There are lots of acres of soy bean grow in the panhandle but you have to irrigate and that cost really cut into the profits now day But you need to be near a market (elevator)

Fuel cost, labor, equipment, deeper water, less water, drip sprinklers -cut the cost any way you can

Many a irrigation farmer have quit irrigation and gone back to dry land operation cut expense so they can turn a profit.

I can definitely see the water problem in TX, especially Central and South.....what about blackeyed-peas or turnips? When I was in Georgia, watermelon farmers had lots of trouble with deer, but those do require a ton of water.

One of my relatives is a peanut farmer in the panhandle. He said that goes through a tanker load of diesel every week to keep his pumps going. I was amazed it was that much.

Deer corn may not be the best option but it would be a cheap experiment to see if it would work. Is it to late in the year to get a crop planted? I may be able to get some planted in the next week or two.

Depends on the weather and if you can get the rain and beat the first frost. Plant it and see what happens.

At this point, I would wait and plant oats.

Just an FYI (i.e., I'm not offering legal advice), but here is an excerpt from one of the patent-infringement cases relating to genetically engineered corn, in which a farmer retained and replanted some of his crop. (the damages were thrown out, but I don't know where the damages were set when it was all said and done). From Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 363 F3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri entered summary judgment against defendant Homan McFarling and in favor of the Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) on some, but not all, of the claims being litigated. See Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, No. 4:00CV84 CDP (E.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2002) (granting final judgment under Rule 54(b)); (E.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2002) (granting Monsanto's motions for summary judgment). The district court held that, when McFarling replanted some of Monsanto's patented ROUNDUP READY® soybeans that he had saved from his prior year's crop, McFarling breached the Technology Agreement that he had signed as a condition of his purchase of the patented seeds. The district court also held that McFarling had failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that prevented entry of summary judgment on any of his counterclaims or his defenses to Monsanto's breach-of-contract claim. Finally, the district court held that a liquidated damages provision in the Technology Agreement was valid and enforceable under Missouri law and entered a judgment in the amount of $780,000.00. McFarling appeals the district court's rulings on several of his counterclaims and defenses, as well as its ruling on the contractual damages provision. We affirm the district court on the counterclaims and defenses, but we vacate the district court's judgment as it relates to the damages provision and remand for a determination of Monsanto's actual damages.

Hope the folks in nebraska dont find out.

and what case would they have if you didn't harvest it and sale it. Pretty much none