AG-ECO NEWS
Jose G. Peña
Professor & Extension Economist-Mgmt.
April 25, 2006
Vol. 22, Issue 12
Driest Winter-Spring on Record; Start Planning to Survive the Drought
Jose G. Peña, Professor and Extension Economist-Management
April is rapidly coming to a close, tied with April 1920, as the 2nd driest April on record with
only about 0.06 of an inch of total rainfall. In
Figure 1: Rainfall by Month 2005-April 2006
Uvalde Research and Extension Center
Inches of Rain
period is the driest period on record with
Figure 1a: Comparing 2005-April 2006 to Long Term Average Rainfall
3.5
3.12
3
addition, the mid-October-2005-to-date
2005-April '06
2.88
2.85
2.92
2.64
2.5
2.34
2.07
1.94
1.93
2
Long term avg.
only about 1.5 inches of rain compared to a
2.64
2.52
2.34
2.19
long term average of close to nine inches for
1.80
1.58
1.48
1.5
1.26
1.13
1.34
1.30
1.13
1.34
1.26 1.24
the same period. The moisture situation is
1
0.42
0.5
0.20
0.08
0.04
0.07
0.12
0.06
0.02
Ja
n0
Fe 5
b0
M 5
ar
-0
Ap 5
r-0
M 5
ay
-0
Ju 5
n05
Ju
l-0
Au 5
g0
Se 5
p05
Oc
t-0
No 5
v0
De 5
c0
Ja 5
n06
Fe
b0
M 6
ar
-0
Ap 6
r-0
6
0
Figure 1b: Comparing 2005-April 2006 Cumulative Rainfall to
Average Long Term Cumulative Rainfall
Inches of Rain
35
Cummulative
Long term Cummulative
30.41
30
completely different than a year ago at this
time. A year ago, the soil profile was full of
moisture from significantly above average
28.07
25
23.05
24.34
25.4726.73
21.57
20
18.93
16.28 16.27 16.3116.38
14.10
13.55 13.75
11.75
12.03
15
17.82
16.5016.52 17.76
9.18
8.41 8.83
6.39 6.47
6.06
4.46
5
3.73
2.39
1.58
1.13
0
Ja
n05
Fe
b05
M
ar
-0
5
Ap
r-0
M 5
ay
-0
5
Ju
n05
Ju
l-0
Au 5
g0
Se 5
p05
O
ct
-0
No 5
v05
De
c05
Ja
n06
Fe
b06
M
ar
-0
6
Ap
r-0
6
cumulative January ‘05 through April 25, 2006
Figure 1c: Percent of Cumulative Rainfall by Month 2005-April 2006
200%
remained over 100 percent of the long term
average by the end of April ‘05. Now,
10
Percent
winter/spring ‘05 rainfall. Cumulative rainfall
187%
171%
rainfall, (when this report was prepared) is
about 59 percent of the long term average.
160%
140%
120%
(See Figure 1). In addition, unseasonably
107%
92%
80%
73%
83% 83%
73% 75% 71%
67% 65%
62% 63% 59%
40%
Ja
n05
Fe
b05
M
ar
-0
5
Ap
r-0
M 5
ay
-0
Ju 5
n05
Ju
l-0
Au 5
g0
Se 5
p05
Oc
t-0
No 5
v0
De 5
c05
Ja
n06
Fe
b06
M
ar
-0
6
Ap
r-0
6
0%
warm weather during the past two weeks with
afternoon temperatures averaging about 10°F
above the typical average for this time of the
year are aggravating the dry spell.
The drought really started in June ‘05 when cumulative rainfall dropped to 73 percent of the
long term average. Weathermen define a true drought as a period when 75% or less of the long term
average yearly rainfall has been received. The Southwest Texas region certainly qualifies as under a
drought. And, weather forecasts indicate that the drought will persist in the South Central portion of
the U.S. through the summer. We should carefully and seriously plan how to survive this drought.
It has been said that Texas is the land of perpetual drought, with occasional floods. This
statement appears to have the basis of fact
when we review rainfall patterns in 1996,
1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006 and the
Figure 2: Rainfall by Month November ‘05-April ‘06
Uvalde Research and Extension Center
Inches of Rain
Figure 2a: Comparing November '05-April '06 to
Long Term Average Rainfall
3.5
floods of 1997 and near floods during July-
2005-April '06
Long term avg.
3
October ‘02. Texas is enduring a seventh
2.5
drought in eight years.
1.5
2.34
2
1.48
1.30
1.26
1.24
1.34
1.13
1
The dry weather has forced
0.5
0.04
ranchers to liquidate all or part of their
Nov-05
Dec-05
0.06
0.02
Jan-06
Feb-06
Mar-06
Apr-06
Figure 2b: Comparing November '05-April '06 Cumulative Rainfall to
Average Long Term Cumulative Rainfall
Inches of Rain
herds and/or provide heavy supplemental
0.12
0.07
0
10
Cummulative
nutrition. Hay is scarce and expensive.
8
Crop agriculture is experiencing increased
6
irrigation requirements at a critical time of
4
record high energy costs.
2
Long term Cummulative
8.84
6.51
5.17
3.91
2.78
1.48
0.04
If, for planning, we only consider
rainfall since November ‘05, drought
Nov-05
Percent
25%
Dec-05
Jan-06
Feb-06
Mar-06
Apr-06
Figure 2c: Percent of Cumulative Rainfall November '05-April '06
22.9%
planning calls for drastic measures. Figure
20%
2 provides a summary of the moisture
15%
situation from November ‘05 through April
0.11
0
1.55
1.49
0.25
0.23
17.5%
10%
5.9%
4.8%
5%
25, 2006. We are entering
2.7%
4.0%
0%
Nov-05
Dec-05
Jan-06
Feb-06
Mar-06
Apr-06
the critical spring production period with only about 17.5 percent of the normal long term cumulative
rainfall. Spring normally accounts for about 70 percent of the annual production.
Livestock/wildlife
While the market for calves, feeders and lambs remains very attractive and some may want to
retain their livestock, this dry spell may require further stocking adjustments. Wildlife resource use is
rapidly becoming the economic viability of ranching industry in Southwest Texas. A drought
management plan should prioritize wildlife management, to the extend that it is economically feasible.
Further reducing livestock stocking rates may help protect remaining wildlife since both complete for
the same resources. Under conditions of feed shortage, livestock feed more heavily an browse which
normally sustains deer throughout the year. Cattle will also graze down bunch grasses that provide
vital resting habitat for quail. Reducing livestock stocking rates before they begin to compete
seriously with wildlife is essential if valuable game species are to survive the drought and remain a
valuable commodity, i.e., good set of antlers and plump quail.
Water is no doubt the most important of all nutrients for all living things, but especially for
wildlife and livestock. Since ruminants, such as cattle and deer, are able to store large amounts of
water in their stomachs, they are better adapted in surviving droughts than monogastrics, such as
hogs. The absence of drinking water may force a livestock liquidation decision. Wildlife are more
mobile and will travel great distances to water. When movement is restricted by high fences,
however, special water arrangements should be considered to protect wildlife.