Crop budgets for the 2019 growing season just released by the University of Arkansas Extension Service show a continuing trend of declining net returns.

The only area to show even a minimal positive change over previous years is with crop prices, says Breana Watkins, program associate, economist, University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service.

Soybeans are an exception to that small sliver of optimism. “Soybean prices were lowered quite a bit,” Watkins says.

“Even though revenue from the crop may be expected to increase, our budgets are showing a decline in overall net returns,” she adds. “The increase in revenue expected is more than offset by the increase in costs expected. Some of the larger jumps we’ve seen over the past year were fuel and fertilizer costs in comparison to previous years.”  

Watkins says penciling in profits will pose challenges for all crop farmers in 2019, and the difference between profit, break-even and loss likely will come with marketing decisions.

“As we’ve seen over the past couple of years, I believe marketing will be key in reducing risk,” she says. “In my opinion, knowing when to pull the trigger on a marketing plan to protect a positive net return for a producer’s operation is one of the hardest, yet most important attributes of marketing/management.”

She explains that UA budgets are based on “generalized practices developed by crop specialists, entomologists, and weed scientists.

“Our budgets do not include land costs. Also, cotton budgets do not have all input costs available yet, so they will be updated in January, when these prices are made available.”

The crop budgets are available as a printed manuscript and as interactive files that allow producers to plug in their own numbers—inputs and prices—to reflect specific location and management options. 

“Budget summaries present side-by-side comparisons for surface irrigated, center pivot irrigated, and non-irrigated crops.”

Watkins says the budgets are recommendations from UA Extension, and input figures are developed with field trial data from the Crop Research Verification Program (CRVP) for each crop. “Interactive budgets can be utilized to evaluate alternative costs and returns for optimal profit potential.”

 She offers a caveat: “Input decisions should be evaluated with an understanding that yield and revenue maximizing inputs are not necessarily the inputs for maximizing profit. County agents can provide information for Extension input recommendations.”

 The 2019 crop enterprise budgets are available at, click or paste https://bit.ly/2z8p8fj

Crop Enterprise Budgets for Arkansas Field Crops Planted in 2019

Cotton B3XF

·     Furrow Irrigation

·     Pivot Irrigation

·     No Irrigation

Cotton B2XF

·     Furrow Irrigation

·     Pivot Irrigation

·     No Irrigation

Cotton GLT/WRF

·     Furrow Irrigation

·     Pivot Irrigation

·     No Irrigation

Cotton Conventional

·     Furrow Irrigation

·     Pivot Irrigation

Corn Stacked

·     Furrow Irrigation

·     Pivot Irrigation

·     No Irrigation

Corn Conventional

·     Furrow Irrigation

·     Pivot Irrigation

·     No Irrigation

Peanut

·     Furrow Irrigation

·     Pivot Irrigation

·     No Irrigation

Sorghum

·     Furrow Irrigation

·     Pivot Irrigation

·     No Irrigation

Soybean Conventional

·     Furrow Irrigation

·     Pivot Irrigation

·     No Irrigation

·     Flood Irrigation

Soybean RR

·     Furrow Irrigation

·     Pivot Irrigation

·     No Irrigation

·     Flood Irrigation

Soybean LL

·     Furrow Irrigation

·     Pivot Irrigation

·     No Irrigation

·     Flood Irrigation

Rice

·     Conventional

·     Clearfield

·     Hybrid

·     Clearfield Hybrid

·     Water Seeded

Wheat

·     No Irrigation