Farm & Ranch
[AgriLife Today] Water conservation policy effectiveness depends on farmer economics
New sprinkler emitters may help farmers improve water efficiency on crops, but not necessarily save water in the long run. (Texas A&M AgriLife Communications photo by Kay Ledbetter)
By: Kay Ledbetter
Writer: Kay Ledbetter, 806-677-5608, skledbetter@ag.tamu.edu
Contacts: Dr. Seong Park, 940-552-9941, scpark@ag.tamu.edu
VERNON – Farming is a business, and the actions of farmers will be based on economics – even when it comes to water conservation, according to a recent study by Texas A&M AgriLife Research.
Extremely small recharge rates in the Ogallala Aquifer indicate depletion is inevitable, and that has policymakers scrambling to find ways to prolong its life and ensure a smooth transition to the dryland production to minimize impacts on the overall economy, said Dr. Seong Park, AgriLife Research economist in Vernon.
Park said, however, not all tools proposed or implemented by policymakers will be effective in working toward that goal.
The paper, “Will farmers save water? A theoretical analysis of groundwater conservation policies,” was recently published in the Water Resources and Economics journal and provides a look at the alternatives being offered and their potential to conserve water.
The study was conducted by Park; Dr. Tong Wang, former AgriLife Research post-doctoral researcher now in the South Dakota State department of economics, Brookings, South Dakota; and Dr. Hailong Jin, in the Black Hills State University College of Business and Natural Sciences, Spearfish, South Dakota. Funding was provided through the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service Ogallala Aquifer Program.
Using the Ogallala Aquifer as an example, their paper analyzes whether current and potential groundwater conservation policies across the Southern Great Plains provide profit-driven farmers with incentives to save water.
New sensor tools help farmers improve water efficiency on crops, but may not conserve water in the long run, according to a recent Texas A&M AgriLife Research study. (Texas A&M AgriLife Communications photo by Kay Ledbetter)
“We wanted to focus on the incentives provided by selected policy tools to ensure water savings on the farmer’s side and achieve the sustainability goal,” Park said.
He said their theoretical study of the impacts of different policy options on groundwater conservation potential was conducted after previous studies determined voluntary and incentive-based water conservation programs may have “unintended or even perverse consequences.”
“Very few attempts had been made to analyze the effectiveness of different policy alternatives in incentivizing an individual farmer to actually save water,” Park said. “We also wanted to look at the effectiveness of the alternatives based on regional characteristics such as groundwater depth, satiation thickness and feasible crop patterns.”
He said a majority of existing literature modeled the future depletion rate of the Ogallala Aquifer from the perspective of a regulatory agency that can allocate water use effectively and in an efficient manner.
However, farmers tend to make short-term decisions in response to current output prices and input costs without considering long-term profit consequences.
“What we found was that in order to achieve the water-saving goals in regions with high pumping cost, rather than providing a subsidy for the new technology installation or charging a unit water tax, policymakers should offer a unit subsidy for saved water and a subsidy for water-conservation crops,” Wang said. “These are more promising to achieve water savings, as it directly rewards farmers for actual water saved.”
Water rights retirement programs or water buyout programs are an example of providing compensation on a land basis for farmers willing to retire their water right, she said.
“However, our results show a fixed compensation rate tends to attract the land with low productivity and high water cost, thus compromising the program’s effectiveness because most of the enrolled land initially did not use much irrigation water.”
Wang said conceptual models on farmer incentives rarely take these factors into account, so their study filled in those gaps.
“We studied farmer’s incentive-driven responses to the following policy tools: irrigation technology subsidies, increased water costs, unit subsidies for water savings and subsidies on water-conservative crops,” she said.
Wang said they found in regions with high pumping costs, no water savings will occur after converting to a more efficient technology. Instead, farmers take advantage of the new technology to pursue increased profit.
“While the technology subsidy can be effective in the preventative stage, or before the water table declines too much, it is often unjustified when water depletion is already a serious problem,” she said.
Similarly, they noted, an increase in water cost may serve its purpose if well pumping capacity is not a constraint. However, if well pumping capacity is limited due to falling groundwater levels, the cost increase may not be practical because water usage will not respond to the small price increase.
“To achieve the required water savings goal, it often takes a large price increase, which is detrimental to the farmers’ profit and is likely to be met with resistance on implementation,” Wang said.
“We found that policy alternatives such as a subsidy for unit water saved and price subsidy for water-conservative crops is likely effective in achieving water conservation even in the case of high pumping costs,” she said. “Therefore, in areas where groundwater is already a constraint, these direct rewards serve the conservation purpose better.”
Compared to the subsidy of new technology, a subsidy for water saved discourages the farmer from using the saved water to gain additional profit, while a subsidy for water-conservative crops discourages farmers from switching to more water-intensive crops, Wang said.
Beyond the policy implications, the researchers questioned: Among the farmers who adopt more efficient technologies, is there any relationship between water-use adjustment and pumping cost? And, prior to the enrollment, is the average irrigation amount of the land enrolled in a water buyout program comparable to that of the land outside of the program?
Park said future studies should examine the relationship between water pumping cost, crop price and crop patterns to identify the proper price subsidy to more water-conservative crops to achieve the water conservation goal.
“Theoretical modeling from the farmer’s standpoint as well as empirical studies based on farm-level data in different regions could provide policymakers with more detailed information on the extent of water savings by the varied water-conservation policy tools,” he said. “After all, it is the farmers who make the water-conservation decisions.”
The full paper can be found at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212428415300128.
-30-
Find more stories, photos, videos and audio at http://today.agrilife.org
Farm & Ranch
Forage Needs in the Fall
By Savannah Magoteaux
Two bales can look almost identical and feed very differently. Color, smell and leafiness tell part of the story, but a forage test tells you what your cattle are actually being offered. If you buy hay by the ton or are trying to stretch winter feed, that little lab sheet can be one of the cheapest management tools on the place.
Reading the report
Start with dry matter. Hay contains water, and labs report nutrients either “as fed” or on a dry-matter basis. Feeds are easiest to compare on a dry-matter basis because it takes moisture out of the comparison. Hay that is 90 percent dry matter is about 10 percent water.
Crude protein, usually abbreviated CP, is the number most people recognize. It estimates protein from the forage’s nitrogen content. Higher isn’t automatically better. The goal is to match the hay to the animal. A dry, mature cow in mid-gestation doesn’t need the same protein as a lactating cow, a growing replacement heifer or a young calf.
Energy matters just as much. Beef cattle forage reports commonly estimate energy as total digestible nutrients, or TDN. Low-TDN hay may fill a cow up before it supplies enough energy, particularly when her requirements rise late in gestation or during lactation. That is when you may need better forage, an energy supplement or a different feeding plan.
Fiber numbers explain why some hay looks coarse and why animals may not be able to eat enough of it. Neutral detergent fiber, or NDF, is closely tied to intake. As NDF climbs, cattle generally eat less because the forage moves through the digestive tract more slowly. Acid detergent fiber, or ADF, is tied to digestibility. Higher ADF generally means lower digestibility.
Some reports also include relative feed value or relative forage quality. These indexes help compare lots of forage, particularly alfalfa and mixed hay, but they aren’t a complete ration. They don’t replace looking at protein, energy, minerals, animal class and expected intake.
Then come the numbers you hope are boring. Nitrate testing matters when drought, heavy nitrogen fertilization, cloudy weather or other conditions have stressed the forage enough to cause nitrate accumulation. Sorghum-type forages, johnsongrass, corn and some weeds deserve particular attention. Nitrates stay in hay after it is cut and baled, so a risky crop doesn’t become safe just because it dried.
Minerals deserve a look, but this is where a hay report gets harder to interpret. Calcium, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and other minerals may be listed, yet a complete mineral program depends on water, other feeds and local conditions. A high number isn’t always an advantage. Excessive potassium, for example, can interfere with magnesium use under some circumstances. If you are balancing a ration for high-risk animals, work with a nutritionist or Extension specialist rather than treating the lab sheet as a stand-alone mineral prescription.
Moisture tells another story. Hay baled too wet is at greater risk of heating and mold, and very wet hay can become a fire hazard as microbial activity raises its internal temperature. A test taken months later can’t reconstruct every storage problem, so inspect the stack, too. A musty odor, visible mold, unusual heat and dark discoloration are all reasons to investigate.
Getting a good sample
A hay test is only as good as the sample, and sampling is the step most likely to ruin a good analysis. A handful pulled from the outside of one convenient bale doesn’t represent a stack of 100 bales. Round bales aren’t uniform from the outside to the center, and one bale may not represent the whole cutting.
Texas A&M AgriLife recommends using a hay probe and collecting cores from multiple bales in a lot, then combining them into one representative sample. A coring probe reaches through the layers of the bale and gives the lab a much better cross-section. Test different cuttings, fields or hay types separately, and don’t blend samples from separate fields or cuttings to save the cost of a test if you will feed them as separate lots.
Putting the numbers to work
The most useful way to read the report is backward from the cattle. What class of animal will eat this hay, at what stage of production, and how much is she likely to eat? Once you answer those questions, the lab numbers start to mean something.
A mature dry cow in good body condition can often use lower-quality forage than a first-calf heifer nursing a calf. Young cattle need nutrients for growth on top of maintenance, and cold stress raises energy demand. A hay test becomes valuable when you pair it with those real-world differences.
Remember that price per bale isn’t the same as price per unit of nutrition. A cheap bale with very low energy and protein may require expensive supplementation, and better hay can turn out to be the lower-cost feed once you count waste and supplements.
Before buying, try putting two hay reports side by side. Compare dry matter, crude protein, TDN and fiber first. Then add delivered cost and likely feeding waste. A heavier, denser bale isn’t automatically more economical, and a greener bale isn’t automatically more nutritious. The numbers make the comparison fair.
Testing is especially valuable after a hard weather year. Drought hay may be lower in yield and higher in nitrate risk. Mature, rain-damaged hay may test lower in protein and energy than it looks. Hay cut from a fertilized field after stress may deserve a safety screen before it ever reaches a feeder.
A forage test won’t make poor hay better. It shows you where the gaps are before your cattle show them through lost condition or lower performance. One report can’t answer every feeding question, but it replaces several guesses with measurements, and that makes winter nutrition planning much more accurate.
Farm & Ranch
When Acorns Become a Problem
By Savannah Magoteaux
A heavy crop of acorns under an oak tree usually looks more like a sign of fall than a livestock problem. For most cattle in most years, that is all it is. Trouble starts when acorns stop being an occasional bite and become a meaningful part of the diet.
Oak leaves, buds and acorns contain tannins that can damage the digestive tract and kidneys when cattle eat enough of them. Green acorns are generally considered more toxic than mature brown ones, but either can cause problems if cattle eat too many.
The risk climbs when forage is short and cattle go looking for something else to eat. Drought, overgrazed pastures or simply a heavy acorn crop can set up that situation.
Cattle aren’t equally interested in acorns. A few animals in a herd may eat far more than the rest, which helps explain why cases can appear scattered.
Early signs can be vague. Affected cattle may go off feed, look depressed or become constipated. As the damage progresses, you may see dark or bloody manure, abdominal pain, frequent urination followed by reduced urine output, dehydration and weakness. Kidney failure is the most serious concern.
You can’t remove every acorn from a wooded pasture, so prevention comes down to keeping cattle from relying on them. Adequate forage and supplementation take away the incentive to eat large amounts.
You can also fence cattle away from heavily producing oaks for a while, especially when pasture conditions are poor. If several animals seem to be seeking out acorns, take a close look at the rest of the ration instead of assuming they will quit on their own.
If you suspect oak poisoning, call a veterinarian early. Treatment is supportive and does much more good before severe kidney damage sets in. Moving unaffected cattle away from the source and providing good-quality feed and water may prevent more cases.
Acorns are an important fall food for deer, squirrels and other wildlife, and a few acorns generally don’t spell disaster for cattle. The concern is quantity. A pasture full of oaks becomes a different management problem when grass is short, cattle are hungry and the ground is covered with something they are willing to eat.
Oak toxicity comes up most often in cattle, but other livestock can be affected, too. And the risk isn’t limited to acorns. Oak buds and young leaves also contain tannins, so spring can occasionally bring problems as well. In fall, though, the obvious temptation is lying on the ground where cattle can eat it quickly.
Watch where your cattle spend their time. If cows that normally graze open grass start camping under oaks and hunting acorns, that behavior tells you something.
Walk the pasture, estimate how much usable forage is left and check whether a few dominant animals are eating more than the rest. Hay or supplemental feed may help, but place it where all the cattle can reach it rather than assuming one feeder will solve the problem.
Oak poisoning can look like other illnesses, and no one can diagnose kidney damage from pasture observation alone. A veterinarian may use history, clinical signs and lab work to separate it from dehydration, digestive disease or other toxicities. That is another reason to mention a heavy acorn crop when you call. A detail that seems like an ordinary part of fall can be an important part of the history.
Your pasture plan doesn’t have to be complicated. If one wooded trap has a much heavier acorn crop than the rest, use another pasture while you still have the choice.
If you can’t move the herd, make sure hay and supplement are adequate before the animals get hungry enough to seek out acorns aggressively. Salt or mineral by itself won’t make up for a shortage of forage.
The problem usually fades as cattle eat through the crop or the acorns weather or get covered. Don’t return cattle that have already shown signs as soon as they look better, though. Kidney injury can be serious. Follow your veterinarian’s recommendations and reassess the pasture before turning recovered animals back out.
Farm & Ranch
Land Market Report
By Jared Groce
Late summer has been brutal on our livestock, our grass and the rural land market in North Texas. We currently have an astounding 42 months of inventory on hand in our report area, and the only properties selling are the ones priced right. Overpriced properties aren’t even getting looked at, much less receiving offers, so pricing your property correctly matters more than ever right now.
Many sellers are still picturing the daily price increases we saw in 2020 to 2023, but those days are behind us, and agents need to be more realistic with listing prices to get any activity for their clients. Hopefully the rains will come soon and bring more land buyers with them this fall, but right now it is still very much a buyer’s market. No one knows how long this dry spell will last, but it will likely take a flood to end it. The same is true of the weather!
They say the best time to plant a tree, or buy land, was 20 years ago, and the second-best time is today.
| County | Area | Acres | $/Acre | List Price | Sold Price | Sale/List | DOM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clay | Henrietta | 120.07 | $5,150 | $714,000 | $618,309 | 86.60% | 434 |
| Clay | Bellevue | 159.44 | $6,184 | $981,000 | $985,959 | 100.50% | 48 |
| Clay | Henrietta | 293 | $4,982 | $1,538,250 | $1,459,600 | 94.90% | 212 |
| Clay | Average | 190.84 | $5,438 | $1,077,750 | $1,021,289 | 94.00% | 231 |
| Collin | Anna | 11.08 | $84,356 | $1,200,000 | $935,000 | 77.90% | 634 |
| Collin | Average | 11.08 | $84,356 | $1,200,000 | $935,000 | 77.90% | 634 |
| Cooke | Muenster | 11 | $18,000 | $209,000 | $198,000 | 94.70% | 250 |
| Cooke | Gainesville | 19.3 | $16,580 | $345,000 | $320,000 | 92.80% | 541 |
| Cooke | Valley View | 96.23 | $15,500 | $1,679,215 | $1,491,565 | 88.80% | 194 |
| Cooke | Average | 42.18 | $16,693 | $744,405 | $669,855 | 92.10% | 328 |
| Denton | Sanger | 16.46 | $39,422 | $649,000 | $649,000 | 100.00% | 47 |
| Denton | Cross Roads | 10.35 | $97,575 | $1,200,000 | $1,010,000 | 84.20% | 40 |
| Denton | Sanger | 300 | $14,000 | $4,999,999 | $4,200,000 | 84.00% | 1,327 |
| Denton | Aubrey | 74.09 | $57,684 | $4,815,525 | $4,273,550 | 88.70% | 302 |
| Denton | Average | 100.22 | $52,170 | $2,916,131 | $2,533,138 | 89.20% | 429 |
| Grayson | Collinsville | 11.61 | $46,516 | $600,000 | $540,000 | 90.00% | 280 |
| Grayson | Van Alstyne | 18.8 | $58,511 | $1,175,000 | $1,100,000 | 93.60% | 280 |
| Grayson | Whitesboro | 30 | $37,984 | $1,170,000 | $1,139,506 | 97.40% | 277 |
| Grayson | Average | 20.14 | $47,670 | $981,667 | $926,502 | 93.70% | 237 |
| Jack | No sales reported | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Montague | Montague | 485 | N/A | $5,566,000 | N/A | N/A | 333 |
| Montague | Bowie | 26 | $12,244 | $323,500 | $318,352 | 98.40% | 743 |
| Montague | Montague | 37.3 | $10,327 | $428,950 | $385,195 | 89.80% | 1 |
| Montague | Saint Jo | 1,185 | $7,764 | $10,000,000 | $9,199,829 | 92.00% | 19 |
| Montague | Average | 433.33 | $10,112 | $4,079,613 | $3,301,125 | 93.40% | 274 |
| Wise | Sunset | 12 | $19,027 | $234,000 | $228,320 | 97.60% | 16 |
| Wise | Sunset | 12 | $19,027 | $234,000 | $228,320 | 97.60% | 14 |
| Wise | Chico | 11.44 | $24,476 | $299,000 | $280,000 | 93.60% | 24 |
| Wise | Chico | 10.25 | $29,265 | $315,000 | $300,000 | 95.20% | 12 |
| Wise | Average | 11.42 | $22,949 | $270,000 | $259,160 | 96.00% | 17 |
DOM = days on market
-
Country Lifestyles4 years agoScott & Stacey Schumacher: A Growth Mindset
-
Country Lifestyles10 years agoStyle Your Profile – What your style cowboy hat says about you and new trends in 2017
-
Horsefeathers13 years agoMount Scott: Country Humor with David Gregory
-
Outdoor11 years agoButtercup or Primrose?
-
Country Lifestyles10 years agoJune 2016 Profile – The man behind the mic: Bob Tallman
-
HOME10 years agoGrazing North Texas – Wilman Lovegrass
-
Country Lifestyles10 years agoDecember 2016 Profile, Rusty Riddle – The Riddle Way
-
The Natural Horseman9 years agoThis is why we do what we do — RayeAnn and Cisco




