amaze 25/ Mud, 1957 w \ ‘Y, 9r‘ A a n COLLEGE ' 'Water and Associated Costs in the ' Production of Cotton and Grain forg/oum, ' Texas High Plains, 1955 30 25 20 COST IN CENTS PER POUND OF LINT O 4OO 450 500 550 GOO 650 YIELD IN POUNDS OF LINT PER ACRE Figure 1. Specified production cost (power and machinery, labor. materials. water and harvesting cost) per pound oi irrigated cotton related to yield per acre and to acres irrigated per well. Average cost on 160 and 320-acre sandy and heavy land farms. In cooperation with the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D.‘ LEWIS. DIRECTOR, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Rising costs of water and machinery, along with higher rates of power, labor and water use. during th past 6 years have increased the cost of producing irrigated cotton and grain sorghum on the Texas Hig ' Plains. The major part of the increase results from changes in the cost of water and from practices adopte to meet drouth-increased water demands with diminishing supplies of water. Based on 1955 price-cos conditions. preharvest costs of producing irrigated and dryland cotton and grain sorghum under high, medium and low water costs are: ‘f- Sandy land Heavy land i” Condition ____i' "ii" A Cotton Grain sorghum Cotton Grain sorghumi — — — — — — Dollars per acre — — — — — —. Dryland—cost per acre 10.38 5.11 _ Irrigated- High-cost water, 39 acres per well 65.00 41.00 Medium-cost water, 78 acres per well 54.00 29.00 53.00 31.00 Low-cost water, 156 acres per well 48.00 24.00 47.00 26.00 Unit costs are affected materially by variations in yield. Specified costs-—power, labor, material, water and harvesting—per pound of lint cotton vary with differences in water cost and yield level. With high-cost water, the specified cost per pound of lint ranges from 25 to 19 cents at the 400 and 650-pound-per-acre yield levels, respectively. With medium-cost water, the range is 22 to 17 cents, respectively, for yields of 400 and 650 pounds per acre. With low-cost water, the specified cost per pound is 21 to 16 cents for yields of 400 and 650 pounds per acre, respectively. Similar unit costs on dryland cotton range from 21 to 10.5 cents per pound of lint, respectively, ford ' yields of 75 and 325 pounds per acre. I The specified cost per hundredweight of irrigated grain sorghum also is affected by different water costs and by variations in yield. At 1955 prices, power, labor, material, water and harvesting costs pe hundredweight, under the high-cost water situation, range from $2.25 to 93 cents, respectively, for yields o 2,000 to 5,000 pounds per acre. With medium-cost water, the range is from $1.71 to 72 cents, respectively, for yields of 2,000 and 5,000 pounds per acre. With low-cost water, the specified costs per hundredweight range from $1.45 to 62 cents for yields of 2,000 and 5,000 pounds per acre, respectively. Specified costs per hundredweight of dryland grain sorghum range from $1.48 to 41 cents, respectively, Round l-lv ' for yields of 500 and 2,000 pounds per acre. CONTENTS Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Crop Production Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 _ Conditions Assumed for Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' Preharvest Production Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Irrigated Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Dryland Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Irrigated Grain Sorghum . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Dryland Grain Sorghum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Preharvest Production Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Preharvest Production Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Preharvest Production Cost Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Harvesting and Associated Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Unit Production Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Grain Sorghum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Tenant Operator's Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Possible Cost Reductions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 P REDUCTIONS IN THE INCOME from irrigated ‘arming are being experienced on the High s. Reduction of cotton acreage and lower for grain sorghum have lowered gross U income at a time when rising farm equip- and Water costs have increased production i‘ The progressive decline in water levels in- xtes that future water supplies will be smaller __more expensive to obtain. ‘Because of this, '7 adjustment in the present rates of water i, ill be required to prolong the economic life L e Water supply. The prospect of less water -the lack of suitable alternative cash crops est that adjustments toward more effective ' f the available water supply will involve I er quantities of water than are now applied e production of cotton and grain sorghum. formation regarding production require- s and costs and the yields of individual from various amounts of water is a basic frement for adjusting present practices. ation of this kind helps individual farm tors appraise the risks and possible con- nces of alternative adjustments. It is basic p to the formulation of policies and to the tution of water conservation programs by agencies. his report presents estimates of production irements and certain per-acre and per-unit of producing cotton and grain sorghum on - 1 irrigated and dryland farms of the Texas ; Plains. ' and and management costs are not included is report, but the amount available for these I oses is shown in Figures 3, 4, 7 and 8. his is the second in a series of reports on a p. concerning the most economical use of r in the agriculture of the High Plains. It is o partly on information developed in f‘ iously published studies adjusted to reflect 3 production practices and prices.‘ ’ CROP PRODUCTION COSTS Except for the practices associated With the plicatlon of water, there 1s much similarity 1n production ‘and harvesting practices on 1rr1- O spectively, agricultural economist, Farm Economics search Division, Agricultural Research Service. U. S. .' iDopartment of Agriculture: and professor, Department of lgricultural Economics and Sociology, Texas Agricultural ltperiment Station. ater and Associated Costs in the Production of o tton and Grain Sorghum, Texas High Plains, 1955 WILLIAM F. HUGHES and A. C. MAGEE* gated and dryland crops. Crop production is highly mechanized and most farms are equipped with 4-row machinery. Cotton harvesting is the only major production practice that is not com- monly mechanized. With a few exceptions, both irrigated and dryland farms are equipped with the same size. and type of farm machinery. Be- cause the practices are more intensive, irrigated farms require a greater amount of farm ma- chinery. Many changes were made in the practices used on irrigated farms during the shift from dryland farming. In recent years, however, most of the production practices have become more stable and standardized than they were when irrigation was first developed. Practices differ somewhat between farms on sandy soils and on heavy soils. They differ also within these groups, but most of the difference among farm.s on the same soil type consists mainly of differences in the amount of water applied and in minor cultural practices. a Water-use practices and investment in irriga- tion equipment and facilities are changing as farmers cope with the problem of supplying drouth-increased water demands from a con- stantly diminishing water supply.“ Moisture conditions govern production prac- tices on dryland, consequently, these practices vary Widely from year to year. Practices on partly irrigated farms combine the production practices of both irrigated and dryland farms. As the acreage to be irrigated on partly irrigated farms depends to a great extent on the amount of precipitation received, practices on the irrigated portions of these farms generally are less inten- sive than those on wholly irrigated farms. CONDITIONS ASSUMED FOR COST ANALYSIS Each combination of farm resources and methods of farm operation results in a differing cost of production figure. To be meaningful, therefore, estimates of production cost must be related to a specific set of conditions that repre- sent the widest number of farms. Cost estimates presented in this report are based on the cost of producing cotton and grain sorghum with l the production practices com- monly applied on typical 160 and 320-acre sandy and heavy land wholly irrigated farms, and on a 320-acre dryland farm located on sandy land. 3 Land use and crop acreages are based on 1954 conditions, when 97 percent of the farm Was in cultivation, 42 percent in cotton and 58 percent in grain sorghum, or crops with similar production requirements. Machinery costs are based on the 1955 price of the amount of 4-row farm ma- chinery commonly used to perform prevailing cultural practices. Labor costs are based on the reported 1955 wage rate paid per 10-hour day, without board. Costs of seed, insecticides, fuel and 011 are based on 1955 prices. Water costs are based_on the cost of water from butane-fueled pumping plants serving 39, 78 and 156 acres per plant. Harvesting costs are based on custom com- b1ne rates for grain sorghum and the cotton snapping and ginning rates in effect during 1955. In conformity with earlier reports on this area, data for “sandy soils” pertain to production requirements and costs in Lubbock, Hockley, .Lamb, Bailey and southern Parmer counties. Data for “heavy soils” reflect production require- ments and costs in Crosby, Floyd, Hale, Swisher and Castro counties. PREHARVEST PRODUCTION PRACTICES Irrigated Cotton _ A detailed account of irrigated crop produc- tion practices in 1947-49 is given in TAES Bulletin 7 63.‘ According to this bulletin, practices used 1n the preparation of seedbeds were much the same for both cotton and grain sorghum. Irrigation practices differed between crops and major soil types. For example, most of the cotton land on sandy soils was irrigated before planting, but only about 50 percent of the cotton land on heavy soils was given a preplanting irrigation. Since 1949, changes in seedbed preparation practices, heavier rates of water application and increased insect and weed-control practices have increased labor and power requirements by 26 and 29 percent, respectively. Flat breaking, which requires a large amount of labor and power, has become a general practice. It 1s not as intensively practiced on sandy soils as on heavy soils. Generally, only half of the cotton land on sandy soils is flat broken each year, but flat breaking with a disc or moldboard plow is a standard practice on heavy soils, Cotton land on heavy soils ‘is irrigated at least once before planting. On sandy soils, cotton usually received two preplanting irrigations. This represents an intensification of irrigation prac- tices on both soil types. The amount of insect control practices varies considerably, particularly in late or mid-season. Reported practices ranged from no late poisoning to five applications during 1955. Insect control is increasing in both intensity and areas affected. Hoeing also has increased in intensity. 4 Pump operating time increased from a , average of 930 hoursfi per season during 1947-4 to an average of 2,200 hours during 1954-55? Dryland Cotton Dryland production practices depend largel on the amount of precipitation received befor and after planting; thus, they vary widely fro year to year. They range from a minimum o listing, planting and one or twk) cultivations wit a light hoeing to an intensity of practices a proaching that on irrigated lands. TAES Bulleti 652‘ and Miscellaneous Publication 37” show th dryland practices during 1930-35 and 194 respectively. A These two publications reflect practices dur ing periods with more favorable moisture con ditions than have prevailed in the past 5 years The dryland practices on which this study i based are somewhat less intensive than thos reported for 1930-35 where only a small amoun of 4-row machinery was used, and slightly mor intensive than those reported for 1947 whe 4-row equipment was in general use. Year-to-yea I variation in dryland production practices do no affect preharvest production costs materially Most of the preharvest cost of producing a dry land crop stems from the ownership cost o machinery. Variations in the rate of productio practices affect labor and fuel costs, howeve since these costs are proportional to the hour of machinery use. Dryland practices adopted for this study ar those used on sandy soils. Dryland crop productio practices used on heavy soils are not included, since a substantial acreage of wheat usually is planted on these farms. Irrigated Grain Sorghum Preharvest production practices for grain sorghum, although somewhat less intensive in their application, are similar to those for irrigated cotton.‘ As with cotton, there has been an in- crease in the labor and power requirements and in the amount of water used per acre in produc- ing grain sorghum since 1949. The increase in per-acre water use is similar on both soil types, although labor and power requirements have in- creased more on heavy soils where flat breaking at least half of the sorghum land is a common practice. Control of weeds in grain sorghum grown on heavy soils also requires more labor and greater use of machinery. Dryland Grain Sorghum Preharvest production practices for dryland grain sorghum are almost identical to those used for dryland cotton. The principal difference prior to planting consists of fewer wind-erosion con- trol measures on sorghum land, and because sor- ghum is commonly planted later than cotton, there is more preplanting knifing of sorghum i land. 1. PREHARVEST REQUIREMENTS FOR PRODUCING IRRIGATED AND DRYLAND COTTON AND GRAIN SORGHUM BY MAIOR SOIL TYPES, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1955 . Tractor Seed, Number of Number of Marbhour requnements per acre fuel, pounds insecticide irrigations Type of {arm Tractor gallonsl per” applications per ~ Machine operator Hoe Irrigation Total Per acre 11°79“ P31’ acre 591159111 ' soils - i‘? -ated cotton 4.16 4.16 5.20 2.08 11.44 16.6 48.03 3.5‘ 3.5 and cotton 1.55 1.55 3.20 — 4.75 6.2 30.0“ —‘ — ated grain sorghum 2.90 2.90 — 1.86 4.76 11.6 8.5 — 3.0 _ and grain sorghum 1.55 1.55 — — 1.55 6.2 6.0 — - — ' soils " ~ ated cotton 4.75 4.75 5.40 1.62 11.77 19.0 48.03 3.5‘ 3.0 ated grain sorghum 3.02 3.02 2.00 1.73 6.75 12.1 8.5 — 3.3 a um, 4 lb. . J, ht of seed before delinting. PREHARVEST PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS The labor, machine hours and materials re- d to conduct preharvest irrigated and dry- l~=~~ production practices are shown in Table 1. ter requirements, other than the number of gations, are not included. For this study, the 'unt of water is held at a constant of 17 i, inches, gross pumpage, per acre irrigated. use of variations in the materials the ntities of insecticides used are not reported. ead, the more common number of insecticide lications per acre is reported, regardless of the or quantity of materials used. PREHARVEST PRODUCTION COSTS . Cost of the preharvest production items and Q tices, exclusive of water, shown in Table 1 is i _sented in Table 3. Water costs are presented ‘La later section of this report. Some of the items shown in Table 1 are affected by farm Q Although more equipment is required on 1e farms, the larger acreage involved permits fuller use of some items of equipment and re- y’ ts in a lower annual ownership cost of machi- per acre. i The annual cost of machinery is governed by amount of machinery required to equip a Both the amount and age of machinery l amount and kinds of machinery required be- ’ - acreage-control programs reduced the cotton ton acreages. In this study, the amount of the ‘estment in farm machinery is standardized. hinery costs are based on the 1955 price of g rates per planting: irrigated cotton, 32 1b.; dryland cotton, 20 lb.; irrigated grain sorghum, 7 1b.; dryland grain erage rate of '2 early applications and 11/2 late-season applications. l ad's on rainfall. With rainfall, 1 or early applications; without rainfall, no application. machinery items, combine and cotton strippers excepted, commonly found on wholly irrigated cotton and grain sorghum farms, Table 2. Data are not available to indicate the age of equipment now on farms in this general area. Since these farms have been fully mechanized for some time, it may be assumed that present ma- chinery inventories reflect purchases over several years. Considering the fact that 1955 prices reflect a 17 to 20-percent increase in farm machinery prices since 1950, the depreciated value of present machinery inventories is probably about half that shown in Table 2. The farm machinery investment on a 320- acre irrigated farm is nearly three times that on a similar dryland farm. Because of a heavier requirement and more intensive practices, the annual power and machinery cost for irrigated cotton is 3.5 times greater than the corresponding costs on dryland cotton. Annual power and machinery cost for irrigated grain sorghum pro- duction ' is double that on dryland sorghum, Table 2. _Labor costs, Table 3, are based on the ‘pre- vailing 1955 wage paid for the type of labor involved--hoe or tractor operator or general TABLE 2. TOTAL FARM MACHINERY INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL POWER AND MACHINE COST BY SIZE AND TYPE OF FARM, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1955 widely; consequently, there is a wide range PRICES tithe cost of machinery on High Plains farms. T m! Annufllpewer and . . . . - 2 =1; wholly irrigated farms are equipped with Size and mapciinery m°°11m°W ‘$51G _ [G111 investment Total Cotton type of farm per farm‘ per farm per acre’ sorghum per acre“ ff eage. Before acreage control, some 70 to 80 D z . . . —-———— o1lars———-—— , rcent of the irrigated lands in the area covered Sandy soils this study commonly were planted to cotton. 320-acre dryland 6.615 1224 4.88 3.22 f igated farms with 100 percent of the cropland 3211mm’ 1111911184 13-315 351111 17-32 5-44 + cotton were" not unusual. Present machinery H16°'“°'°.1‘"‘g°t°d “'49” 2177 2152 8'34 ventories, therefore, are likely to be somewhat ffligated 13,320 3535 1mg m9 iher than actually are required with reduced IBU-mreirriqeted 11.025 2133 19.78 9.19 ‘Irrigation well and pumping plant costs are not included. zlncludes depreciation, interest, repairs, fuel, oil and grease. “Prorated according to hours of use on each crop. TABLE 3. PREHARVEST COSTS FOR LABOR, POWER AND MATERIALS. OTHER THAN WATER. REQUIRED TO PRODU COTTON AND GRAIN SORGHUM. TEXAS HIGH PLAINS. 1955 PRICES‘ Power and Lab“ ¢°5l5 Pei‘ acre Seed’ Insecticide” Total Size and type of farm machinery cost Machine Irrigation Total cost cost Specified co per acre operation Hoeing labor labor per acre per acre per acre‘ — — — — — — — — — — Dollars —- — — — — — — — — 320-acre farm—sandy soils ‘3- Dryland cotton 4.88 1.47 2.08 — 3.55 1.95 — __10.38 Irrigated cotton 17.82 3.95 3.38 1.98 9.31 3.12 4.75 35.00 Dryland grain sorghum 3.22 1.47 — — 1.47 .42 — 5.11 Irrigated grain sorghum 6.64 ‘2.75 — 1.77 4.52 .60 — 11.76 160-acre farm—sandy soils Irrigated cotton 21.62 3.95 3.38 1.98 9.31 3.12 4.75 38.80 Irrigated grain sorghum 8.34 2.75 — 1.77 4.52 .60 — 13.46 320-acre farm-heavy soils Irrigated cotton 17.08 A 4.51 3.51 1.54 9.56 3.12 4.75 34.51 Irrigated grain sorghum 7.39 2.87 1.30 1.64 5.81 .60 — 13.80 160-acre farm-heavy soils Irrigated cotton 19.78 4.51 3.51 1.54 9.56 3.12 4.75 37.21 ' Irrigated grain sorghum 9.19 2.87 1.30 1.64 5.81 .60 — 15.60 ‘Based on requirements presented in Table 1. ’Seed cost—delinted and treated cottonseed at 6.5 cents per pound: grain sorghum seed at 7 cents _per pound. “Material cost of 50 cents per acre for early application. $2.50 per acre custom rate for late application. Machine labor and fu costs of early application included in machine and machine operator costs. see footnote 4. Table 1. 4 farmhand. Most tractor operation and irrigation labor usually is performed by the farm operator. Hoe labor on irrigated farms commonly is hired since it is needed at a time other operations re- quire the farm operator’s attention. Seed and insecticide costs in Table 3 are based on 1955 prices for the quantities given in Table 1. Water costs are governed by the investment in a pumping plant, size and type of power unit, fuel type and cost, mechanical condition of pump- ing equipment, pumping lift, rate of Well yield and total seasonal pumpage. As this suggests, water costs differ consider- ably between wells, depending on how the factors listed combine at a particular Well. High-yielding Wells produce water at a lower cost per unit than low-yielding Wells, and less labor is re- quired to apply a given amount of water when larger irrigation heads are available. Well yield affects water costs significantly regardless of how other conditions combine at a particular pumping plant. Although management practices provide some leeway for differences in the acreage that can TABLE 4. ESTIMATED IRRIGATION WATER COSTS PER ACRE. BUTANE-FUELED PUMPING PLANTS. TEX- AS HIGH PLAINS. 1955 PRICE BASE Acres irrigated Cost per we“ Yield Water cost per acre per well plant‘ in g.p.m."’ Operating” Overhead‘ Total 39 $3.770 135 $16.00 $12.10 $28.10 78 4.500 270 9.50 7.25 16.75 156 6.040 540 6.40 4.85 11.25 ‘Based on new cost of comparable plants as determined by field surveys during Iune 1955. ’G.p.m. required to provide gross pumpage of 17 acre-inches per acre during a 2.200-hour pumping season. “Includes expenditures for fuel. oil. grease and repairs. ‘Based on an allowance of 12.5 percent of initial investment to cover depreciation, interest. taxes and risk or insurance. 6 Includes cost of machinery. fuel. oil. grease repair. labor. seed and insecticides. be irrigated with a given head of water (g.p.m.) the acreage irrigated from a particular Well ' an indication of the yield of that well. Thu declines in well yield are reflected by the reductio in the acreage irrigated per well. The acreag irrigated per well declined 26 percent from 195 ~ to 1954. Water costs are influenced materiall by the acres irrigated per Well, which is in tu q related definitely to well yields. Consequentl continued declines in water level and accompan ing decreases in well yield can be expected to lea to higher water costs. To appraise the effects of current and prospe tive changes in water supply, Water costs a developed for typical high, medium and low-co Water supply situations found in a field surve conducted in 1955. Water costs are based on th cost of providing water with butane-fueled pum ing plants serving 39, 78 and 156 acres per we Table 4. Both the irrigation head and the season amount of water pumped for cotton and grai sorghum are held constant on both heavy an sandy soils. Other conditions include 2,200 hou < of pump operating time per season with gro pumpage equivalent to 17 acre-inches of wate per acre. Reasons for the higher costs of water fro plants irrigating small acreages are apparen from Table 4. The per-acre investment in we and pumping equipment is $97, $57 and $39 f0 plants serving 39, 78 and 156 acres, respectively Since overhead costs are proportional to the in vestment, the per-acre overhead costs on a we serving 39 acres is 2.5 times larger than on th plant that serves 156 acres. Operating costs pe acre also are 2.5 times greater on the plant serv ing 39 acres than they are on the plant that serv 156 acres. Cost estimates presented in Table 3, plus‘ th water costs shown in Table 4, equal the tota preharvest cost of machinery, labor, fuel, seed, g insecticides and water used to produce cotton and j grain sorghum. Preharvest costs of cotton and 1 grainsorghum production are related in Table 5 to the various combinations of acres irrigated per well, soil type and farm size. Preharvest Production Cost Comparison . Preharvest production costs by the component groups (labor, power, materials and water) are i shown in Table 5. Although production practices f and requirements differ between heavy and sandy soils, these differences tend to cancel out 'and i where Water costs are comparable, there is no significant difference between the per-acre pre- }¢ harvest costs of producing irrigated cotton on sandy and heavy soils. Preharvest production t. costs for irrigated grain sorghum are approxi- e mately $2 per acre higher on heavy soils than on 1 sandy soils. Preharvest production costs for cot- f ton are $3.80 and $2.70 per acre lower on 320- T acre sandy and heavy land farms than on 160- , acre sandy and heavy land farms, respectively. . These per-acre differences are lower with grain * sorghum. Preharvest costs on grain sorghum i are $1.70 and $1.80 per acre lower on 320-acre sandy and heavy land farms, respectively. To facilitate a comparison, preharvest costs of . producing dryland cotton and grain sorghum are - repeated under each of the three water-cost situa- 1 tions in Table 5. On 320-acre farms, the pre- . I harvest costs per acre for irrigated cotton are 4.5 f to 6 times greater than similar costs on dryland cotton, and the preharvest costs of irrigated grain sorghum is about 5 to almost 8 times greater than equivalent dryland costs, depending on water costs. For 160-acre farms, the difference be- tween dryland and irrigated preharvest produc- tion costs is somewhat greater than those on 320- j acre farms, particularly for cotton. 320-acre dryland HARVESTING AND ASSOCIATED COSTS A high percentage of dryland cotton is ma- chine-stripped, and a high percentage of irrigated cotton is hand-snapped once or twice, then the harvest is completed with a stripper. Differences between hand-snapping and ma- chine-stripping costs per hundred-weight of seed cotton affect the harvesting cost per unit. Asso- ciated costs, particularly ginning costs, also are affected by the method of harvest. Harvesting and ginning costs are based on the hundred- weig.ht of seed cotton; consequently, they are not affected particularly by the yield per acre. The yield is likely to influence the proportion of the crop that -is hand-snapped, and to that extent it will affect unit costs. ‘ For this study, harvesting costs are based on 8O percent hand-snapping and 20 percent ma- chine-stripping of irrigated cotton, and 20 per- cent hand-snapping and 80 percent machine- stripping of dryland cotton. A hand-snapping rate of $1.75 and a machine-stripping rate of 75 cents per hundredweight of seed cotton delivered to the gin were used to compute harvesting costs. Ginning costs are based on a rate of 50 cents per hundredweight for a seasonal average of 11,900 pounds of hand-snapped and 2,400 pounds of machine-stripped seed cotton per 500-pound bale of lint. Associated costs include a charge of $3.50 per bale for bagging and ties and 50 cents per bale for hauling to the compress. Harvesting and associated costs, at these rates, average $44.20 per bale for irrigated cotton and $36.55 per bale for dryland cotton, or 8.84 and 7.31 cents, respectively, per pound of lint. The per-acre cost of harvesting cotton, therefore, is determined by the yield multiplied by the appro- priate unit cost. TABLE 5. PREHARVEST LABOR, POWER. MATERIAL AND WATER COSTS RELATED TO ACRES IRRIGATED PER WELL, FARM SIZE AND MAIOR LAND TYPES. TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1955 PRICES Size and type of tarm 320-acre irrigated 160-acre irrigated Cost item Sandy land Sandy land Heavy land Sandy land Heavy land Cotton Sgglxllsm Cotton sggilrm Cotton sfigitlm Cotton Sggilsm Cotton 53311111,!‘ _ _ _ _ - — — — — — — Dollars per acre — — — — — — — — — — — Wells serving 39 acres Labor 3.55 1.47 9.31 4.52 1 1 9.31 4.52 1 1 Power 6. machinery 4.88 3.22 17.82 6.64 1 1 21.62 8.34 1 1 Materials 6. supplies 1.95 ' .42 7.87 .60 _ 7.87 .60 1 1 Water 0 0 28.10 28.10 1 1 28.10 28.10 1 1 Total 10.38 5.11 63.10 39.86 1 1 66.90 41.56 1 1 1 Wells serving 78 acres Labor 3.55 1.47 9.31 4.52 9.56 5.81 9.31 4.52 9.56 5.81 Power 6 machinery 4.88 3.22 17.82 6.64 17.08 7.39 21.62 8.34 19.78 9.19 Materials 6. supplies 1.95 .42 7.87 .60 7.87 .60 7.87 .60 7.87 .60 Water 0 0 16.75 16.75 16.75 16.75 16.75 16.75 16.75 16.75 Total '1 10.38 5.11 51.75 28.51 51.26 30.55 55.55 30.21 53.96 32.25 Wells serving 156 acres Labor 3.55 1.47 9.31 4.52 9.56 5.81 9.31 4.52 9.56 5.81 Power 6. machinery 4.88 3.22 17.82 6.64 17.08 7.39 21.62 8.34 19.78 9.19 Materials 6. supplies 1.95 .42 7.87 .60 7.87 .60 7.87 .60 7.87 .60 Water _ 0 0 11.25 11.25 11.25 11.25 11.25 11.25 11.25 11.25 Total 10.38 5.11 46.25 23.01 45.76 25.05 50.05 24.71 48.46 26.85 ‘ ‘Situation not typical on heavy land farms. Cotton quality considerations are not included in this analysis. Previous studies have indicated no significant difference in quality between hand- snapped and machine-stripped cotton, provided the cotton is harvested under comparable condi- tions.“ Grain sorghum is harvested by combines. The most common custom combine rate during 1955 was $3 per acre for irrigated and $2 per acre for dryland grain sorghum, regardless of the yield per acre. In this study, grain sorghum combining costs are based on the 1955 custom harvesting rate. The only variable cost involved in harvesting grain sorghum is the cost of haul- ing from the combine to the elevator. The haul- ing charge is 5 to 10 cents per hundredweight, depending on the distance to market. In this analysis, the cost of hauling is based on a charge of 6 cents per hundredweight. As the variable cost is only 6 cents per hundredweight, harvesting costs per acre for grain sorghum are not affected materially by a variation in yield. UNIT PRODUCTION COST Generally, the higher the yield, the lower the unit cost. Preharvest labor, power, material and Water costs shown in Table 5 are not affected particularly by variations in yields. Although these preharvest costs are somewhat fixed, a higher yield distributes them over more units. The same principle applies to harvesting costs for grain sorghum, which are based on a flat charge per acre except for the small hauling cost. With cotton harvesting and associated costs, both per- acre and per-unit costs vary directly with yield. Thus, the unit cost of producing either cotton or grain sorghum is governed largely by the yield per acre. TABLE 6. TOTAL LABOR. POWER. MATERIAL. WATER AND HARVESTING COST. PER ACRE AND PER POUND. OF PRODUC- i. Cotton The total specified costs of production per acr and per unit for irrigated and dryland cotto under the conditions of farm size and water sup ply situations studied are shown in Table 6. Sim- ilar data for grain sorghum are shown in Tabl 7. Yields listed in Tables 6 and 7 and Figur 1 to 8 cover the range in yield ‘that may be ex pected from the intensity of pr ‘ tices and wate use on which this study is base . Variations i the time and amount of rainfall during the” grow . ing season affect yields enough to account fo the range in yield shown. Figures 1 to 8 show that irrigation raises th l per-acre and the unit production costs for bot cotton and grain sorghum. The total specifie production cost per pound on irrigataed cotton under the 156-acres-per-well water cost, ranges from 21 cents at 400 pounds per acre to 16.2 cents at the 650-pound yield rate, Figure 1. der the more expensive 39-acres-per-well wate cost, the total specified production cost per poun A ranges from about 25 to 19 cents at the 400 and ' Total specifie costs per pound for dryland cotton range fro ~ 21.5 cents at 75 pounds per acre to 10.5 cents a 4 650-yield levels, respectively. 325 pounds per acre. Increases in yield cause a sharp drop in th T unit cost of producing dryland cotton, but wit irrigated cotton the declines are moderate. yield of irrigated cotton reduces unit costs b 4.6, 5.2, and 6.3 cents per pound, where wells serve 156, 78 and 39 acres, respectively. ING IRRIGATED AND DRYLAND COTTON. BY MAIOR SOIL TYPES AND SIZE OF FARM. TEXAS HIGH PLAINS. 1955 PRICES Yield in pounds of lint per acre l 400 450 500 550 600 650 - Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Type and sue oi farm per per per per per per per per per per per per acre. $ 1b.. c acre. $ 1b.. c acre. $ 1b.. c acre. $ 1b.. c acre. $ 1b.. c acre. $ 1b.. c Irrigated farm With wells serving 39 acres _ 160-acre sandy land larm 102.26 25.56 106.68 23.70 111.10 22.22 115.52 21.00 119.94 19.99 124.36 19.13 320-acre sandy land farm 98.46 24.61 102.88 22.86 107.30 21.46 111.72 20.31 116.14 19.35 120.56 18.54 With wells serving 78 acres 160-acre sandy land farm 90.91 22.72 95.33 21.22 99.75 19.95 104.17 18.94 108.59 18.09 113.01 17.38 160-acre heavy land farm 89.32 22.31 93.74 20.83 98.16 19.63 102.58 18.65 107.00 17.83 111.42 17.14 320-acre sandy land farm 87.11 21.77 91.53 20.34 95.95 19.19 100.37 18.24 104.79 17.46 109.21 16.80 320-acre heavy land farm 87.18 21.79 91.60 20.35 96.02 19.19 100.44 18.26 104.84 17.47 109.24 16.80 With wells serving 156 acres 160-acre sandy land farm 85.41 21.35 89.83 19.96 94.25 18.85 98.67 17.94 103.09 17.18 107.51 16.54 160-acre heavy land iarm 83.82 20.93 88.24 19.60 92.66 18.53 97.08 17.65 101.50 16.91 105.92 16.29 320-acre sandy land farm 81.61 20.40 86.03 19.11 90.45 18.09 94.87 17.24 99.29 16.54 103.71 15.95 320-acre heavy land farm 81.68 20.42 86.10 19.13 90.52 18.10 94.94 ‘ 17.26 99.36 16.56 103.78 15.96 Yield in pounds of lint per acre 75 125 175 225 275 325 Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost per per per per per per per per per per per per acre. $ 1b.. c acre. $ 1b.. c acre. $ 1b.. c acre. $ 1b.. c acre. $ 1b.. c acre. $ 1b.. c Dryland farm 320-acre sandy land farm 15.86 21.14 19.51 15.60 23.16 13.23 26.81 11.91 30.46 11.07 34.14 10.50 Un l is shown by the slope of the curves in Figures 1 l and 2. A 250-pound increase in the yield of dry J land cotton reduces the unit cost from 21.5 t . 10.5 cents per pound. A similar increase in Yield in pounds per acre 7. TOTAL LABOR. POWER. MATERIAL, WATER AND HARVESTING COST. PER ACRE AND PER HUNDREDWEIGI-IT. OF PRODUCING IRRIGATED AND DRYLAND GRAIN SORGHUM BY MAIOR SOIL TYPES AND SIZE OF FARM. TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1955 PRICES 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 . Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Type and sue oi 1mm per per per per per per per per per per per per per per acre cwt. acre cwt. acre cwt. acre cwt. acre cwt. acre cwt. acre cwt. — — — — — — — — — — — Dollars — —- — — - — — — -— — — - ed farms 1h wells serving 39 acres ‘ 00-acre sandy land iarm 45.76 2.29 46.06 1.84 46.36 1.54 46.66 1.33 46.96 1.17 47.26 1.05 47.56 .95 320-acre sandy land farm 44.06 2.20 44.36 1.77 44.66 1.49 44.96 1.28 45.26 1.13 45.56 1.01 45.86 .92 with wells serving 78 acres l60-acre sandy land farm 34.41 1.72 34.71 1.39 35.01 1.17 35.31 1.01 35.61 .89 35.91 .80 36.21 .72 ISO-acre heavy land farm 35.35 1.77 35.65 1.43 35.95 1.20 36.25 1.03 36.55 .91 36.85 .82 37.15 .74 320-acre sandy land farm 32.71 1.63 33.01 1.32 33.31 1.11 33.61 .96 33.91 .85 34.21 .76 34.51 .69 -acre heavy land farm 34.75 1.73 35.05 1.40 35.35 1.18 35.85 1.02 36.15 .90 36.45 .81 36.75 .73 th wells serving 156 acres ' , BO-acre sandy land farm 28.91 1.44 29.21 1.17 29.51 .98 29.81 .85 30.11 .75 30.41 .67 30.71 .61 . ICU-acre heavy land farm 31.05 1.55 31.35 1.25 31.65 1.05 31.95 .91 32.25 .81 32.55 .72 32.85 .66 320-acre sandy land farm 27.21 1.36 27.51 1.10 27.81 .93 28.11 .80 28.41 .71 28.71 .64 29.01 .58 320-acre heavy land farm ‘ 29.25 1.46 29.55 1.18 29.85 .99 30.15 .86 30.45 .76 30.75 .68 31.05 .62 Yield in pounds per acre 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost per per per per per per per per per per per per per per acre cwt. acre cwt. acre cwt. acre cwt. acre cwt. acre cwt. acre cwt. — — — — — — — — — ——Dollars——-———————-—— 320-acre sandy land farm 7.41 1.48 7.56 1.01 7.71 .77 7.86 .63 8 01 53 8.16 4'7 8.31 41 Although irrigation increased both the per-acre 3nd per-unit costs of cotton production, the higher {geld obtained provides a larger return, as shown ’ Figures 3 and 5. For example, although the w nit production costs of dryland and irrigated iootton at the cheapest Water rate (156 acres per zjwell) are comparable at the 75-pound dryland and _,J400-p0und irrigated yield levels, the gross value Liof the 75-pound dryland lint and seed crop is ;$22.60 per acre, while the 400-pound irrigated crop grosses $128.60: The net return to land and management from dryland cotton at the 7 5-pound yield level is only $6.74 per acre, while the com- i, parable return from the 400-pound-per-acre irri- iegated cotton is $43.19. The spread between the “total specified cost §per acre” and the “per-acre value of production” lines on Figures 3 and 4 indicates the net amount i available for land and management per acre from dryland and irrigated cotton production. ' Grain Sorghum . Figures 5 to 8 present the specified cost per acre and per unit of producing irrigated and dry- land grain sorghum. The unit cost of producing ii dryland grain sorghum at 500 pounds per acre, Figure 6, is approximately the same as the unit i cost of a 2,000-pound per acre irrigated crop . grown with the cheapest water, Figure 5. With J more expensive Water, the unit costs of irrigated grain sorghum production are 55 to 85 cents 2 greater per hundredweight than dryland costs. ;_ A dryland yield of 750 pounds per acre can be a produced at a cost of $1 per hundredweight, land f and management costs~ excluded, whereas with l‘ the-cheapest water, an irrigated crop must yield at least 2,900 pounds per acre to be produced at a similar cost. Because the value of grain sorghum is low compared with the increased production costs for an irrigated crop, the returns from irrigated grain sorghum are considerably lower than those from irrigated cotton. At 1955 prices, a grain sorghum yield of 5,000 pounds per acre was re- quired to provide a net return equivalent to that of a 400-pound-per-acre irrigated cotton yield. p25 2O COST IN CENTS PER POUND OF LINT O 75 225 325 275 I25 I75 YIELD IN POUNDS OF LINT PER ACRE Figure 2. Specified production cost (power and machin- ery. materials and harvesting cost) per pound oi dryland cotton related to yield per acre. 9 TABLE 8. TENANT'S PREHARVEST COST FOR LABOR, POWER, WATER AND OTHER MATERIALS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE IRRIGATED AND DRYLAND COTTON AND GRAIN SORGHUM BY MAIOR SOIL TYPES AND SIZE OF FARM RELATED TO ACRES IRRIGATED PER WELL, TEXAS HIGH PLAINS, 1955 PRICES Preharvest costs per acre Preharvest costs per acre including water costs at’ Size and type of farm (“Elusive °i water ‘W591 39 acres per well 78 acres per well 156 acres per well Cotton Grain sorghum Cotton Grain sorghum Cotton Grain sorghum Cotton Grain sorghum --———-—————Dollarsperacre————————— 320-acre iarm-—sandy land Dryland crops 10.38 5.11 ——— ——- i i _—— ——— Irrigated crops 35.00 11.76 53.56 30.32 46.04 22.80 42.72 19.48 160-acre farm-sandy land 4 Irrigated crops 38.80 13.46 57.36 32.02 49.84 24.50 46.52 21.18 320-acre farm-heavy land Irrigated crops » 34.51 13.80 3 3 45.55 24.84 42.23 21.52 160-acre farm-heavy land Irrigated crops 37.21 15.60 3 3 48.25 '26.64 44.93 23.32 ‘Entries from last column, Table 3. ’Water cost based on typical rental agreement: landlord Iurnishes and maintains well and pump.- tenant provides engine, iue ' tank and oil, tuel and engine repair costs. ' “Few farms in this category. The spread between the “tota1 specified cost TENANT QPERATQRS CQST per acre” and “value of production” lines on Fig- _ _ ures 7 and 8 indicates the per-acre returns from Aeeerdlhg t0 the 1954 CeIISlIS 0f Agrlellitllre irrigated and dryland grain sorghum at 1954 and ahellt 50_ Pereeht 0f the irrigated farms 0H th 1955 prices for grain. The price reduction of 50 High P131118 Were terlarlt-Opereted- With this Pr cents per hundredweight in 1955 removed most pertlen of the farms Operated principally unde of the profit from sorghum production, Figure 7. Serrle form 0f agreement Whereirl bOth COStS all returns are shared, the tenant operator's cos merit some special consideration. Minor detail of the rental agreements may differ considerably Typically, however, the landlord provides land buildings, Well and pump, and pays well an pump repair costs. The tenant provides the pum power unit and all labor, machinery, fuel, oil 1nsect1c1de, seed and repairs required to produc and harvest the crop. The landlord receives one third of the sorghum grain delivered to th elevator and one-fourth of the seed cotton de livered to the gin. The landlord usually pays th ginning costs on his portion of the cotton crop. E o PRODUCTION COST AND YIELD VALUE IN DOLLARS PER ACRE '5 o l.l.l (I O Cl! 2O O <> a 400 450 500 550 600 650 Q o O YIELD IN POUNDS OF LINT PER ACRE 75 |25 |75 225 275 32 Figure 3. Specified production cost (power and machin- Y|ELD |N PQUNDS OF L|NT pER ACRE ery. labor, materials, water and harvesting cost) and value - of production per acre, irrigated cotton. related to yield per Figure 4. Specified production cost (power and machin- acre and to acres irrigated per well. Average cost on 160 ery. labor, materials and harvesting cost) and value o _ and 320-acre sandy and heavy land farms. production per acre. dryland cotton. related to yield per acre. l 10 q 20 .25 30 35 40 45 5° YIELD IN HUNDREDWEIGHT PER ACRE 5. Specified production cost (power and machin- materials. water and harvesting cost) per hun- oi irrigated grain sorghum related to yield per acres irrigated per well. Average cost on 160 sandy and heavy land iarms. tenant’s specified per-acre costs and re- under the typical leasing agreement, are in Table 8 and in Figures 9 to 12. These estimates are based on the same requirements in Tables 5 and 7. The data in Table 8 have adjusted to reflect only the tenant’s share of costs. amount of money available to cover risk, t and other unallocated costs is shown spread between the per-acre cost of pro- and the per-acre value of yield lines, 9 to 12. The landlord’s share of the crop, is equivalent t0'the market value of the payment by the tenant, has been deducted the yield value per acre so that the “value uction” lines represent the tenant’s per total return from crop sales. For irrigated cotton grown with the most ex- water—39 acres per well—the tenant 7.5 |o.o |2.5 |5.o |1.5 20.0 YIELD IN HUNDREDWEIGHT PER ACRE 6. Specified production cost (power and machin- materials and harvesting cost) per hundredweight ' grain sorghum related to yield per acre. ' 5.0 I20 IOO 8O 6O .40 2O COST OR VALUE IN DOLLARS PER ACRE O 2O 25 3O 35 4O 45 5O YIELD IN HUNDREDWEIGHT PER ACRE Figure 7. Specified production cost (power and machin- ery. labor. materials. water and harvesting cost) and value of production per acre, irrigated grain sorghum. related to yield per acre and acres irrigated per well. Average cost on 160 and SZU-acre sandy and heavy land farms. must produce 420 pounds of lint per acre to earn the equivalent of wages for his efforts, Figure 9. At the 400-pound level, he recovers his cash and overhead costs and $2.44 per acre for his labor: 39 cents per hour compared with a 1955 wage rate of 95 cents per hour. With 1954 aver- age cotton yields on sandy soils, a tenant who uses water from a well serving 39 acres has a manage- ment income of $17.22 per acre. At 1955 prices, average or better-than-aver- age yields of irrigated grain sorghum are re- quired to pay rent, labor, production, overhead and prime costs, Figure 10. ' The situation is much the same with dryland cotton and grain sorghum production, Figures 11 and 12. A comparison of cost and returns in Figures 4 and 8 with those in Figures 11 and 12 shows that although the tenant recovers his specified cost at the lower yield, he receives very low price for his labor. a POSSIBLE COST REDUCTIONS Water constitutes one of the largest items of expense in preharvest costs, but substantial re- ductions in water cost seem unlikely. One pro- spect is to reduce fuel costs by a shift to natural gas. Natural gas lines cost about $1,000 per well; consequently, the shift is advisable only if the annual fuel requirements are large. For large wells, a shift to natural gas would reduce annual costs of fuel substantially, and the savings would be sufficient to amortize the cost of the gas line. For small wells, the shift is inadvisable since the engines that power small wells require rela- ll 4O 35 3O 25 2O PRODUCTION COSTTAND YIELD VALUE IN DOLLARS PER ACRE o 5.0 7.5 |o.o 12s |s.o I |1.s 20.0 YIELD m HUNDREDWEIGHT PER ACRE Figure 8. Specified production cost (power and machin- ery. labor, materials and harvesting cost) and value oi production per acre. dryland grain sorghum, related to yield per acre. I70 6 o n30 E5 COST OR VALUE IN DOLLARS PERHACRE w o O 400 450 5OO 550 600 650 YIELD IN POUNDS OF LINT PER ACRE Figure 9. Tenant's specified costs and returns from irri- gated cotton production under typical crop-share rental contract related to yield per acre and acres irrigated per well. Average costs on 160 and 320-acre sandy and heavy land farms. 12 tively little fuel. For wells that serve 39 to acres, the advisability of the shift lies som where between the larger and smaller wells. T shift to natural gas is virtually ruled out, ho ever, for all wells where yields have declin sharply and the size of the pumping equipme may have t0 be reduced. Improving the mecha I cal condition of the pumps would reduce Wat costs somewhat. Another possible saving lies fitting equipment to the lift arid yield conditio at the well site. Because of the ever-changi water supply situation, however, the cost of ma ing either of these improvements might not be covered within the effective life of the improv ment. Where new equipment is being installed an old well or where new wells are being -. tablished, lower water costs can be obtained r fitting this equipment to the lift and yield co ditions at the site. Irrigation research and general experien show that higher rates of water application W’ increase crop yields. However, the regional d cline in water levels indicates that the wa resources will not support even the present ra of water use. Relief through increased water us therefore, would be at the expense of producti in future years. Another possibility for reducing the costs l crop production on irrigated farms on the Hi Plains lies in the mechanization of the cott harvest. Farm operations in this area are c0 ducted on medium-size to large, highly mechaniz farms; consequently, most of the savings fro mechanized, large-scale farm operations have be realized already. The one notable exception u irrigated farms is cotton harvesting. Most of t cotton still is hand-snapped. The proportion of specified costs attributab to preharvest operations is shown in Table 5 ~ labor, power and machinery, materials and wa = costs. Under the system now followed on the Hi 1 Plains, a reduction in wage rates would n necessarily add to profits since the farm operat supplies most of the preharvest labor himsel Machine and power costs include expenditures f0 fuel, oil, repairs and machinery overhead-d preciation, interest and taxes. Material cos include expenditures for seed and insecticide Since the farm operator has little control over t cost of power and production materials, the onl way he can reduce preharvest costs is to’ u fewer of the items involved. One prospect for reducing power costs is mor effective use of less farm machinery. Powe and machinery constitute the largest item of w pense, excluding water, in the preharvest c0 of producing either cotton or grain sorghu Tables 3 and 5. In fact, the ownership costs o machinery constitute almost half the preharve cost, excluding water. The amount of equipmen now used meets satisfactorily the physical r quirements of producing crops under the weathe conditions of the High Plains. However, unde ent cost-price situation and acreage con- lower investment in machinery may be A ‘to reduce costs. pects for reducing machinery costs are reater on the 320-acre irrigated farm, egthree tractors commonly are used, than on E acre farm equipped with one field and one Atractor. Reducing the number of tractors iwn 320-acre farms may alter the timeliness f ation, but the prospects of a reduction 0;. because of a delay of 1 or 2 days in most farm operations appears to be remote. ;_ ‘ ting one 4-row field tractor and its attach- _would'reduce- the annual cost of owning achinery by $750. _' 160-acre farms, machinery costs could be i >1 by greater use of Z-row farm machinery. U< utility and a 2-row field tractor could be .or they could be replaced by one of the I 2-row utility tractors with the newly fast-hitch equipment. The use of 2-row pent would increase the hours of labor d to perform those operations that are rformed with 4-row machinery. Possible through a fuller use of 2-row equipment reduction in the machinery investment per {should be balanced against the increase in frequirements. flreturn to less intensive cultural practices p another prospect for reducing costs. Cot- elds obtained on some of the partly irrigated Where the intensity of cultural practices kilar to those applied on dryland, suggests in practices adopted in recent years may W “Wit iminated or reduced in frequency. For the labor and power requirements sub- ially for irrigated crops, but they are seldom 'ced on the partly irrigated farm. A return less intensive cultural practices followed late 1940’s probably would not reduce l»: greatly. It would, however, eliminate a ntial amount of the labor and power re- 1.3-» to produce irrigated crops. It also would lte the use of fewer and perhaps smaller rs, with a consequent reduction in the farm p) inery investment. creasing per-acre yields is the most direct to lower unit production costs, but several 'tions on the High Plains limit the possibili- of this method. The length of the frost- f growing season restricts cotton yields com- y. with yields in other areas. Fertilizer trials ¢ Lubbock Experiment Station (sandy land) rat the Ewen farm near Tulia (heavy land), ‘l no significant difference between the yield rtilized and unfertilized cotton." Significant ‘lizing cotton on the fine sand soils in Terry ty. The acreage of this type of soil under I tion is relatively minor, and this study does include production requirements and costs on g l. of this nature. le, “flat breaking” and “deep plowing” in- ' p increases; however, have been obtained by, PRODUCTION COST AND VALUE IN DOLLARS PER ACRE 2o 2s so 35 40 45 50 YIELD IN HUNDREDWEIGHT PER ACRE Figure 10. Tenant's specified costs and returns from irrigated grain sorghum production under typical crop-share rental contract related to yield per acre and acres irrigated per well. Average cost on 160 and 320-acre sandy and heavy land farms. Tests at Lubbock and Tulia show that ferti- lizer will increase the yield of irrigated grain sor- ghum significantly, provided the land was heavily cropped (5,000 pounds per acre) the preceding season.” ‘° Tests also indicate that “the use of nitrogen when sufficient water is not available during the growing season may be unprofit- able.”‘° 9O 7O 5O 3O IO COST OR VALUE IN DOLLARS PER ACRE 75 I25 I75 225 275 325 YIELD m POUNDS OF um PER ACRE Figure ll. Tenant's specified costs and returns from dryland cotton production under typical crop-share rental contract related to yield per acre. l3 COST OR VALUE IN DOLLARS PER ACRE 5.0 1.5 |o.o |2.5 |5.o 17.5 20.0 YIELD IN HUNDREDWEIGHT PER ACRE Figure 12. Tenant's specified cost and returns from dryland grain sorghum production under typical crop-share rental contract related to yield per acre. Although inorganic fertilizers have not proved beneficial on the “sandy” and “heavy” land areas included in this study, some significant increases in cotton yields have been obtained through the use of organic materials. Annual application of 2 tons of cotton burs during a 3-year period in- creased cotton yields approximately 20 percent. A slightly larger increase was obtained through the use of Madrid clover in a sorghum-clover-cot- ton rotation.‘ Research to date indicates that organic, rather than inorganic materials, affords the best pros- pect for increasing yields. There are several limitations, however, to the widespread use of either of the organics-—cotton burs or Madrid clover. Unless there is a substantial residual or carryover effect from the use of cotton burs, the quantities of burs required to effect the increase is so great that only a small proportion of the cotton acreage can be treated each year. Work 14 to determine the residual effects of cotton b application is now underway at the Lubbock s tion. ' The use of Madrid clover, or other cover cro as a green manure crop, entails considera additional expense and the use of 6 to 9-ac inches of additional water.. Unless an opera has a well of better-than-average capacity, t water demands of the cover cnbp will prevent l curtail the amount of preseasonal irrigation. The quantities of burs required and possib conflict in demands for water may limit sharp the widespread use of organic materials. For t individual, however, who has access to a s ficient quantity of cotton burs, or who has a W of sufficient capacity to meet the water deman of a cover crop and preseasonal irrigation at t same time, organic materials provide an oppo tunity for increasing cotton yield. In certain situations, the adoption of conto or short, level furrow irrigation practice W reduce the irrigation requirements. Adoption n these practices does not necessarily reduce pr duction costs since possible savings in water c0 or gains resulting from more efficient water u will be offset, at least in part, by the added cos involved. Generally, the prospects of reducin either the per-acre or per-unit production c0 through these methods depends, as with the u of organic materials, on conditions on the i dividual farm. Use of the newly developed grain sorghu‘ hybrids may lower the unit cost for sorghum, b would not necessarily improve its competitiv . position with cotton. The increased productio resulting from widespread adoption of sorghu hybrids could depress prices still more. Of the three costs that might be lowered harvesting, preharvest and unit—on1y mechaniz tion of the cotton harvest provides an opportuni for substantially lower production costs. Som what lower preharvest costs can be obtained b using less farm machinery and by using fewe practices that require a large amount of time an power. i_ A. C., et al. “Production Practices for .;