A “triple threat” of low commodity prices, high input costs, and high interest rates creates a challenging financial environment for many producers.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is especially true for producers with little working capital and who rely on operating loans to finance their business activities.&nbsp;&nbsp;The good news is that one part of this “triple threat” may soon begin to ease.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The Federal Reserve began raising the federal funds rate in the first quarter of 2022 in response to rising inflation (see Figure 1).&nbsp;&nbsp;This started a series of rate increases that ended in August 2023.&nbsp;&nbsp;Since, then, the federal funds rate has held steady at 5.33%.&nbsp;&nbsp;As the federal funds rate increased, interest rates charged on agricultural loans went up from about 5% to around 9% (Figure 1).&nbsp;



However, in a speech on August 23, 2024, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell indicated that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) would begin to lower the federal funds rate, perhaps as early as their September meeting.&nbsp;&nbsp;As the FOMC lowers the federal funds rate, other interest rates will begin to fall as well.&nbsp;&nbsp;This will be a welcome reprieve for producers as the cost of borrowing to finance operations decreases.&nbsp;&nbsp;It also provides producers with opportunities to manage the debt they have incurred over the last few years at high interest rates.&nbsp;&nbsp;Two strategies that producers might use as interest rates fall are debt refinancing and debt consolidation.



When debt is refinanced, an existing loan is replaced by a new loan with different terms and conditions for repayment.&nbsp;&nbsp;The new loan pays off the remaining principal plus any accrued interest that is still owed on the old loan.&nbsp;&nbsp;The amount that is paid off becomes the principal owed on the new loan.&nbsp;&nbsp;Payments are then made on this new loan, ideally with lower periodic payments.&nbsp;&nbsp;Debt consolidation is a form of refinancing in which multiple debts are combined into a single loan.&nbsp;&nbsp;The new loan pays off the remaining principal and any accrued interest on all the old loans, and the amount that is paid off becomes the principal owed on the new loan.



The primary benefit of refinancing or consolidating debt is smaller monthly or periodic payments, which occurs for two reasons.&nbsp;&nbsp;First, refinancing or consolidating debt often involves extending the debt’s repayment period.&nbsp;&nbsp;The amount owed is paid back over a longer period than the original loan(s) terms allowed for, so payments in each month are less.&nbsp;&nbsp;Second, refinancing or consolidating debt as interest rates decrease means the new loan should charge less in interest monthly than was charged on the old loan(s).&nbsp;&nbsp;The potential results of this benefit include improved monthly cash flow and an easier time making regular payments on debt.



Before a producer considers either of these strategies to help manage their debt, it is important to consider the potential pitfalls of refinancing or consolidation.&nbsp;&nbsp;First, extending the loan payment period may incur higher total interest costs.&nbsp;&nbsp;Although the amount owed in any single period is less, the fact that the loan principal is paid back over a longer time means interest accrues for longer as well.&nbsp;&nbsp;Therefore, there may be a tradeoff between lower periodic payments and higher overall costs for the loan.&nbsp;&nbsp;A second pitfall to consider is the closing costs and fees the producer must pay to initiate the new loan.&nbsp;&nbsp;Producers should consider whether they can pay these costs, and whether incurring these costs are worth any benefits of refinancing or consolidation, before initiating either process with their lender.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ultimately, producers will need to consult with their lenders to determine what refinancing or consolidations options are available to them and whether these options will be beneficial in the long run.



Figure 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;Changes in the Inflation rate, the Federal Funds Rate, and the Unemployment Rate, January 2018-February 2024&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="624" height="476" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.37.3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-40494"/></figure>



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



References



Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Federal Funds Effective Rate [FEDFUNDS], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS, April 1, 2024.



Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US), Agricultural Survey, retrieved from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; https://www.dallasfed.org/research/surveys/agsurvey/2024/ag2401#tab-report.



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



Wright, Andrew. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/09/02/lower-interest-rates-create-opportunities-for-managing-debt-on-the-farm/">Lower Interest Rates Create Opportunities for Managing Debt on the Farm.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 4(37.3). September 11, 2024. <a href="http://lower-interest-rates-create-opportunities-for-managing-debt-on-the-farm">Permalink</a>

Lower Interest Rates Create Opportunities for Managing Debt on the Farm

It often seems that hay markets and prices are strictly local but, supplies and weather around the country can have far reaching effects.&nbsp;&nbsp;Understanding inventory in the hay market can be as easy as tagging a new calf with an unhappy mama.&nbsp;&nbsp;However, there is some data that can help, at least, provide an understanding of regional and national hay production.&nbsp;&nbsp;Depending on the forage base (cool season perennial, warm season perennial, or warm/cool season annual plantings), rain and fertility can be the primary contributors to yield expectations.&nbsp;&nbsp;Not to discount the impacts of natural disasters and insects.&nbsp;&nbsp;Understanding the total inventory on hand entering the production season, consumption of hay stocks, and impact of exporting hay stocks can help in forming some price expectations and suggest some earlier or later purchases.



Expanding and contracting drought conditions plagued the southern region during production periods for warm season perennials and annuals.&nbsp;&nbsp;Hay production regions in the south experienced some relief from hurricanes and tropical storms.&nbsp;&nbsp;Depending on production schedules Figs. 1-3 illustrates the impact of drought conditions on summer forages.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Figure 1. 


<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="272" height="210" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.37-2-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-40485"/></figure></div>


Figure 2. 


<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="284" height="220" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.37.2-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-40486"/></figure></div>


Figure 3. 


<div class="wp-block-image">
<figure class="aligncenter size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="286" height="222" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.37.2-3.png" alt="" class="wp-image-40487"/></figure></div>


May 1 U.S hay stocks and disappearance steadily decreased starting in 2020 (Fig 4).  However, coming out of winter in 2024 hay stocks rebounded to 2020 stocks level.  Hay disappearance is largely driven by hay feeding, winter’s length and severity, and the size of the cow herd. Disappearance started decreasing in 2020 signaling reduced total hay needs.  In 2024, use of hay returned to 2020 use levels.



Figure 4. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="644" height="484" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.37.2-4.png" alt="" class="wp-image-40489"/></figure>



It often surprises people to learn that the U.S. exports a significant amount of hay, largely alfalfa and other high value specialty hays.&nbsp;&nbsp;The US hay export market moving three-year average valuation is $1.51 billion.&nbsp;&nbsp;As of 2023, the export market was valued at $1.34 billion.&nbsp;&nbsp;Total hay exports have trended downward since 2022, mainly driven by weak demand from China.&nbsp;&nbsp;The top four countries that import U.S hay stocks are China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea.



So, are we just to expect the market to behave like 2020 due to stock levels?&nbsp;&nbsp;A notable difference in the southern region will be the potential production impacts from summer droughts.&nbsp;&nbsp;Hay prices are beginning to decline in parts of Texas due to abundant production from this year’s rains.&nbsp;&nbsp;Hay markets do represent climate dynamics with a few large weather market issues thrown in.&nbsp;&nbsp;The storm forecasted for later this week could bring rains for grass growth in drought affected regions of the South.&nbsp;&nbsp;But it’s very late in the growing season for much hay production.&nbsp;&nbsp;USDA will report a hay inventory estimate in December which will provide a good stock on hand estimate, so we will wait on that early Christmas present.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;



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



Fischer, Matthew. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/09/02/inventories-weather-and-local-hay-markets/">Inventories, Weather, and Local Hay Markets.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 4(37.2). September 10, 2024. <a href="http://inventories-weather-and-local-hay-markets">Permalink</a>

Inventories, Weather, and Local Hay Markets

The USDA is currently forecasting a record national average corn yield of 183.1 bushels per acre for 2024 (Figure 1). Record yield and flat demand have contributed to projected ending stocks of over 2 billion bushels, pushing December corn futures contract prices from $4.80/bu in May to a low of $3.85/bu at the end of August. Additionally, record yields across many regions will provide a weaker than typical basis for many corn producers. USDA will continue to modify yield estimates as additional harvest data are collected this fall and winter. The USDA’s final yield estimate will be provided in January 2025. This article examines national corn yields and changes in percent yield deviation from a trendline over time.



Figure 1. U.S. corn average yield, linear trendline yield, and percent deviation from trendline, 1945-2024



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="3263" height="1870" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.37.1-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-40476" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.37.1-1.png 3263w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.37.1-1-1024x587.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.37.1-1-768x440.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.37.1-1-1536x880.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.37.1-1-2048x1174.png 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 3263px) 100vw, 3263px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">* 2025 yield is trendline forecast.</figcaption></figure>



Since 1945, U.S. national average corn yield has increased an average of 1.9 bushels per acre per year, or 19 bushels every 10 years. Drought is typically responsible for substantial negative deviations from the trendline (-25% in 1988 and -22.5% in 2012; Figure 1). Severe widespread droughts will continue to negatively impact national average corn yields in the future, presenting as large deviations from a long term trendline. However, there are patterns that emerge in the yield deviation from trendline data. There is a tendency to have multiple years of deviation above trend (2003-2009 and 2014-2018) or below trend (1995-1997 and 2010-2013). The number of years differs, and can contain a contradictory year, but there is a pattern. This is not to say that the current yield indicates that for the next few years yields will be above trendline. The second is there is a smaller percent deviation (positive or negative) from trendline in recent decades. From 1965-1994, U.S. corn yields deviated (+ or -) from trendline by more than 10% in 11 years and by more than 7.5% in 20 out of 30 years (Table 1). By contrast, from 1995-2024, yields deviated by greater than 7.5% in only 3 years. The average percent deviation from trendline from 1995-2024 was 3.7% compared to 9.4% from 1965-1994. Thus, with the exception of a few extreme years, yield in the past 30 years has been following a long term trendline. National average yield impacts the prices producers receive. Understanding long term national, state, and regional yield trends and patterns can assist in formulating a risk management and marketing strategy.&nbsp;



Table 1. The number of years from 1965-1994 and 1995-2024 with national corn yields 10%, 7.5%, 5%, or 2.5% higher or lower than the linear trendline



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="674" height="190" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.37.1-T1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-40477"/></figure>



References



USDA NASS National Corn Yield Data. NASS Quick Stats.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/">https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/</a>



USDA August WASDE Report.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde">https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde</a>



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



Smith, Aaron. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/09/02/national-corn-yields-and-deviation-from-trendline-over-time/">National Corn Yields and Deviation from Trendline Over Time.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 4(37.1). September 9, 2024. <a href="http://national-corn-yields-and-deviation-from-trendline-over-time">Permalink</a>

National Corn Yields and Deviation from Trendline Over Time

As fall approaches, so does hunting season.&nbsp;&nbsp;As hunters are scouting for the best locations, landowners may be searching for opportunities to generate additional revenue from agricultural and forested property. Outdoor recreation such as hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking can provide additional opportunities for landowners, depending upon the property and the willingness of the landowner to go down this path. Not all landowners are willing to accept strangers walking around their property so recreational leases are not a perfect fit for everyone.&nbsp;&nbsp;The leases can also be challenging as they differ significantly from traditional agricultural leases.



When considering these leases, landowners must make decisions on what types of activities and limitations they are willing to allow.&nbsp;&nbsp;Some of the issues to decide include:&nbsp;



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>How do you price your recreational opportunities?</li>



<li>How many people have permission to enter the property? </li>



<li>Can the lessees camp and build campfires on the property? </li>



<li>What species are being hunted? </li>



<li>Are there limits on the amount of game that can be taken?</li>



<li>How do you allow for recreational use while protecting growing crops and livestock?</li>
</ul>



However, there are other issues that may be addressed through the lease as well as other means. For example, what about liability in case someone is injured on your property? Insurance is a readily available and cost-effective means to reduce liability. Based on my conversations with insurance underwriters over the years, many claims submitted for hunting accidents involve tree stands and ATVs. In addition to insurance, simple changes to a lease agreement such as forbidding ATVs and limiting tree stands to only ones that they personally install, may help to mitigate those and other risks.&nbsp;&nbsp;



To see a more in-depth list of factors to consider in a hunting lease, as well as a model lease form, you can read the&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/articles/ranchers-agricultural-leasing-handbook.pdf">Ranchers’ Agricultural Leasing Handbook: Grazing, Hunting and Livestock Leases</a>&nbsp;handbook which discusses these issues and many more that landowners should consider.&nbsp;



Even with this information, I strongly recommend that an attorney draft your recreational lease, specific to your property, your boundaries and your situation.&nbsp;&nbsp;For tips on finding an attorney, please visit this&nbsp;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2023/12/15/finding-a-lawyer/">Southern Ag Today article</a>.



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



Rumley, Rusty. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/09/02/hunting-leases-and-rural-land/">Hunting Leases and Rural Land.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 4(36.5). September 6, 2024. <a href="http://hunting-leases-and-rural-land">Permalink</a>

Hunting Leases and Rural Land

The United States has led world cotton exports since the 1980s. After the 1990s, the U.S. shipped most of its cotton production to foreign markets. As domestic processing capacity shrank,&nbsp;&nbsp;U.S. cotton farmers became more dependent on international markets. Brazil expanded cotton production and exports in this context, challenging the U.S. leadership in cotton. We briefly contrast the U.S. and Brazilian cotton markets in two parts: the first highlights trade and the second production.&nbsp;&nbsp;



The importance of international markets for U.S. cotton farmers has grown in recent decades. In 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO) implemented the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC). The ATC gradually phased out quotas on textile imports over ten years. Since the ATC’s implementation, U.S. exports jumped from 37% to 72% of total supply in 2023, underscoring the U.S.&#8217;s competitiveness overseas. Brazil exhibited a similar trajectory, reaching 66% of its total supply exported in 2023. Total supply includes beginning stocks, production, and imports. Figure 1 illustrates the upward trend of export relevance to cotton farmers.&nbsp;



Figure 1 – Cotton Exports as a Percentage of Total Supply. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1430" height="550" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.4-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-40467" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.4-1.png 1430w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.4-1-1024x394.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.4-1-768x295.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1430px) 100vw, 1430px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Notes: Total supply is the sum of beginning stocks, production, and imports. ATC: Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. 2024 are estimated values.  Source: FAS/USDA/PSD. </figcaption></figure>



Brazil surpassed U.S. cotton exports in 2023. The U.S. exported 11.75 M bales in the 2023 crop season, and Brazil shipped 12.1 M bales, leading cotton exports for the first time (USDA, 2024). Figure 2 shows the growth of Brazilian exports while U.S. exports stagnated. Factors such as Asian demand, favorable exchange rates, government support, and competitive prices fueled Brazilian exports. The U.S.-China trade war (2018-19) further shifted trade dynamics. 



Figure 2 – U.S. and Brazil Cotton Exports. 



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1430" height="562" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.4-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-40468" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.4-2.png 1430w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.4-2-1024x402.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.4-2-768x302.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1430px) 100vw, 1430px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Notes: ATC: Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. 2024 are estimated values.  Source: FAS/USDA/PSD. </figcaption></figure>



Before the U.S.-China trade war, China ranked third among the largest importers; today, it tops the list. China now serves as the primary destination for U.S. and Brazilian cotton. According to U.N. Comtrade (2024), Brazil&#8217;s share of the Chinese market surged from 9% in 2014 to 37% in 2023, matching the U.S.<a href="applewebdata://C231880F-8DE1-4118-BD50-14EE6A3DBBC0#_ftn1">[1]</a>&nbsp;From 2022 to 2023, Brazilian cotton shipped to China jumped 49%, while U.S. exports dropped 33%. However, in the first half of 2024, the U.S. increased its exports to the Asian country by 79% compared to the same period last year.&nbsp;



The continued growth of Brazil&#8217;s cotton exports will likely challenge U.S. dominance further. Understanding the surge in Brazilian supply is particularly relevant for Southern growers, which are facing prices below $0.70 per pound, less than half of the May 2022 peak. Also, modest economic growth and high interest rates have constrained consumer spending worldwide, depressing the global demand for cotton. In part 2, we will review yield and production trends and how they may shape the export outlook.&nbsp;



References.&nbsp;



FAS/USDA/PSD. PSD Data Sets.&nbsp;Retrieved from:&nbsp;<a href="https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/home">https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/home</a>[Accessed August 22, 2024].



U.N. Comtrade. Trade Data. Retrieved from:&nbsp;<a href="https://comtradeplus.un.org/">https://comtradeplus.un.org/</a>&nbsp;[Accessed August 29, 2024].



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



<a href="applewebdata://C231880F-8DE1-4118-BD50-14EE6A3DBBC0#_ftnref1">[1]</a>. Market share is calculated from cotton quantity. The analysis with the U.S. Comtrade Database used HS 5201 cotton (not carded or combed).&nbsp;



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



Cali, Yuri, and Rachel Judd. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/09/02/shifting-winds-the-changing-landscape-of-cotton-production-and-exports-in-the-u-s-and-brazil-part-1/">Shifting Winds: The Changing Landscape of Cotton Production and Exports in the U.S. and Brazil (Part 1).</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 4(36.4). September 5, 2024. <a href="http://shifting-winds-the-changing-landscape-of-cotton-production-and-exports-in-the-u-s-and-brazil-part-1">Permalink</a>

Shifting Winds: The Changing Landscape of Cotton Production and Exports in the U.S. and Brazil (Part 1)

Irrigation water is a significant resource for row crop agriculture in the Mid-South (Eastern Arkansas, Northeastern Louisiana, Northwestern Mississippi, and Southeastern Missouri). The primary crops grown in the region are rice, soybeans, cotton, and corn. All rice acres and most soybean, corn, and cotton acres in the region are irrigated. The region’s primary irrigation source is groundwater pumped from the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer (MRVAA) (Massey et al., 2017). Pumping costs vary greatly throughout the region depending on the crop grown, the mode of power used to pump the water, and the pumping depth of water. This article looks more closely at the range of pumping costs for the Mid-South.



Table 1 presents the estimated costs per acre of pumping irrigation water for the four major crops grown in the Mid-South by energy source (diesel, electric) and by total dynamic head (TDH) (depth to water plus drawdown and discharge pressure). Crop irrigation amounts (acre-inches) represent average amounts reported for each crop in enterprise budgets from both the University of Arkansas and Mississippi State University. A diesel price of $3.54/gallon is used to calculate diesel pumping costs, while an electric price of $0.138/kWh is used to calculate electric pumping costs. The amount of diesel and electric energy used to pump irrigation water for a given TDH is based on irrigation energy consumption data for alluvial wells from McDougal (2015).&nbsp;



Diesel power is currently more expensive than electric power. Farmers in the region have switched many of their diesel irrigation motors to electric motors because of the lower cost of electricity, but diesel is still prevalent due to the expense of running electricity to fields located far from electric utility lines. The proportion of diesel to electric pumps can vary greatly by farm in the region.



Pumping costs can vary greatly depending on geographic location and groundwater availability. To demonstrate this, Figures 1 and 2 present estimated average pumping costs per acre for rice and soybeans by county in Eastern Arkansas. Estimated average pumping costs in these figures assume half diesel and half electric power and are calculated using depth-to-water data from the Arkansas Groundwater Protection and Management Report for 2023 (Arkansas Department of Agriculture, NRD, 2024). Average depth-to-water values for each county are adjusted upward to TDH by adding 28 feet to account for drawdown and discharge pressure (Chris Henry, University of Arkansas Water Management Engineer, personal communication). Counties with a darker shade of red in both figures have the highest average pumping costs. Groundwater is more limiting for these counties relative to counties where water is more plentiful (counties with a lighter shade of red). Less groundwater translates into deeper pumping depths, making irrigation water more expensive in locations where water is more limiting.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="779" height="373" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.3-T1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-40457" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.3-T1.png 779w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.3-T1-768x368.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 779px) 100vw, 779px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="952" height="552" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.3-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-40458" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.3-1.png 952w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.3-1-768x445.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 952px) 100vw, 952px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="940" height="602" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.3-2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-40459" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.3-2.png 940w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/4.36.3-2-768x492.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 940px) 100vw, 940px" /></figure>



References and Resources



Arkansas Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Division (2024). Arkansas Groundwater Protection and Management Report 2023.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.agriculture.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023-Groundwater-Report-Final.pdf">https://www.agriculture.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023-Groundwater-Report-Final.pdf</a>



McDougall, W. M. (2015). A Pump Monitoring Approach to Irrigation Pumping Plant Performance Testing. Graduate Theses and Dissertations Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1146



Massey, J.H., C.M. Stiles, J.W. Epting, R.S. Powers, D.B. Kelley, T.H. Bowling, C.L. Janes, and D.A. Pennington (2017). Long-Term Measurements of Agronomic Crop Irrigation Made in the Mississippi Delta Portion of the Lower Mississippi River Valley. Irrigation Science. 35:297-313.&nbsp;



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



Watkins, Brad. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/09/02/irrigation-water-pumping-costs-in-the-mid-south/">Irrigation Water Pumping Costs in the Mid-South.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 4(36.3). September 4, 2024. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2024/09/02/irrigation-water-pumping-costs-in-the-mid-south/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities