Is PRF Profitable in a Wetter State? Evidence from Arkansas

Despite increased enrollment in Pasture Rangeland and Forage (PRF) insurance since 2016, Arkansas has seen continued low enrollment and low loss ratios. Studies that have assisted enrollment in other forageproducing areas have not been conducted in the Southeast. We address this need by performing a profitability analysis of three distinct counties in the state across different interval selection strategies and wetness years. We find that PRF is profitable in drier to median wetness counties while showing poorer performance in the wettest county. Our results suggest the need for county-specific recommendations for enrollment and interval selection in Arkansas.