An old idea is resurfacing on irrigated acres: if you can’t always pump more, make each inch behave better once it hits the soil.
By the time irrigation water reaches a corn field, the hard part should be over. The pump did its job. The pivot made its slow circle. The drops landed where they were supposed to land.
And yet, any grower who has watched a field after a hot, windy day knows the uncomfortable truth: delivery is not the same as use.
Some of that water runs off. Some pools and evaporates. Some disappears too quickly, slipping past the root zone as if the soil were a sieve. In heavier soils, infiltration can be too slow; in sandier profiles, it can be too fast. Either way, what matters is not the inch you applied, but the fraction that becomes plant-available moisture at the right depth and at the right time.
That is the problem Loveland Products is trying to address with AQUA FORCE, a new “water use efficiency” product built for center-pivot irrigation. It is not another sensor, another dashboard, another nozzle package. It is chemistry—sold with the promise that, in a world of tightening water constraints, the next productivity gains may come from how water moves through soil, not just how precisely you apply it.
A different kind of efficiency: not less water, but more useful water
There is a reason “water efficiency” can feel slippery in agriculture. At the global level, the stakes are enormous: agriculture accounts for roughly 70% of freshwater withdrawals worldwide.
But at the field level, farmers rarely buy “efficiency” as an abstract concept. They buy outcomes: yield stability, fewer stress days, less risk.
AQUA FORCE is positioned as a tool for that narrower, more practical definition of efficiency: improving water distribution, infiltration, and retention in the soil profile so moisture stays available in the root zone longer.
Loveland places it in the adjuvants/soil-surfactants category—an important detail. Adjuvants traditionally “improve the characteristics of something else,” like a spray droplet. The twist here is that the “something else” is irrigation water itself.
In other words: treat the water like an input that can be optimized.
That framing matters because it pushes irrigation into a familiar ag-input logic: a relatively low-friction add-on (no new machine), tied to seasonal timing, sold on measurable return.
What the early data says—and what it quietly reveals
Loveland’s launch messaging leans on two field signals:
- A 2024 evaluation by the Irrigation Research Foundation (IRF) in Yuma, Colorado, where the company says trials in irrigated corn showed an average yield increase of about nine bushels per acre across production zones.
- A separate site in Oklahoma where treated fields reportedly maintained higher soil moisture in the top 0–6 inches during the growing season—suggesting less loss to evaporation and runoff.
Those are the headline claims. The more interesting story is in the underlying pattern—because the IRF’s published results for Loveland’s 2024 irrigated corn research show something most press summaries don’t mention: the response is not uniform.
In the IRF report images, yields in the treated blocks range from roughly ~202.5 to ~245.6 bushels/acre across different production zones, while control zones range from roughly ~207.5 to ~241.2 bushels/acre.
That spread is the point. If the product’s value depends on soil texture, compaction, slope, residue, pivot package, and timing (it almost certainly does), then averages can hide the real question growers care about:
Where does it pay—and where does it not?
This is not a criticism so much as a reality check. Soil is variable. Water behavior is variable. Any product that claims to “optimize” water in soil is, by definition, betting on variability.
That variability may even be the opportunity.
Because if a water adjuvant works better in certain zones—say, where infiltration is slow and puddling losses are high, or where water punches through too fast—then the future version of this category may not be blanket application. It may be targeted application, aligned with soil maps, compaction layers, and irrigation scheduling.
A pivot already functions as a delivery platform. Variable-rate irrigation turned that platform into a spatial tool. Water adjuvants could be the next layer: variable-rate soil-water behavior.
The Ogallala problem: “more crop per drop” meets the paradox of saving water
No discussion of irrigation efficiency is complete without talking about the High Plains. The Ogallala/High Plains Aquifer system underpins a huge share of U.S. irrigated production; one widely cited estimate is that the High Plains Aquifer supplies about 30% of the nation’s irrigated groundwater.
This is where products like AQUA FORCE are likely to find their first serious customer base—not because farmers don’t understand efficiency, but because many are being forced into it through pumping limits, declining well capacity, and rising energy costs.
Yet there is an uncomfortable academic finding that haunts the entire “efficiency” narrative: more efficient irrigation technology does not always reduce total water use.
In western Kansas, research on the shift from conventional center pivots to higher-efficiency dropped-nozzle pivots found that the intended reduction in groundwater use did not occur on average; in some cases groundwater extraction increased, partly through changes in crop choice and behavior.
This is the irrigation version of Jevons’ paradox: if efficiency makes water “cheaper” in practice, it can encourage more intensive use.
So where does that leave a water adjuvant?
Possibly in a more defensible lane: productivity per unit of water applied, especially in situations where the constraint is real (limits, quotas, well decline). If you cannot pump more, the rebound effect has less room to operate. The value proposition becomes resilience: maintaining yield with fewer stress penalties.
But it also raises a sharper standard for proof. If a product is marketed as “water-use efficiency,” then the most credible metric may not be yield alone. It may be:
- Yield per inch applied
- Soil moisture retention curves over time (especially in the heat of summer)
- Reduced runoff events under specific conditions
- Lower pumping hours for the same yield target, where regulation allows
Those are harder to measure than yield. They also happen to be the measurements that could unlock the next phase of the market.
The business angle: the pivot is turning into an input marketplace
One reason this story matters beyond a single product is what it suggests about where big incumbents are hunting for growth.
Adjuvants are not new. But irrigation-focused adjuvants nudge the category toward a much larger prize: the “last mile” of water productivity. And unlike a hardware upgrade, chemistry scales through distribution.
If you believe water constraints will tighten, this becomes a classic platform moment. The pivot is no longer just a machine; it is an application channel. Anything that can be injected through it—nutrients, biologicals, conditioners, now water-behavior products—competes for space in the season.
Loveland’s own product bulletin suggests a simple use pattern in corn—1 quart per acre at V4, followed by 1 quart per acre at VT—which reads like a familiar agronomic rhythm rather than a tech deployment.
That rhythm is important because it lowers adoption friction. Growers do not have to learn a new system. They have to decide whether it’s worth adding to the tank.
The economic logic then becomes straightforward:
- If corn is $4.50/bushel, a 9 bu/acre lift is ~$40/acre gross revenue.
- If corn is $5.50, it’s ~$50/acre.
- The break-even point is simply: product cost per acre ÷ corn price.
Loveland has not publicly standardized that cost because it will vary by channel and program. But the framework is clear—and so is the risk. If performance varies by zone, the “average” ROI may not match the experience on any given farm.
The missing piece: verification (and why it could change who pays)
Here is the more strategic possibility that most coverage misses:
If water-efficiency inputs can be verified, they become financeable.
That may sound like jargon, but it has practical consequences. Verified water productivity could, in theory, matter to:
- water districts looking for demand reduction without shutting acres down
- insurers modeling drought and heat-stress risk
- lenders evaluating long-term viability of irrigated operations
- sustainability programs that want credible water stewardship claims
The barrier has always been measurement. Water is local, outcomes are noisy, and agriculture has learned—painfully—to distrust miracle claims.
But the measurement ecosystem is improving. Soil moisture sensors are cheaper. Pivot telemetry is standard. Field-level modeling is moving from research into commercial tools. Even if a product like AQUA FORCE is “just chemistry,” it arrives at a moment when chemistry can be instrumented.
That creates a new kind of competition: not only “does it work,” but can it be proven to work in a way that third parties will accept?
If the answer becomes yes, the buyer may not always be the farmer alone. The buyer could be the system surrounding the farm—especially where water scarcity is no longer a forecast, but a balance sheet reality.
What to watch next
Three signals will tell us whether this category becomes more than a niche:
First, independent replication. Company-sponsored trials are a starting point; durable markets form when universities, extension networks, and multi-location datasets converge on where a product does—and does not—deliver.
Second, targeting. If performance is soil-dependent, the winning play may be pairing water adjuvants with soil maps and pivot zone control, turning “chemical efficiency” into a precision layer.
Third, expansion beyond pivots. Loveland has indicated interest in extending the concept into other irrigation systems over time. If water-behavior chemistry moves into drip and flood contexts, the addressable market broadens, but the measurement challenge becomes tougher.
For now, AQUA FORCE is a small signal with a big implication: the next irrigation gains may not come only from better nozzles or smarter scheduling, but from treating water itself as a medium that can be engineered.
The pivot still turns. But the competition is moving underground—into the physics of the root zone.
