerged as one of the most important destinations for U.S. hardwood products. Expanding furniture manufacturing and increasing demand for high-quality wood materials contributed to a substantial rise in U.S. hardwood exports to China. As a result, many U.S. hardwood producers became increasingly reliant on Chinese demand. These exports supported employment, investment, and forest management activities throughout southern states.&nbsp;



Figure 1. U.S. Hardwood Exports from Southern States to All Countries and China: 2010-2025



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="896" height="416" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.4-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44489" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.4-1.png 896w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.4-1-768x357.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 896px) 100vw, 896px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Note: Hardwood lumber exports are based on all Harmonized System (HS) classifications from 4407.91 – 4407.99, and hardwood logs are based on HS 4403.91 – HS 4403.99. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (2026)</figcaption></figure>



For more information:



Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) (2026).&nbsp;USTR Seeks Public Comment on the Scope and Operation of a Mechanism to Promote Balanced and Reciprocal Trade with China. Press Release (June 02, 2026).&nbsp;<a href="https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2026/june/ustr-seeks-public-comment-scope-and-operation-mechanism-promote-balanced-and-reciprocal-trade-china">https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2026/june/ustr-seeks-public-comment-scope-and-operation-mechanism-promote-balanced-and-reciprocal-trade-china</a>



U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2026).&nbsp;Global Agricultural Trade System. Foreign Agricultural Service.&nbsp;<a href="https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx">https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx</a>



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



Recommended citation format: Muhammad, Andrew. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/can-the-u-s-south-regain-its-hardwood-market-in-china/">Can the U.S. South Regain Its Hardwood Market in China?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(29.4). July 16, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/can-the-u-s-south-regain-its-hardwood-market-in-china/">Permalink</a>

Can the U.S. South Regain Its Hardwood Market in China?

The July World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report has a reputation as a quiet one for most crops. The reason is timing: USDA releases the Acreage report at the end of June (Rabinowitz, 2026), and the World Agricultural Outlook Board folds those acreage numbers into the July WASDE while leaving yield projections untouched until the August surveys begin. Wheat is the exception, receiving its largest yield revision of the year in July. Because the acreage numbers are already public, prices tend to move when the Acreage report is released, not when the WASDE repeats it two weeks later.



Figure 1 shows the average absolute revision to acreage and yield in each monthly WASDE from the 2010/11 marketing year through the most recent report. The pattern is clear: the largest acreage revisions cluster in July with small changes to yield estimates when the Acreage report enters the balance sheet, and the largest yield revisions arrive in August with the first survey-based estimates.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;



On the supply side, the July 2026 WASDE mostly followed the script. Acreage changed for soybeans (+0.8%), wheat (-2.5%), cotton (+2.2%), and rice (-12.9%), while corn acreage was left unchanged. Yield revisions were modest: wheat (+1.9%), cotton (+0.7%), and rice (+0.2%), with corn and soybean yields held at trend. Adding in beginning stocks and imports, total corn supply fell 120 million bushels (-0.7%), soybean supply rose 30 million bushels (+0.6%), wheat supply fell 22 million bushels (-0.8%), cotton supply rose 0.4 million bales (+2.3%), and rice supply fell 20.9 million cwt (-7.6%).



On the demand side, corn and soybean total use increased 50 million bushels (+0.3%) and 30 million bushels (+0.7%), both on stronger exports. Rice was the opposite: USDA cut total use 9 million cwt (-3.9%), mostly domestic, to absorb part of the smaller crop.



The net result shows up in ending stocks. Carryout fell 8.7% for corn (moderately bullish), 3.0% for wheat (mildly bullish), and 27.8% for rice (strongly bullish), while cotton carryout rose 10.8% (bearish) and soybean carryout was unchanged (neutral).



The quiet reputation of the July WASDE is really a statement about yields, not about the balance sheet. The report rarely delivers new information because the June 30 Acreage and Grain Stocks reports have already done the talking, but as this month shows, what they say can be substantial. Rice supplies tightened dramatically, corn carryout fell on stronger old-crop use, and cotton stocks built with no offsetting demand. For Southern producers, the July report is less a market event than a scorecard of how the June Acreage and Grain Stocks reports reshaped the year ahead. The real test arrives in August, when USDA replaces trend yields with its first survey-based estimates and the largest revisions of the season historically follow. With corn and soybean yields still penciled in at trend, August, not July, is the report with the most room to surprise.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1891" height="2560" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/wasde_area_yield_revisions_page-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44483" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/wasde_area_yield_revisions_page-scaled.png 1891w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/wasde_area_yield_revisions_page-756x1024.png 756w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/wasde_area_yield_revisions_page-768x1040.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/wasde_area_yield_revisions_page-1135x1536.png 1135w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/wasde_area_yield_revisions_page-1513x2048.png 1513w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1891px) 100vw, 1891px" /></figure>



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



Recommended citation format: Gardner, Grant. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/july-2026-wasde-acreage-moves-in-july-yields-move-in-august/">July 2026 WASDE: Acreage Moves in July, Yields Move in August.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(29.3). July 15, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/july-2026-wasde-acreage-moves-in-july-yields-move-in-august/">Permalink</a>

July 2026 WASDE: Acreage Moves in July, Yields Move in August

Of all the factors that might influence the cost of producing poultry for U.S. contract growers, data centers likely would not come to mind. Yet their impact may be broader than expected, bringing both benefits and challenges.



First, we might consider what a data center does.&nbsp;&nbsp;They are physical buildings that house large numbers of computer servers.&nbsp;&nbsp;These computers provide 3 basic roles:&nbsp;&nbsp;data storage, computer processing, and sending out digital information.&nbsp;&nbsp;Artificial intelligence (AI) systems use these massive computer systems to perform the calculations, searches, and generate answers.&nbsp;&nbsp;Because a data center is a massive number of computer networks linked together, they require a massive amount of electricity and water to keep them running and cool.



On the positive side, modern poultry farms are increasingly connected through internet-based, integrated control systems. AI based decision systems hold the potential to further transform management decision making leading to economic gains.&nbsp;&nbsp;Internet based control systems allow growers to monitor and adjust housing conditions around the clock from virtually anywhere using smart devices. The continued expansion of data networks enhances the speed, reliability, and responsiveness of these systems. This benefits growers by helping them better maintain bird welfare and respond quickly to changing conditions, while integrators gain from improved efficiency and lower grow-out costs.&nbsp;



However, the downside is more complex. Data centers are massive consumers of electricity. Estimates suggest their power demand could rise significantly by the end of the decade, potentially accounting for a sizable share of total U.S. electricity use. Increased demand from data centers is widely expected to contribute to higher electricity costs. This matters greatly for poultry operations, which already rely heavily on electricity for ventilation, cooling, and environmental control. A typical broiler farm in the Southeast may use around 1.65 kWh per square foot annually, totaling roughly 132 megawatt-hours for a standard four-house operation.&nbsp;



Water use presents another important area of overlap. Both poultry farms and data centers require substantial amounts of water to manage heat. A large data center may consume over a million gallons of water per day, many times what an entire broiler farm uses in a full year. Although the scale and timing differ, both experience peak demand during hot weather. Additionally, both are often located in rural areas where supply systems may be less robust and water resources more limited. Increased competition for water can strain local utilities, drive up water costs, and potentially deplete aquifers that supply farm wells. This is particularly concerning in regions already facing tight water supplies.



The effects may extend even further into heating costs. To meet growing electricity demand, much of it driven by data centers, utility companies are investing in new natural gas-fired power plants as a relatively fast way to expand generation capacity. In parts of the Southeast, planned additions of natural gas capacity are substantial (Figure 1). Some data center operators are even considering on-site natural gas generation to power their facilities independently.



For poultry growers, this increased demand for natural gas could lead to higher fuel prices if supply does not expand sufficiently. Since heating is a major cost, especially in broiler production, this could significantly affect profitability. The situation is further complicated by the link between natural gas and propane (LP), as a large share of U.S. propane is derived from natural gas production. Increased natural gas output could potentially boost propane supply and moderate LP prices, meaning growers using propane might see different cost impacts than those relying on natural gas.



In short, while data centers provide the internet infrastructure to improve efficiency for modern poultry production, they also intensify competition for electricity, water, and fuel. This creates a mixed and evolving cost landscape for growers.



Figure 1: Looking at the top 10 broiler producing states, increased natural gas usage by power plants is seen across the board. However, the broiler heavy states of Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and North Carolina are leading the way in increased NG usage for electricity production (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2026)



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2158" height="1063" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44467" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.2.png 2158w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.2-1024x504.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.2-768x378.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.2-1536x757.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.2-2048x1009.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2158px) 100vw, 2158px" /></figure>



References: 



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>“Welcome to Gas Land – how natural gas is powering the AI boom.”&nbsp;<a href="http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/">www.datacenterdynamics.com</a>, May 01, 2025</li>



<li>“Propane Supply News and Market Update.”,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.propaneresources.com/">www.propaneresources.com</a>, June 30, 2026</li>
</ul>



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



Recommended citation format: Brothers, Dennis. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/data-centers-and-poultry-growers/">Data Centers and Poultry Growers.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(29.2). July 14, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/data-centers-and-poultry-growers/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities